Leaving Neverland

Michael Jackson's news in English. Your updated reference for Michael Jackson's news in English language from all around the world. Rumors, gossip and true facts. And a lot of Michael Jackson's beautiful pictures.
Rispondi
Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Leaving Neverland

Messaggio da soulmum » 12 gennaio 2019, 10:57

'Enough is enough': Michael Jackson's family considers documentary to prove his innocence https://yhoo.it/2D4IIMY
Yahoo Entertainment
Immagine






Michael Jackson‏ @TheMJLegion
He always had a smile on his face, even though he was hurting inside. Michael was the strongest, purest, most beautiful and generous soul this world has ever seen. He didn't deserve this. I love you Michael, and we'll always defend you. you were always innocent





Immagine






The following sickens me. :???:
Can Dead People Be Defamed?
Under common law and according to the definition of this defamation, deceased individuals cannot be defamed. Defamation is defined as an act or statement that damages one’s reputation. The dead do not have reputations to damage. The memory of a deceased person can be damaged, but this is not addressed under the tort of defamation.

Survivors or descendants of the dead have no legal claim on behalf of a deceased relative’s good name, nor can they collect on behalf of their own interests relative to that person’s reputation. Likewise, the estate of a deceased person cannot be liable for the defamation of the dead. Survivors, relatives or friends of the deceased may, however, have a cause of action if the defamation reflects on their own reputations and they have, in fact, been defamed by the statements.

Generally, pending court action on a defamation claim does not survive the death of the plaintiff. However, this can vary based on a state’s survival statute. For example, the Ohio Revised Code 2311.21 states that actions for libel and slander will end upon the death of the plaintiff. This was upheld in Oakwood v. Makar, 11 Ohio pp.3d 46 (1983). However, in Georgia, common law has held that a pending libel action may be continued by survivors upon the death of the plaintiff. Johnson v. Bradstreet Co., 13 S.E. 250, 252 (Ga. 1891). You will need to check your state’s survival statute to understand your legal rights.





The following links back up the facts of Michael's innocence.
Michael Jackson - FBI Investigative Files Released:
1/ https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/ne...jackson_122209
2/ https://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson

By https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com:
The Wade Robson Allegations (summary version)
https://themichaeljacksonallegations...n-allegations/

The 1993 Chandler Allegations (summary version)
https://themichaeljacksonallegations...mmary-version/

The 2005 Arvizo Allegations (summary version)
https://themichaeljacksonallegations...o-allegations/

Jason Francia (summary version)
https://themichaeljacksonallegations...mmary-version/

By DAILY MICHAEL : http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate

By VINDICATING MICHAEL : https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com + VERITAS PROJECT: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/veritas-project/

By MJ TRUTH NOW: https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com

By CHARLES THOMSON: https://twitter.com/CEThomson + http://www.charles-thomson.net/index.html

By MJJ JUSTICE PROJECT: https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com

ABOUT THE CHANDLERS by - https://turningthetableonthechandler....wordpress.com

The Journal of Michael Jackson Academic Studies | ISSN: 2452-0497
Dynamic, Influential, Inclusive, Cultural, Explorative, Unique: http://michaeljacksonstudies.org






"Why work, when you can sue Michael Jackson ? "~Tom Mesereau







Darren Hayes
@darrenhayes

I am behind you 100%. The MJ community is here for you brother.

Taj Jackson
@tajjackson3
Looking into starting a funding page for this MJ doc. I never wanted to do this because I know the media will have a field day with a Jackson asking for money. But to do it right and timely, it will unfortunately take funding.
02:27 - 11. Jan. 2019






Charles Thomson @CEThomson
Then he applied for a job choreographing a Michael Jackson tribute show for the MJ Estate. When he didn’t get that job, he filed lawsuits against 50 different people/companies, seeking money from all of them over alleged abuse. He claimed the 50 civil suits were not about money.







Brenda Harvey Richie @BrendaRichie
I am sick of this! I have known Michael since he was 12 years old. He is my daughter’s Godfather! Lionel and I trusted our precious child with him. Stop with the LIES AND THE MONEY AND ALL OF YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF HIS NAME!

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 13 gennaio 2019, 11:28

Wade Robson staying overnight in Michael Jackson's Neverland guest house on February 3, 2007.

READ more about this story - https://web.archive.org/web/20160131...bson_film.html

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 17 gennaio 2019, 11:13

Taj Jackson‏ @tajjackson3 · Jan 15
Update:
The last couple of days I have been in contact with the Michael Jackson Estate and I'm working with them in dealing with issues related to the HBO documentary that is being screened at Sundance.







In 1992, Michael gave HBO their highest rated special ever. Now, to repay him they give a voice to admitted liars. #StopLeavingNeverlandNOW




Taj Jackson @tajjackson3 · Jan 15
After my uncle passed, Wade Robson wrote a full-page tribute praising my uncle in Michael Jackson Opus called My Mentor
@hbo are you listening? #StopLeavingNeverlandNow

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 22 gennaio 2019, 17:32

Taj Jackson has now created the GoFund Me page to collect funds for rebutall documentary on Michael as an answer to Sundance

https://www.gofundme.com/untitled-mi...mentary-series


Donate what you can.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 25 gennaio 2019, 10:06

Immagine







https://www.newswire.com/news/michael-j ... s-20782875
Michael Jackson's Nephew Announces 'Explosive' Documentary Series Exposing 'Media and Showbiz Corruption' Against His Uncle, as Police Prepare for Fan Protests Over Sundance Screening of TV Show 'Leaving Neverland'


Press Release - updated: Jan 24, 2019 21:50 CST
Taj Jackson

SASKATOON, Saskatchewan, January 24, 2019 (Newswire.com) - Michael Jackson’s nephew, Taj Jackson, is raising funds to release an explosive documentary series which will expose ‘media and showbiz corruption.’

Taj Jackson – son of Tito Jackson and member of pop group 3T – says his project will reveal how his uncle was ‘betrayed, entrapped, and extorted’ throughout his life. He also says it will explode myths about the famous King of Pop, particularly around his unique relationships with children.

Taj has launched his project in response to a screening at the Sundance Film Festival this week. The screened film, titled Leaving Neverland, follows what Taj says are unsubstantiated posthumous abuse allegations against his uncle.

Taj says: “After having their abuse allegations dismissed by the court, the two men who are subjects in this film have turned to HBO, the UK’s Channel 4 and the Sundance Film Festival to tell their stories. I’m extremely disappointed in Sundance. Enough is enough. Michael Jackson died an innocent, vindicated man. It’s time to take a stand, and I’m fighting hard for the truth.”

A heavy police presence is expected for the TV show’s premiere at Sundance this week, as Jackson fans have announced plans to protest the screening.

An online campaign has already seen the festival event's sponsors hit with thousands of complaints, prompting Sundance to write to them and urge them not to pull out. A similar online petition has received signatures from more than 50,000 supporters.

Taj Jackson - himself a survivor of child sexual abuse, has credited his uncle Michael with aiding his recovery.

10 years after his uncle’s tragic death at the age of 50, Taj Jackson has launched a public fundraising campaign to help produce his unnamed Michael Jackson documentary series. He said he wanted the series to be funded by the public so it would be free from editorial interference. Supporters have already donated $20,000 towards the project in a matter of days.

Leaving Neverland has been made by British TV director Dan Reed at Amos Pictures. Mike Smallcombe – a UK newspaper journalist and author of Jackson biography ‘Making Michael’ – says of the accusations in Leaving Neverland: “There is zero evidence... Everything under the sun can be said by the media about dead individuals like Jackson and there is nothing anyone can do about it.”

Another British journalist, Charles Thomson, who won the Ray Fitzwalter Award for Investigative Journalism after exposing a historic pedophile ring cover-up, voiced similar concerns.

He said: “Simply using the fact that somebody is dead as an excuse to publish unsubstantiated allegations about them is lazy, unethical and despicable.

"An ethical journalist will not publish or air allegations about a deceased person unless they can be proved to the same standard which would be required if the subject was alive and able to sue.

“In my opinion, the sole reason a British production company and broadcaster have been able to make and air this show is because Michael Jackson is dead. And that’s simply not good enough.”

Taj Jackson has also publicly supported a notable precursor to his doc series – Michael Jackson and Wade Robson: The Real Story. Launched Jan. 17, 2019, The Real Story has already received tens of thousands of YouTube views and numerous accolades via social media. The Real Story’s creators made the video in response to Leaving Neverland and to “encourage people to rethink the bogus allegations and dig deeper.”

Taj says that as Michael Jackson’s nephew, he can definitely bring a ‘unique perspective’ in his documentary series.

He said: “I was there at Neverland every day for the 2005 trial. I lived there. Not many people know what that was like and how much my uncle suffered during it.”

When asked about the fans who will be protesting at the Leaving Neverland screenings this week in Park City, Utah, he said: “It’s our time to have a say.”

Further info: Diana Tegenkamp dianahope2010@gmail.com 306-244-4578

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles- ... -the-most- shameful_b_610258.html

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornw ... ry-2438824

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 25 gennaio 2019, 10:20

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 25 gennaio 2019, 10:32


Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 25 gennaio 2019, 10:45

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/co...entary-2438824


NEWS


Michael Jackson Leaving Neverland documentary and why we shouldn't be free to destroy the reputations of the dead
Even without evidence we are free to say whatever we want about those who have passed away - and that isn't right

SHARE
BY MIKE SMALLCOMBE
18:16, 18 JAN 2019UPDATED20:35, 18 JAN 2019

When anguished pop superstar Michael Jackson died some ten years ago there was hope in many quarters that he had found peace at last.

But even in death, scandal continues to torment him. First came the ongoing controversy over the legitimacy of three songs on a posthumous album.


Then, in May 2013, a choreographer who Jackson befriended in the late 1980s went on television to allege that he had been sexually abused by Jackson when he was a child.

The man, Wade Robson, had previously testified under oath in defence of Jackson in the 2005 child molestation trial, claiming Jackson had “never” touched him.


But when Jackson was no longer around to defend himself, Robson changed his mind, citing a repressed memory. He was later joined in his accusations by another young Jackson friend, James Safechuck.



Robson and Safechuck sued Michael Jackson's Estate and then the companies it controlled. But in December 2017 a judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that they had filed it too late.

The Michael Jackson Estate claimed it was “always about the money rather than a search for the truth".

But Robson and Safechuck weren’t done there. Last week, news broke that HBO and Channel 4 had produced a documentary accusing Jackson of sexually abusing pair of young boys.



Titled Leaving Neverland, the two-part film will debut at the famed Sundance Film Festival in Utah, USA, later this month and then air on the respective networks this spring.

“Two boys, now in their 30s, tell the story of how they were sexually abused by Jackson, and how they came to terms with it years later,” the synopsis said.

Anyone reading this who has no knowledge of these accusers and their case would assume this abuse happened as a matter of fact.



But there is zero evidence that it did, these are merely claims.

Jackson can’t defend himself and his estate and family possess no powers to stop the documentary from being released.

Everything under the sun can be said by the media about dead individuals like Jackson and there is nothing anyone can do about it.


This is what it's like to spend Christmas on Universal Credit in Cornwall



So why is it that we are free to destroy the reputations of those who are no longer with us?

Under law in the UK and the US, the dead cannot be defamed. This is because the view is that reputation is a personal right which ceases to exist when a person dies and it can no longer be damaged.

Defamation is also deemed to be a personal legal action which cannot be assigned or brought on someone’s behalf.



But while Jackson might be dead there’s still a huge amount at stake.

Most importantly the impact of such heinous allegations on his children, who will be profoundly affected by more assertions that their father was a child abuser.

Jackson’s reputation around the globe also made a steady recovery since that damaging trial in 2005 which saw him acquitted of all charges.


When Jackson announced his mega comeback in early 2009 he was viewed as the King of Pop once more and his death only enhanced that notion further. Now people speak more of Jackson’s music and legacy than the circus that was his personal life.

But this documentary will undo much of that progress.

So is there any hope for the family? As relatives of Jackson do they have any rights?


Interestingly, when ruling on a case in 2014 ( Putitstin v Ukraine ) in which the applicant complained that his dead father had been defamed in an article, the European Court of Human Rights accepted that the reputation of a deceased member of a person’s family may come within the scope of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is because the reputation may, in certain circumstances, affect a living relative’s right to respect for a private and family life.

In the case of Putitstin v Ukraine the applicant lost the case on the grounds that the impact on him was very little.

Inside the eerie derelict Newquay hotel that has been left to crumble for more than a decade



While rejecting the case the court said that a claim on the basis of breaching a person’s rights to a private and family life could have succeeded.

But although the European Court has considered a number of cases that related to the reputations of deceased individuals, as yet, none have succeeded.

I can hear the chorus of cries - what about Jimmy Savile? Yes, it was only in death that his horrific crimes were truly uncovered and that his victims felt able to come forward.



Michael Jackson and his father Joe wave to fans as they exit the court after hearing the jury declare Not Guilty on all counts in the child molestation trial at the Santa Barbara County Courthouse on June 13, 2005(Image: Win McNamee/Getty Images)


But there’s a marked difference.

After Savile’s death police launched a criminal investigation into allegations of child sex abuse spanning six decades.

Officers pursued more than 400 lines of inquiry based on the testimony of 300 potential victims from 14 police forces across the UK.

If the authorities were investigating Jackson post-death, if there was evidence of wrongdoing this would be an entirely different scenario. There could be no complaints.


But the media have a responsibility to ensure that what is published or broadcast is true.

Without the evidence how can HBO and Channel 4 be sure that Robson and Safechuck were indeed abused?

Of course the grievances of relatives, and fans in this case, should not have an impact on the uncovering of uncomfortable truths through investigative journalism.

But therein lies the problem - no investigative journalism or police investigation has uncovered any wrongdoing by Jackson.

So even in the absence of evidence, the media has the power to make the world believe that people like Jackson are sinister characters.

That doesn’t sit right with me.

Reporter and author Mike Smallcombe has written about Michael Jackson for several years, including the biography Making Michael.

MORE ON
CrimeCourtsPeople
© 2019 Local World

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 27 gennaio 2019, 20:44

https://www.showbiz411.com/2019/01/26/m ... and-sister
Home Celebrity Michael Jackson Criminal Defense Lawyer Thomas Mesereau Is “Shocked” By Claims Made...

Michael Jackson Criminal Defense Lawyer Thomas Mesereau Is “Shocked” By Claims Made By Wade Robson: “He was adamant that nothing had happened to him. So were his mother and sister

by Roger Friedman - January 26, 2019 1:27 pm

Immagine
EXCLUSIVE This morning I spoke with Thomas Mesereau, Michael Jackson’s brilliant criminal defense lawyer in his 2005 child molestation and conspiracy trial. Michael was found not guilty on all counts.

The first witness Mesereau put on the stand in Jackson’s defense was Wade Robson, who now claims Jackson molested him when he was a child. In 2005, Robson, Mesereau says, was “adamant” that Jackson had never done anything wrong to him. Robson’s mother and sister also took the stand and said the same thing.

The Robsons flew in from Australia for the trial. They stayed at Neverland. Mesereau interviewed them extensively.

Mesereau told me: “I found Wade articulate and likeable. But he staunchly defended Michael. His mother and sister supported him in their statements. On the stand, Wade was then subjected to a withering prosecutor. I’m shocked that he’s taken a position contrary to what he told me, and what he testified to in court.”

Mesereau hasn’t seen the documentary “Leaving Neverland” but he is very surprised. And this is a man who has examined and cross examined some of the toughest witnesses ever.

One important thing Mesereau agreed with me on. Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon, now deceased, thoroughly investigated Jackson twice, over a 10 year period. He looked ceaselessly for young boys who might have been abused by Jackson. Sneddon was obsessed with tagging Jackson. It was Sneddon who slid his card on the door of the Arvizo family after he saw them on TV, and crafted an unsuccessful prosecution against Jackson using their crazy testimony.

Sneddon knew the names of Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck, the two men who claim in the documentary to have been molested. If Sneddon had thought there was any real story there, he’d have gone after it. He never did.

Meanwhile, Robson has started a not for profit foundation and is soliciting donations. There can be no transparency, as he’s parked his 501 c3 very cleverly under something called the Hawaii Community Foundation. That way, Robson doesn’t have to file a form 990. We’ll never know if the makers of “Leaving Neverland” have donated money to it, for example. This was done on purpose. Leonardo DiCaprio does the same thing with his Foundation. It’s hidden.

Safechuck, meantime, is accused by Jackson fans of creating his story from a very disgusting book published years ago by a man named Victor Guitierrez. Jackson sued Guitierrez and won a $2.7 million judgement against. The writer has never paid up, and now lives in Chile. I threw my copy out a long time; I didn’t want it in my house.

“Leaving Neverland” can’t be taken seriously, and I’m surprised the press in Sundance– who didn’t cover Jackson — was so swayed by it. The movie offers no independent evidence, or third parties, just the claims of Robson and Safechuck. Just because it’s graphic, doesn’t mean it’s true. The rush to judgement here is alarming, and dangerous.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 28 gennaio 2019, 13:28

Immagine




Samar @TheMJAP Retweeted

Yes, this is true. Santa Barbara DA Tom Sneddon falsified evidence in an effort to prosecute Michael Jackson. Humiliatingly exposed in court when defence attorney Thomas Mesereau revealed a magazine with fingerprints was published AFTER "victims" had moved out of Neverland!
Samar @TheMJAP added,

tom sneddon submitted false evidence in court and got caught. there was no evidence that showed Michael did anything wrong. he put Michael through hell for NO REASON. absolutely disgusting #justiceforMJ





https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 84205.html
Michael Jackson's Nephew Announces 'Explosive' Documentary Series Exposing 'Media and Showbiz Corruption' Against His Uncle, as Police Prepare for Fan Protests Over Sundance Screening of TV Show 'Leaving Neverland'
News provided by
Taj Jackson and Untitled Michael Jackson Documentary 
Jan 25, 2019, 02:26 ET

SASKATOON, Saskatchewan, Jan. 25, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Michael Jackson's nephew, Taj Jackson, is raising funds to release an explosive documentary series which will expose 'media and showbiz corruption.'

Taj Jackson – son of Tito Jackson and member of pop group 3T – says his project will reveal how his uncle was 'betrayed, entrapped, and extorted' throughout his life. He also says it will explode myths about the famous King of Pop, particularly around his unique relationships with children.











 Michael Jackson's nephew, Taj Jackson, is raising funds to release an explosive documentary series which will expose 'media and showbiz corruption.'
Michael Jackson's nephew, Taj Jackson, is raising funds to release an explosive documentary series which will expose 'media and showbiz corruption.'







Taj has launched his project in response to a screening at the Sundance Film Festival this week. The screened film, titled Leaving Neverland, follows what Taj says are unsubstantiated posthumous abuse allegations against his uncle.

Taj says: "After having their abuse allegations dismissed by the court, the two men who are subjects in this film have turned to HBO, the UK's Channel 4 and the Sundance Film Festival to tell their stories. I'm extremely disappointed in Sundance. Enough is enough. Michael Jackson died an innocent, vindicated man. It's time to take a stand, and I'm fighting hard for the truth."

A heavy police presence is expected for the TV show's premiere at Sundance this week, as Jackson fans have announced plans to protest the screening.

An online campaign has already seen the festival event's sponsors hit with thousands of complaints, prompting Sundance to write to them and urge them not to pull out. A similar online petition has received signatures from more than 50,000 supporters.

Taj Jackson - himself a survivor of child sexual abuse, has credited his uncle Michael with aiding his recovery.

10 years after his uncle's tragic death at the age of 50, Taj Jackson has launched a public fundraising campaign to help produce his unnamed Michael Jackson documentary series. He said he wanted the series to be funded by the public so it would be free from editorial interference. Supporters have already donated $20,000 towards the project in a matter of days.

Leaving Neverland has been made by British TV director Dan Reed at Amos Pictures. Mike Smallcombe – a UK newspaper journalist and author of Jackson biography 'Making Michael' – says of the accusations in Leaving Neverland: "There is zero evidence... Everything under the sun can be said by the media about dead individuals like Jackson and there is nothing anyone can do about it."

Another British journalist, Charles Thomson, who won the Ray Fitzwalter Award for Investigative Journalism after exposing a historic pedophile ring cover-up, voiced similar concerns.

He said: "Simply using the fact that somebody is dead as an excuse to publish unsubstantiated allegations about them is lazy, unethical and despicable.

"An ethical journalist will not publish or air allegations about a deceased person unless they can be proved to the same standard which would be required if the subject was alive and able to sue.

"In my opinion, the sole reason a British production company and broadcaster have been able to make and air this show is because Michael Jackson is dead. And that's simply not good enough."

Taj Jackson has also publicly supported a notable precursor to his doc series – Michael Jackson and Wade Robson: The Real Story. Launched Jan. 17, 2019, The Real Story has already received tens of thousands of YouTube views and numerous accolades via social media. The Real Story's creators made the video in response to Leaving Neverland and to "encourage people to rethink the bogus allegations and dig deeper."

Taj says that as Michael Jackson's nephew, he can definitely bring a 'unique perspective' in his documentary series.

He said: "I was there at Neverland every day for the 2005 trial. I lived there. Not many people know what that was like and how much my uncle suffered during it."

When asked about the fans who will be protesting at the Leaving Neverland screenings this week in Park City, Utah, he said: "It's our time to have a say."

Further info: Diana Tegenkamp dianahope2010@gmail.com 306-244-4578

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles- ... -the-most- shameful_b_610258.html

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornw ... ry-2438824

Related Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgSbSotJgUY

SOURCE Taj Jackson and Untitled Michael Jackson Documentary




John Cameron‏ @Cameron_John · Jan 27

So... Wade Robson defends Michael Jackson for 20 years, participates in tributes after his death, then gets rejected from a MJ Cirque du Soleil show, THEN comes out with accusations of child molestation against him.

How are journalists falling for this? #LeavingNeverland

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 30 gennaio 2019, 9:12

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2 ... 6a4e83640f
What You Should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary
Joe Vogel
Contributor

When Michael Jackson died in 2009, Wade Robson—the former choreographer whose allegations of abuse are at the center of a controversial new documentary, Leaving Neverland—wrote in tribute to his friend:


Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk.

Robson was twenty-seven years old at the time. Four years earlier, he testified at Jackson’s 2005 trial (as an adult) that nothing sexual ever happened between them. Prior to the trial Robson hadn’t seen Jackson for years and was under no obligation to be a witness for the defense. He faced a withering cross-examination, understanding the penalty of perjury for lying under oath. But Robson adamantly, confidently, and credibly asserted that nothing sexual ever happened.


What changed between then and now? A few things:

In 2011, Robson approached John Branca, co-executor of the Michael Jackson Estate, about directing the new Michael Jackson/Cirque du Soleil production, Immortal. Robson admitted he wanted the job “badly,” but the Estate ultimately chose someone else for the position.
In 2012, Robson had a nervous breakdown, triggered, he said, by an obsessive quest for success. His career, in his own words, began to “crumble.”
That same year, with Robson’s career, finances, and marriage in peril, he began shopping a book that claimed he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher picked it up.
In 2013, Robson filed a $1.5 billion dollar civil lawsuit/creditor’s claim, along with James Safechuck, who also spent time with Jackson in the late ‘80s. Safechuck claimed he only realized he may have been abused when Robson filed his lawsuit. That lawsuit was dismissed by a probate court in 2017.
In 2019, the Sundance Film Festival premiered a documentary based entirely on Robson and Safechuck's allegations. While the documentary is obviously emotionally disturbing given the content, it presents no new evidence or witnesses. The film's director, Dan Reed, acknowledged not wanting to interview other key figures because it might complicate or compromise the story he wanted to tell.
It is tempting for the media to tie Jackson into a larger cultural narrative about sexual misconduct. R. Kelly was rightfully taken down by a documentary, and many other high-profile figures have been exposed in recent years, so surely, the logic goes, Michael Jackson must be guilty as well. Yet that is a dangerous leap—particularly with America's history of unjustly targeting and convicting black men—that fair-minded people would be wise to consider more carefully before condemning the artist. It is no accident that one of Jackson’s favorite books (and movies) was To Kill a Mockingbird, a story about a black man—Tom Robinson—destroyed by false allegations.

The media’s largely uncritical, de-contextualized takes out of Sundance seem to have forgotten: no allegations have been more publicly scrutinized than those against Michael Jackson. They elicited a two-year feeding frenzy in the mid-90s and then again in the mid-2000s, when Jackson faced an exhaustive criminal trial. His homes were ransacked in two unannounced raids by law enforcement. Nothing incriminating was found. Jackson was acquitted of all charges in 2005 by a conservative Santa Maria jury. The FBI, likewise, conducted a thorough investigation. Its 300-page file on the pop star, released under the Freedom of Information Act, found no evidence of wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, dozens of individuals who spent time with Jackson as kids continue to assert nothing sexual ever happened. This includes hundreds of sick and terminally ill children such as Bela Farkas (for whom Jackson paid for a life-saving liver transplant) and Ryan White (whom Jackson befriended and supported in his final years battling AIDS); it includes lesser-known figures like Brett Barnes and Frank Cascio; it includes celebrities like Macaulay Culkin, Sean Lennon, Emmanuel Lewis, Alfonso Ribeiro, and Corey Feldman; it includes Jackson’s nieces and nephews; and it includes his own three children.


The allegations surrounding Jackson largely faded over the past decade for a reason: unlike the Bill Cosby or R. Kelly cases, the more people looked into the Jackson allegations, the more the evidence vindicated him. The prosecution’s case in 2005 was so absurd Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi described it like this:

Ostensibly a story about bringing a child molester to justice, the Michael Jackson trial would instead be a kind of homecoming parade of insipid American types: grifters, suckers and no-talent schemers, mired in either outright unemployment… or the bogus non-careers of the information age, looking to cash in any way they can. The MC of the proceedings was District Attorney Tom Sneddon, whose metaphorical role in this American reality show was to represent the mean gray heart of the Nixonian Silent Majority – the bitter mediocrity itching to stick it to anyone who’d ever taken a vacation to Paris. The first month or so of the trial featured perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case – almost to a man a group of convicted liars, paid gossip hawkers or worse…

In the next six weeks, virtually every piece of his case imploded in open court, and the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles.

What’s changed since then?

In Robson’s case, decades after the alleged incidents took place, he was barbecuing with Michael Jackson and his children. He was asking for tickets to the artist’s memorial. He was participating in tributes. “I still have my mobile phone with his number in it,” Robson wrote in 2009, “I just can’t bare the thought of deleting his messages.”


Then, suddenly, after twenty years, his story changed and with his new claims came a $1.5 billion dollar lawsuit.

As an eccentric, wealthy, African American man, Michael Jackson has always been a target for litigation. During the 1980s and 1990s, dozens of women falsely claimed he was the father of their children. He faced multiple lawsuits falsely claiming he plagiarized various songs. As recently as 2010, a woman named Billie Jean filed a frivolous $600 million paternity lawsuit against Jackson’s Estate.

As someone who has done an enormous amount of research on the artist, interviewed many people who were close to him, and been granted access to a lot of private information, my assessment is that the evidence simply does not point to Michael Jackson as the “monster” presented in Leaving Neverland. In contrast to Robson and Safechuck’s revised accounts, there is a remarkable consistency to the way people who knew the artist speak of him—whether friends, family members, collaborators, fellow artists,recording engineers, attorneys, business associates, security guards, former spouses, his own children—people who knew him in every capacity imaginable. Michael, they say, was gentle, brilliant, sensitive, sometimes naive, sometimes childish, sometimes oblivious to perceptions. But none believe he was a child molester.

A fair documentary would allow those voices to be heard as well. Instead, Leaving Neverland presents a biased, emotionally manipulative hit piece that dismisses the perspectives of hundreds of first-hand witnesses in favor of allegations by two men contradicting their own sworn testimonies.

For more, check out my new book Stranger Things and the '80s: The Complete Retro Guide and follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 30 gennaio 2019, 11:10

Facebook message from michael bush.

I am saddened by the false attacks on my boss and dear friend Michael Jackson only when sadly he is not here to defend himself. As someone who was with Michael Jackson daily and having spent years traveling with him and spending countless hours in his company, I have absolutely no doubt that the recent stories from Wade Robeson and Jimmy Safechuck are completely false and totally fabricated especially given their own support of Michael through his life and for several years after. It’s truly upsetting what someone will do for fame and money and pure greed despite what Michael Jackson did for these two opportunists and their families for many years. At the end of the day truth always prevails and the world will see Robeson and Safechuck for what they are. – Michael Bush

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 30 gennaio 2019, 11:22

Michael Jackson: i dubbi sul documentario "Leaving Neverland"

Gabriele Antonucci - January 26, 2019


Almost ten years after his death on 25 June 2009 due to an overdose of Propofol administered by his curative doctor Conrad Murray (then sentenced to four years in prison), there continues to be no peace for Michael Jackson , from many considered the greatest performer ever.

On January 25, at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City (Utah), a documentary focusing on the alleged sexual abuse that Michael Jackson perpetrated against two children aged 7 and 10, now in their thirties, was shown: Wade Robson and James Safechuck .

Entitled Leaving Neverland, the 233 minute documentary was directed by Dan Reed, a director who had previously been involved in this issue with the docu-film "The Pedophile Hunters" ("The Hunters of Pedophiles").

Some of the singer's fans protested in front of the Egypianian Theater in Park City, showing placards with the words "Innocente" and "Seek the Truth".

The documentary will be broadcast in the spring, in two episodes, on Channel 4, on British TV, and on HBO pay TV in the US.

Considering that on June 25, 2019 will occur 10 years after the death of the King of Pop, Leaving Neverland , starting from the suspect timing and the names of the two protagonists, appears as yet another opportunity to throw mud at a dead person who, as such, he can not reply to these terrible accusations.

The documentary, ignoring the "artistic" aspect, from a cinematographic point of view (as well as ethical) leaves really perplexed: interview only the two protagonists and their close relatives, with close-ups, pragmatic tears and musichette of atmosphere, not offers that plurality of voices and that deepening that are essential elements for every documentary worthy of the name.

Moreover, in the face of very serious accusations, it seems incredible that the director did not take the trouble to listen to or report the facts of one of the legal representatives or the foundation that takes care of Jackson's interests : the right to defense, in case of criminally relevant accusations, is constitutionally guaranteed in every western state, in the US as in Italy.

From the feature film, of a paroxysmal duration (4 hours!), No concrete evidence emerged, which gives credibility to the testimonies, but only one frayed cuts and sews images and declarations whose sole objective is to discredit Michael Jackson.

In short, Leaving Neverland , more than a documentary, seems a perfect example of "mockumentary" , a particular cinematographic genre that simulates the style and the documentary process, concealing the construction of a fiction, between the scandal and the fantastic.

Marcos Cabotà, a director present at the first, slammed Leaving Neverland , giving 1 to 10 as a vow: "After witnessing the first, it is clear that this is a mockumentary (fictional documentary) instead of a documentary. I can not believe just one word from the two "victims." Poor acting, sometimes shameful, the direction and the lyrics are even worse 1/10 ".

The nephew Taj Jackson , a member of the 3T, has promoted a crowdfunding campaign to create a film-truth in response to that of Dan Reed , to defend the reputation of his uncle. We need at least 777,000 dollars (about 681,000 euros): at the moment the donations amount to 30,000 dollars.

The sons and brothers of the King of Pop, for now, have not made any statements about it.

After the premiere at the Sundance Festival, it was not long before the Jackson Summer hit, which denounced the claims against the singer and the documentary as a whole.

"Leaving Neverland" is not a documentary, it's a kind of murder of the tabloid character that Michael Jackson endured in life, and now in death. The film deals with unproven claims for things supposedly happened 20 years ago and treats them as fact. These statements were the basis of complaints filed by these two liars, who were finally rejected by a judge. The two accusers had (previously) testified under oath that these events never occurred. (In the film) they did not provide any obvious evidence and absolutely no evidence to support their accusations, which means that the entire film is based solely on the word of two perjuries.

It is significant that the director admitted to the Sundance Film Festival that he limited his interviews only to these accusers and their families . In doing so, he intentionally avoided interviewing numerous people who, over the years, have spent significant time with Michael Jackson and have unequivocally stated that he has always treated children with respect and has done nothing wrong with them. Choosing not to include any of these independent voices that could challenge the narrative that was determined to sell, the director neglected to do the verification of the facts thus creating a narration so obviously one-sided that the audience will never have anything close to a balanced portrait .

For 20 years, Wade Robson denied in court and in numerous interviews, even after Michael's death, that he was a victim and said he was grateful for all that Michael had done for him. His family benefited from Michael's kindness, generosity, and support for his career until Michael's death. Regardless of "Leaving Neverland", consider the fact that when Robson was denied a role in a production of Cirque du soleil-themed Michael Jackson, his harassment accusations suddenly emerged.

We are extremely supportive of any effective victim of child abuse. This film, however, makes a disservice to those victims. Because despite all the false denials that this is not about money, there has always been talk of money - millions of dollars - dating back to 2013 when both Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who share the same law firm, have unsuccessfully launched their statements against Michael's Summer.

Now that Michael is no longer here to defend himself, Robson, Safechuck and their lawyers continue their efforts to gain fame and get paid by covering them with the same charges a jury found him innocent when he was alive " (The Summer of Michael Jackson)

But let's take a closer look at who the protagonists of the documentary are.

Wade Robson and James Safechuck were two children attending Neverland, the home of Michael Jackson from 1988 to 2005 , in Santa Barbara County, California, about 150 miles from Los Angeles.

Neverland
The property consisted of 22 structures and a land of almost 1,300 hectares containing a villa with 6 bedrooms and 30 medical beds where children with serious illnesses could receive treatment and see films on the big screen, a zoo, a playground , a train station, a swimming pool, a tennis court and a basketball court, a 50-seat movie theater and two artificial lakes.

Neverland was not the sordid frame where its forbidden meetings took place, as many media have suggested, but a place that for a short period welcomed seriously ill children (even terminals) and their families, giving them moments of joy and fun .

Neverland was always full of people, so you do not really understand how the singer could have committed abuse with dozens of eyes constantly focused on him, including those of the parents of the guests.

Actor Macaulay Culkin spoke recently about his relationship with Michael Jackson during Michael Rosenbaum's "Inside of You" podcast: "In the end, it's pretty easy to say that [our report] was weird or otherwise, but it was not because it made sense. In summary, we were friends. I know that for anyone else it may seem like something, but for me it was just a normal friendship. The charges against Michael are absolutely ridiculous ".

Alfonso Ribeiro, famous worldwide for the role of Carlton Banks in the sit-com "Willy, Prince of Bel-Air", said: "I do not care what people say, I will never believe that Michael did that which they accused him. I was a child of 12, 13, 14 years too. I met Michael, I went out with him and never anything like this happened. Nothing controversial has ever happened . I simply do not believe it . "

Thesis confirmed by sound engineer Rob Hoffman, one who Michael knew him closely: " I spent almost 3 years working with him, and I never questioned his morals, I never believed in any of the allegations that were made to him And at that time I was not even a fan of his, I saw him interacting with his brothers' children, the children of the others and, at some point, even with the children of my girlfriend, I spent a whole day at Neverland. Michael is a truly incredible human being, always looking for a way to improve the lives of all children Every weekend at Neverland, different groups of children were hosted - children with AIDS, children with cancer, etc. And most of the time Michael was not there either . "

Same opinion as Bill Whitfield, Jackson's b odyguard from 2006 to 2009: "When you spend 3 years with someone as a personal bodyguard, they trust and depend on you. You can see their true character, their soul and their heart. Mr. Jackson I knew I knew he could never do or think such a thing would never have abused or harmed a child. He was not like that. He was a good boy and not because I think so but because I know. "

Curious as hundreds of children have attended Neverland, but only four have accused of abuse Michael Jackson: Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo, Wade Robson and James Safechuck.

And that only they have brought millionaire lawsuits, often many years later.

Who is the accuser Wade Robson
The dancer and coregraph Wade Robson, who previously worked with Britney Spears and appeared in the So You Think You Can Dance on Fox series, was called to testify in 2005 in the Arvizo trial, then firmly denying that Jackson had ever bothered him. stating under oath that "never anything inappropriate had happened with Mr. Jackson".

Thomas Mesereau, the brilliant lawyer who defended Michael Jackson, chose Wade Robson as the first witness for Jackson's defense, who now claims to have been molested by MJ when he was a child.

In 2005, Robson - as stated by Mesereau - was "adamant" about the fact that Jackson had never done anything wrong with him.

Robson's mother and sister also said the same things.
The Robsons flew from Australia for the trial. They remained at Neverland, and Mesereau interrogated them repeatedly.

Mesereau, after the premiere of Leaving Neverland , said: " I found Wade eloquent and likeable. He strenuously defends Michael. His mother and sister supported him with their statements . On the witness stand, Wade was referred to a fierce public prosecutor. I am shocked that he has taken a position that is so different from what he told me and that he testified in court. "

When the singer died on June 25, 2009, Robson wrote on the social media: " Michael Jackson has changed the world and, more personally, my life forever, which is why I dance, the reason I play music and one of the main reasons why I believe in the pure goodness of mankind.It has been a close friend of mine for 20 years.Your music, his movement, his personal words of encouragement and inspiration and his unconditional love will live forever in I will miss him immensely, but I know that now he is at peace and enchants the sky with a melody and a Moonwalk ".

Michael Jackson's Summer trusted him and involved him in 2012 in working on the Cirque du soleil show dedicated to Michael, the lucky Immortal , but later fired him, dissatisfied with his work.

In 2013, Robson, four years after the death of the King of Pop, claimed abruptly that he had been molested when he was a child by Michael Jackson and filed two millionaire lawsuits for compensation for moral damages against the singer's Summer for alleged abuse.

In 2017 two different boards of judges rejected the charges brought against lack of evidence.

According to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff, in addition to the absence of the fact, the reason for the rejection of the accusations by the judge is that Robson has waited too many years to file a complaint against Jackson, even May 2013, almost 4 years after his death.

Truly singular that, with these precedents well known to the press, the Sundance film festival, directed by the expert Robert Redford, has agreed to project a documentary that seems very untrustworthy, even in the monstre duration of almost four hours, in a search too much evident of morbidity at all costs.

The truth about Jackson's relationship with children
But let's take a step back in time to 1993, to better understand how the urban legend was born of the supposed pedophilia of the artist, a bad story that has been self-perpetuated in time of poisons, suspects and falsehoods, to actually destroy its reputation and, consequently, his career.

Jackson was first accused in 1993, at the height of his success, by a 13-year-old Jordan Chandler.

Then the wiretaps immediately revealed that the boy's father, a former dentist who had been unlawed for illegal practices, had planned everything to take revenge on the singer, who had refused to finance him a film project. The man, who committed suicide in 2010, probably driven by guilt, even managed to give his son Amobarbital, a barbiturate with hypnotic properties, to make him "confess" before the judges.

The matter was resolved by an out-of-court agreement with the family, which Jackson will later regret, by paying a check for $ 22 million to quickly close the question on pressure from his record company, which did not want repercussions on the tour in Jackson's course.

The artist's lawyer, Tom Meserau, confided: "It's true that for him it was small change, but it was a very serious mistake, he created a precedent and someone must have thought, why work if you can extort money from Jackson? Michael was badly advised by his staff, whose only concern was to lose money, maybe be forced to cancel the shows because of the trial. "

The Garvin Arvizo process
Even more infamous were the accusations addressed years later by Gavin Arvizo, a 13-year-old who Jackson had helped to recover from cancer. Arvizo accused the King of Pop of sexual abuse on the wave of the media echo created by the television special Living with Michael Jackson by British journalist Martin Bashir, aired on 3 February.

A perfect example of bad journalism, in which, with a clever cut and sew of images and clips of interviews, was put in a bad light the former child prodigy of the Jackson Five.

The trial began January 31, 2005 and ended June 13 of the same year, when the jury issued a unanimous verdict of "not guilty" for all fourteen charges. The news of Jackson's acquittal was given by the media in a fleeting way, for them he has always been guilty and, as recent events show, he still is guilty.

Michael Jackson, who expressed all his anger at the fanciful journalistic reconstructions of his private life in the corrosive Tabloid Junkie , said: "The technique that the newspapers use is very simple: if you keep telling an absurd lie, the reader, at some point, he will begin to think that it is true " .

Journalist Aphrodite Jones followed the trial on behalf of Fox. She also considered the King of Pop guilty, but later changed her mind and wrote a book in 2007, from the unmistakable title The Plot . "When in that hall - reveals the journalist - the judge pronounced 14 times not guilty, I looked Jackson in the face and I realized that his expression was that of a grateful man, satisfied that justice had been done, because he was not guilty . There I changed my mind ".

The singer, although relieved of those terrible accusations, came out of him psychologically and artistically. Her physique did not sustain an overdose of Propofol, the substance that, incautiously administered by her attending physician Conrad Murray (convicted of culpable homicide), killed her on June 25, 2009.

The artistic legacy of the King of Pop
Today, almost 10 years after the tragic event, there is practically no contemporary r & b artist, from Pharrell Williams to Robin Thicke, from Bruno Mars to Justin Timberlake , who is not openly inspired by Michael Jackson's visionary and borderless pop.

His steps are taught in modern dance schools, his albums , both repertoire and posthumously, still sell thousands of copies and every year the number of his fans grows exponentially.

Everyone knows that belongs to him the best-selling album in history, the Thriller masterpiece, with a hundred million copies (although some claim that they are actually 66 million, however, the record does not change), a number that continues to grow in the year in the year.

A lesser-known but more important record is the Guinness record of the most philanthropic primates in show business, with nearly four hundred million dollars donated to charity and philanthropy , particularly hospitals and orphanages.

We hope that on the next 25th of June, the tenth anniversary of the singer's death, it will be a day in which Jackson's artistic genius will be celebrated all over the world, without sterile polemics on accusations that have already been largely denied during a trial.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 31 gennaio 2019, 8:29

https://talunzeitoun.com/2019/01/30/mic ... r85LL0BNYM
Expression / Life, etc., 30 Jan 2019

I was a boy in Michael Jackson’s life, and nothing of what he’s being accused of in this documentary happened.

wanted to write and post this before Leaving Neverland premiered at Sundance last Friday. After all, I had a close relationship with Michael Jackson growing up and nothing of what he continues to be accused of has ever happened to me. I decided to wait because I was curious to see if the film would get any wings considering Wade Robson’s volatile and unsuccessful claims against Michael Jackson in the past. Sure, let him tell his story again. Truth and justice will prevail as they have. Soon after it premiered, I quickly Googled “leaving neverland” to discover news articles stating that the four-hour documentary received a standing ovation. In disbelief, I searched the hashtag on Instagram to see Story footage from the theater and there they were — Wade Robson, James Safechuck and the film’s director Dan Reed — on stage in front of an applauding audience at their feet. I’m not sure if the audience was doing so because they were perceived as survivors making a public appearance, or if the film was actually good in their eyes, or both; but all I could think about was that their strategy, unfortunately, worked.


Raising awareness about child abuse and providing a safe community for others to speak their truth is vital, but using Michael Jackson as a vehicle to do so is simply wrong. In order for any story to be valid, there has to be an element of trust and I do not trust the people associated with this film. Let’s be clear: Michael Jackson showed up. He faced public interviews, he answered difficult-to-stomach questions, he agreed to interrogative documentaries, he withstood a 10-year FBI investigation, and he appeared in an eighteen-month criminal trial until he was acquitted having been found not guilty on all fourteen child molestation and abuse-related accounts. The fact that twelve years of criminal investigations and government legal proceedings can be completely overruled by the media due to a manipulation of the same stories once told before by a select few, especially by those who were initially on the defense, is deeply concerning. Maybe even horrifying.


I haven’t seen the documentary, but it “focuses on two men… who allege they were sexually abused by the pop star Michael Jackson as children” (Wikipedia). Everyone is entitled to his/her/their story and I believe that each story should be told in truth to the best of his/her/their ability, but my issue with Leaving Neverland is the heavy reliance on one side, especially when that one side is comprised of only two people. On top of it all, those two people happen to know each other. So what we have is a product comprised of two acquaintances’ stories who were in Michael’s life as boys that has been glorified in a 236-minute documentary. Remember that the film would mark Robson’s second attempt to tell his story. He told the same, truncated version of his story publicly in 2013 and simultaneously filed suit against the Michael Jackson Estate, which the court later dismissed. This was eight years after he testified twice under oath explicitly stating that Michael did nothing wrong during a criminal trial in which the jury delivered a verdict of not guilty. It’s clear that this film’s intention is to position Michael as a child predator, but I find that the entire Leaving Neverland saga is really, in turn, a predation on a man of power and wealth now almost 10 years dead and thereby defenseless.


I was part of Michael’s life from the day I was born in 1987 until 2001. The last time I was literally close to him was backstage at the Staples Center when his casket wheeled past me. I knew him well because my mother, Janet Zeitoun, his sole hairstylist during the time, knew him even better. One could say that they might as well have been siblings. In fact, my mother was one of the few non-family members invited to the private memorial service at the cemetery hours before the public one in Downtown LA. Michael felt so comfortable with my mother because she made him laugh unlike anyone else, let alone the fact that she’s incredible at her craft. Michael even said in writing that she’s the “Michelangelo of hair.”


From the 80s, 90s and early 2000s, my mother has been around the globe with Michael. She’s been by his side doing his hair on sets, in dressing rooms, backstage at his concerts, at his home, on planes, in hotel rooms, in cars, and yes, even at Neverland. When my mom was pregnant with me in ‘86, Michael told her that she’d be having a boy; and on the day of my birth, Michael sent a limo to our home filled with gifts. And from then on, my single, hard-working mother who wanted to spend as much time with me as she could often brought me to work with her. So I grew up on the sets of Michael’s music videos, I played with my toys on the floor of his dressing rooms, and he sometimes came over to our house to get his hair done. As I got a bit older and could walk on my own two feet, I became the boy responsible for making sure Michael got candy in between some of his concert rehearsal sets. Michael would make everyone stop and patiently wait for me to wobble my way on stage to him. I even remember singing “I Just Can’t Wait to be King” to him in his trailer (so embarrassing!) but he gave me his undivided attention and smiled. I went to Neverland, several times of which Michael was there and he gave us the full tour of his home. I remember my favorite golf cart to get around had a Peter Pan emblem on it. I remember his movie theater concession stand being filled with candy that you could go behind the counter and take to watch whatever movie you wanted. I remember riding the big steam engine train that would take you from one end of the ranch to the other. I remember a big pot-bellied pig named Petunia and that I could name a newborn deer and rabbit. I chose Cuddie and Thumper, respectively; original, I know, but Michael loved the names.


Unlike Robson or Safechuck, I wasn’t in the public eye with Michael. The only sort of public thing that happened was him publishing a photo of us in the centerfold of his 1995 tour book. Fourteen years later, the caretaker of his children recognized me backstage at the Staples Center during his memorial service and told me that the photograph was one of Michael’s favorites, and at the time in 2009 was still framed on his grand piano in Neverland.
I remember leaving Neverland a happy kid who couldn’t wait to go back. I remember telling my mom that I wanted to have another birthday party there or that I wanted to hang out with Michael again at the ranch. The bulk of my experience with Michael was during the 90s right when the FBI investigation began on account of child molestation allegations. Knowing that this was happening and that these charges were set against him, I don’t think my protective and well-aware mother would’ve allowed me to continue hanging around Michael or head up to Neverland had she not trusted him.


I firmly believe Michael did no wrong. You don’t have to take my word for it, though; know that his truth was proven in a court of law. The stories being presented in Leaving Neverland are incredibly one-sided. This film is merely the Wade Robson & James Safechuck Story because I, too, remember leaving Neverland, as does my mother, and as do many people in his life who’d be glad to have a say in a film so generically titled; now wrongfully entitled to depict Michael’s life and his misunderstood relationship with children. Any credible director of a documentary seeking truth on the matter would do his/her/their due diligence and present the full story from a carefully chosen and meaningful variety of sources. With four hours of film time to spare, I’m sure there could have been room. This is why I’m deeply disappointed in HBO and Channel 4 UK for picking it up with plans to air it later this spring. The networks snagged a falsity and will be responsible for disseminating a poorly researched film based on the highly skewed opinions of a select few that many of its subscribers will conclude as true.


Leaving Neverland is connecting because Robson and Safechuck’s well-acted stories are similar to those of true survivors watching the film. It’s a smart, yet corrupt way to capitalize on an entire community’s vulnerabilities. It’s also connecting because their stories are bolstered with a compelling medium to tell them as well as an accredited establishment like Sundance to premiere it. It’s riding the wave of an important #MeToo and #TimesUp movement, and it poorly validates a shortsighted equation that many people think they already have the answer to: Michael Jackson plus always being around children must equal child molester. The result? A byproduct of lies smeared with a thin layer of credibility intended to enrage the general media and side with self-proclaimed victims. And because the people behind these forms of media have a following (or not), perhaps they’re employed by some “greater” masthead and their information is muffled with journalists who actually seek the truth, the general population slowly becomes convinced, valuing information by ease of access which has really been served to them by algorithms designed to showcase what individuals only want to see. This is where destruction escalates. This is where the snowball gains its mass. This is why I’m stepping in with my story now.


I urge you to make it your undying responsibility to seek truth and acknowledge all sides in your consumption of how Michael is being depicted in this film. The capitalization of circumstance, divisive use of content and manipulation of media — all combined with rising false senses of entitlement — can quickly nullify a verdict and forever challenge truth to favor the other. This is the loophole with our digital ecosystem that actually determines one’s fate and this is the precise mechanism Leaving Neverland is using, especially when money is at stake. It will ultimately destroy his family, defame his legacy and eradicate his artistry. If you think this little loophole won’t take it that far, well, for starters: it’s already killed Michael Jackson.


Michael signed a letter to me on Neverland letterhead once. It read: “from your protective and older brother, Michael Jackson.” Now I find it my turn to protect him by telling my story because I solemnly swear that this kind-hearted, genius-of-a-man is innocent. I probably would have known otherwise.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 31 gennaio 2019, 9:52

Karen Faye‏ @wingheart
Ali and Michael. She LOVED him...and he loved her. He loved all children. They were his source of unconditional love and joy.
Immagine





Brett Barnes‏ @IAmBrettBarnes
Not only do we have to deal with these lies, but we’ve also got to deal with people perpetuating these lies. The fact that they fail to do the small amount of research it takes to prove these are lies, by choice or not, makes it even worse.






LunaJo67‏ @LunaJo67
Richard Matsuura spent 4 days with @michaeljackson in 1998 and Maureen Orth was eager to write about it, saying MJ gave the boy alcohol. Richard himself came forwards slamming the article and saying NOTHING was true.







Jermaine Jackson‏Verified account
2005 trial. Correcting what Wade Robson sd, under oath, at risk of perjury. Defence attny Mesereau: "Did Mr Jackson ever molest you at any time?" WR: "Absolutely not." Mesereau: "Ever touch you in a sexual way?" WR: "Never. No." His word/truth. When it mattered #LeavingNeverland








Taj Jackson @tajjackson3
Amazing how you have seen it but they won’t let our family see it till it airs. Maybe it’s because they know we will poke holes all through it. Having known Wade for nearly 20 years, he is laughing at all of this, thinking he is getting away with murder. But he won’t. Count on it

Gayle King
@GayleKing
Just watched ALL FOUR hours of Leaving Neverland.. powerful, compelling & a game changer for those who have been afraid to speak up of child sex abuse . My heart goes out to Wade Robson &… https://www.instagram.com/p/BtPxz3Qjl0Z ... 11lbweo7q8
17:29 - 30. Jan. 2019







Message from the Estate of Michael Jackson:
Immagine









Ellie M. V. @ArchitectMEV
After seeing #LeavingNeverland, I still believe Michael Jackson was innocent. It's disturbing & horrible but basically it's a documentary that doesn't feature any sort of investigation and only consists of descriptive testimonies by someone who once actually defended MJ in court.
19:52 - 30. Jan. 2019





https://www.showbiz411.com/2019/01/30/f ... s-innocent
Former Neverland Boy Stands Up for Michael Jackson: I firmly believe Michael did no wrong…I solemnly swear that this kind-hearted, genius-of-a-man is innocent”
by Roger Friedman - January 30, 2019 1:13 pm
Immagine
The scandal surrounding the documentary “Leaving Neverland” is bringing out Michael Jackson’s defenders.

The latest is a 32 year old man named Talun Zeitoun. His mother, Janet. was Michael Jackson’s long time hair stylist. Tal writes in on a website he posted : “I was part of Michael’s life from the day I was born in 1987 until 2001. The last time I was literally close to him was backstage at the Staples Center when his casket wheeled past me. I knew him well because my mother, Janet Zeitoun, his sole hairstylist during the time, knew him even better. One could say that they might as well have been siblings. In fact, my mother was one of the few non-family members invited to the private memorial service at the cemetery hours before the public one in Downtown LA. Michael felt so comfortable with my mother because she made him laugh unlike anyone else, let alone the fact that she’s incredible at her craft. Michael even said in writing that she’s the “Michelangelo of hair.”

“I went to Neverland, several times of which Michael was there and he gave us the full tour of his home. I remember my favorite golf cart to get around had a Peter Pan emblem on it. I remember his movie theater concession stand being filled with candy that you could go behind the counter and take to watch whatever movie you wanted. I remember riding the big steam engine train that would take you from one end of the ranch to the other…”

“The bulk of my experience with Michael was during the 90s right when the FBI investigation began on account of child molestation allegations. Knowing that this was happening and that these charges were set against him, I don’t think my protective and well-aware mother would’ve allowed me to continue hanging around Michael or head up to Neverland had she not trusted him.”

“I firmly believe Michael did no wrong. You don’t have to take my word for it, though; know that his truth was proven in a court of law. The stories being presented in Leaving Neverland are incredibly one-sided. This film is merely the Wade Robson & James Safechuck Story because I, too, remember leaving Neverland, as does my mother, and as do many people in his life who’d be glad to have a say in a film so generically titled; now wrongfully entitled to depict Michael’s life and his misunderstood relationship with children. Any credible director of a documentary seeking truth on the matter would do his/her/their due diligence and present the full story from a carefully chosen and meaningful variety of sources. With four hours of film time to spare, I’m sure there could have been room. This is why I’m deeply disappointed in HBO and Channel 4 UK for picking it up with plans to air it later this spring. The networks snagged a falsity and will be responsible for disseminating a poorly researched film based on the highly skewed opinions of a select few that many of its subscribers will conclude as true.”

You can read the rest of Tal’s story here. I’ve put out requests to a few other “Neverland boys” to see if they’ll respond about their time spent on the ranch and with Michael. Updates when or if they chime in…







Parts of article published by the SUN/Daily Mail etc..

‘I know Michael Jackson is innocent and NEVER abused kids – and millions of people agree with me’ says super fan Dan Osborne

The former TOWIE star, who has tattoos of *****, is one of millions of people who refuse to believe accusations that the singer abused children

WITH his Michael Jackson tattoos and smooth Thriller dance moves, former TOWIE star Dan Osborne is the ultimate ***** superfan.

He's also one of millions of people who still refuse to believe accusations that the singer raped and sexually abused children, despite decades of rumours, court cases and pay-offs.

The tribute tattoo was a reaction to *****'s death in 2009 when Dan was 17

In the wake of the new damning documentary, Leaving Neverland, the dad-of-three who is married to EastEnders star Jacqueline Jossa, passionately explains what people like him really think.

He tells Sun Online: “To me Michael Jackson is the greatest entertainer that ever lived.

It seemed to me that he adored kids and cared about them because he was a real life Peter Pan.

He donated millions to kids’ charities and adored his own three children.

I don’t think he would have had it in him to hurt them, like Wade Robson and James Safechuck have claimed in the new documentary.

I just don’t believe that Michael Jackson sexually abused children.

I don’t know what is motivating the men who are accusing him but with the amount of money the family have, could there be a financial motive?

I am not calling them liars because I don’t know for sure what happened but I have yet to see any proof.

Even if they couldn’t speak out while he was alive, the guy has been dead nine years, so why now? I feel like they could be motivated by money but that is just my opinion.

I honestly believe Michael is innocent and I’m not alone. More people don’t believe the accusations than do believe them - a lot more....

'Did the accusers lie in court?'

The two accusers in the new documentary testified in the court case that ***** had not molested them.

So they’ve said he was innocent, under oath, and then there’s a change of heart when there’s a documentary being offered and possibly a sum of money. That makes me suspicious.

Sometimes money is an evil thing and can make people do horrible things.
'It's brainwashing viewers'

The Jackson family have pointed out that the documentary only listens to the stories of the accusers, and not anyone who was close to the singer or could deny the abuse took place.

That’s unfair. It’s an attempt to brainwash viewers into believing the two men and not giving them a chance to hear an argument back or any kind of explanation.
Michael found fame at a young age but lost his childhood.

The filmmakers know what they’re doing. They know it will be talked about and cause so much speculation.

It brings attention to their documentary and they’re going to earn money from that....






After the Michael Jackson documentary: Filmmaker delivers crude explanation

https://www.tvspielfilm.de/news/tv/n...onArticle.html

The documentary "Leaving Neverland" premiered at the Sundance Festival on January 25th. It tells of two men claiming to have been sexually abused by Michael Jackson in the 1990s. Wade Robson and James Safechuck were present at the premiere, with some spectators leaving the room ... Reed: I do not characterize Michael Jackson in the least in the movie. I think when you see the movie, you realize it's a movie about these two families and Jackson is just one element of the story. I had no intention of characterizing it. I do not speak to him at all. It's not a movie about Michael. The movie itself is a report of sexual abuse, how sexual abuse happens, and how it affects later life. "

Reed is on the side of the fans exposed to fierce criticism. According to his own information, he even received a death threat by email. His justification, however, will hardly do any harm. At least his statement, alone the duration of four hours make the film to a serious documentation, is argued argued thinly.

"They [Robson and Safechuck] have a precious value, and every time a song is played, the cashier rings and it's not surprising that they're stepping out and fighting for that value."

Michael Jackson was acquitted of all charges in the 2005 trial. The documentary now wants to throw another light on the King of Pop. When and if "Leaving Neverland" will be shown in Germany, is not yet known.






https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8311080/m ... cumentary/


Bad in the bedroom Michael Jackson’s ‘secret’ girlfriend says he was an ‘amazing lover who adored women’ as she slams child sex abuse documentary claims that ‘killed’ him


Shana Mangatal, who was in a close relationship with the King of Pop in the 90s, says the singer was flirty with and attracted to women - but "completely innocent" when it came to kids
By Emma Parry, Digital US Correspondent
30th January 2019, 7:59 pm
MICHAEL Jackson's "secret" girlfriend has hit out at child abuse allegations against the star - saying they ultimately "killed" him.

Shana Mangatal, who had a relationship with the Thriller singer in the 90s, insisted he was not sexually attracted to kids because he "loved women so much".
Shana Mangatal fell in love with Jackson after she started working in his manager's office in Hollywood
She also revealed how rather than the "asexual man child" many believed the star to be, Jacko was an "experienced" and "amazing" lover - and that no man will ever compare to him.

Shana, 48, recalls him flirting with her, trying to seduce her with sexual lyrics over the phone and even trying to pull down the tops of female pals to reveal their bra straps - but says his close relationship with young boys came from "a completely innocent place" and he would never do anything to harm a child.



Shana, who worked for Jackson's management company, also told how parents of the many youngsters that used to hang out with the star would "push" their kids into hanging out and having sleepovers with Jackson - and would become "jealous and vindictive" if they thought another child was getting more attention.

Shana is speaking following the release of the documentary Leaving Neverland, in which Wade Robson and James Safechuck accuse Jackson of sexually abusing them as children.

The bombshell documentary - which contains damning testimony from 'victims' who claim Jackson systematically abused them for years - has sent shock waves through America and around the world.

In a further blow to Jackson's supporters, yesterday Sun Online published historic court docs stating the singer 'developed and operated what is likely the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organisation the world has known'.
But Shana completely refutes all the allegations and insists there is no way Jackson was a paedophile.

In an exclusive interview with The Sun Online, Shana said: "I think it's awful - these two boys who are accusing him of these things in the documentary were two of his best friends, who he really cared for.

"They were loving towards him and he was loving towards them, but in a pure and innocent way. He would never think that they of all people would turn against him - he really gave them the world.

"These allegations of sex abuse are what killed him. The first allegations by Jordy Chandler were the start - he wasn't the same after those.

"And then after the second one, it basically ended for him. He was dead inside, just so depressed - there was no spark in his eyes any more.
"Can you imagine being accused of these things when your whole life is dedicated to helping and protecting children and now you're being thought of as the opposite of that?

"He couldn't stand it and couldn't understand it. So much so that he thought that people were in a conspiracy against him to destroy him."

Shana, who works in the entertainment industry in LA, said she first met Jackson aged 17 after one of this shows - but it wasn't until her 20s when she worked as a receptionist at his manager's office that they began to develop a "love connection".

She said that while it was well known he loved hanging out with young boys - there was nothing sexual about it - and it was obvious from the outset he loved women.

After months of flirting with her over the phone and in person at the office, Jackson finally kissed her which Shana described as "all her dreams coming true".
But just weeks later Shana was left shocked after seeing a magazine article announcing the news he had wed Lisa Marie Presley, leaving her "heartbroken".

Shana kept up hope that she and Jackson would one day be together and finally - a couple of months after he divorced Lisa, he invited her up to the Universal Hilton hotel, in Universal City, Los Angeles for a date.

The pair ate popcorn, watched movies and shared a bottle of wine - before they spent the night together.

Shana, who kept their relationship a secret at the time, says she has decided to speak out about her intimate moments with the star now - to show he was sexually attracted to women not children.

She said: "I was shivering and shaking every time he touched me. I was so inexperienced. I didn’t have normal reactions that other girls would have.

“He made sure it was what I wanted before we did anything - and it was amazing, everything I thought it would be.

“He was definitely experienced - you could tell he had done this before - even though I had not at that point. And you could tell he loved women.
Immagine
“I don’t think either of us slept that whole night - he was very loving and passionate.

“I think my innocence was what attracted him to me and I don't think he would have gone as far as he did with me if I had been aggressive - aggressive women really turned him off.

“The fact that I still have a lot of love for him even after 20 years tells you something. In fact I don’t think any man will ever compare to him - he’s always going to be on a pedestal for me.

“It wasn’t just on an emotional level either it was physical too - in real life he was very sexy and extremely good looking.

“He had this 5 o’clock shadow you could always see really up close, which was just so sexy, and his eyes were like I've never seen before. They sparkled and they were bright - there was a certain magnetic quality with his eyes. They just drew you in. And his smile - I could go on and go on.

“He had a dancer's body, so it was muscular, even though he was very thin, he was tight and firm.

“His thighs stood out in my mind as being attractive because they were really tight and strong from dancing all of those years.”
Immagine
The next day Jackson confessed to Shana that every night he prayed to God to take his sexual urges away.

“He told me that he said that prayed every night for God to remove his sexual urges so it didn’t have to be a focus in his life," she revealed.

“He didn’t want any distractions and wanted to be able to be focused and dedicated to his work.

“That’s how he became so great because he was so focused.

“It was a struggle for him because he loved women and that was obvious.

“And he could easily have been that person who had all kinds of sex with lots of different women - but he didn't want to be that person.

“And I think the other thing that made him feel bad about sex was his upbringing. He was brought up Jehovah’s Witness and they didn't believe in sex before marriage and I feel this was really embedded in his mind.”

After their first night of passion, Shana spent several more nights with him over the summer of 1996 and fell madly in love with him.

“After that first night I was thinking ‘We're going to get married, we're going to have kids’," she said.
Immagine
“I thought, ‘I'm never going to be able to love anybody else. Michael is it.’

“He was just everything I'd ever dreamed of and more. It was amazing and he was amazing.

“During that time there was no indication that anything would change with us so I was just head over heels in love with him.

“It was impossible not to fall in love with him. He was just that kind of person who would be so charming and so charismatic and kind and nice and you don't usually find that in men who are superstars - most of them are jerks or arrogant but not Michael.

“He was just so sweet - he really studied every person and like knew what exactly to say and what you liked and didn't like. It made me feel special that this man cared about me so much.

“I don't think I'll ever find anyone like him again. Being with Michael was both a blessing and a curse. Having to deal with such a huge superstar being your first love - everybody after that is pretty boring.

“Even now I haven’t been on a date in 10 years - it’s not easy."
During their relationship, the smitten star asked Shana to star in two movies "Ghosts" and "Is This Scary" alongside him - and a bunch of child actors.

There she spent 12 hours a day for weeks with Michael and the youngsters - and said she saw nothing inappropriate going on.

She said Michael loved hanging out with young boys because he was "on the same wavelength" as them and had the same "juvenile sense of humour".

He would pull the tops down of his make up artist and others to try and reveal their bra straps and tell dirty jokes: "He loved Benny Hill - that was his kind of humour."

It was during the filming of "Is this Scary" that Jordy Chandler's allegations of sex abuse emerged - and Shana saw straight away the change in his behaviour.

“We were on the set and those allegations hit and I didn't know what was going on, but I could see a change in him one minute," she recalled.

“The first few days he was very happy - just normal, funny. Michael.
Immagine
Michael was very outgoing - people don't really realize that about him, but he was very, very funny and everyone wanted to be around him but then in a couple of days in he became sullen and sad, his eyes were just dead and he just looked like he was in another world and I couldn't understand what had happened from one day to the next.

“The next day he just stopped showing up and he called in sick and not long after that is when it came on the news that there had been a raid at Neverland and there was an investigation happening.

“That's when everything changed. That video was his last happy moment probably in his life where everything was normal. The public thought of him as this nice sweet, innocent guy.

“But that was the last time that would be the case and it was really profound to be there with him."

Shana believes the only thing Michael was guilty of was naivety when it came to the kids he hung around with.

“To him sleeping in the same bed as kids, hanging out it was all so normal," she said.

"He was just so naive about it all and he didn't realise that these kids had parents and some of them didn't have the best motives.

“I don't think it was the kids at all who caused any of his problems. From what I witnessed, the parents became very competitive with each other.

“They would all want to push their sons onto Michael so their son would be the one to spend the most time with him.
“And let me tell you, there was not one ounce of them thinking, ‘Oh, what's going on here?’

“They thought this was their meal ticket because Michael was feeding them very well, buying them whatever they wanted and giving him the credit card to go shopping. I mean treating them like royalty.”

A few months later, Shana was left broken-hearted by the singer a second time - when she saw a magazine article that he had married his nurse Debbie Rowe.

"I was devastated - I was completely blown away. I knew Debbie and just thought she was his nurse.

"But the thing with Michael is you could never be mad with him for long - as soon as you heard his voice you would just melt.

"And he always said something to make you feel good - like 'Don't believe all the tabloid garbage in the press'. So that's what I did.

"I was always very supportive of him - and he deserved that. All his interactions with me were wonderful."

Shana was a close friend of the star's until his death in 2009, aged 50, and has written a book about their time together called: Michael and Me: The Untold Story of Michael Jackson's Secret Romance.

She hopes that through her story people will see the singer not as "Wacko Jacko" but a normal man - who is innocent of all the allegations been thrown at him.
"He would be heartbroken about this - but he would never blame the children," she said.

"Even when he was alive he never once blamed the children - he blamed their parents.

"And he would be happy to see how his fans were sticking up for him."

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 1 febbraio 2019, 15:08

Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson

A thread about how Wade Robson’s timeline keeps changing and makes no sense. Really depressing and shameful that fans on Twitter are doing journalists’ jobs, while scab ‘journalists’ ignore what’s in plain sight and instead demand a dead man’s scalp with zero evidence.


Ashley‏ @MJ_fans_unite
Explain this, somebody:
-Wade first claimed repression.
-Then when he realized it made absolutely no sense for that, he backtracked.
-Then he said the memories came back in 2011.
-But then he continued to beg to work MJ Estate - it's on camera.
-Then he said it was actually 2012.
12:59 AM - 1 Feb 20







@tajjackson3
Caught in another lie. Journalists, why do we have to do your work for you?
Facts don’t lie, people do.
Immagine
The answer was 2014 - so blatantly lying.






Joe Vogel‏ @JoeVogel1
This is America.

Black man vindicated in court. Vindicated by the FBI. Vindicated by two investigations. Vindicated by hundreds of witnesses.

Two white men change their stories after twenty years. Claim they lied under oath. Seek lots of money.

Any guess who America believes?

8:49 PM - 31 Jan 2019
:-(

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 1 febbraio 2019, 20:11

The moral compass of this world has drastically changed. Corrupt, indecent, mean spirited, immoral, lying, deceitful con artists, prosper regardless of the impact their lying schemes have on compassionate, loving, kind, generous individuals like Michael Jackson.

The recent despicable, disgusting allegations made, are very disturbing and so unbelievable based on the man I knew and lived with for years.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said " In the end, we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." Because Michael Jackson was my friend, I can no longer remain silent while inconsiderate, selfish, lying opportunists, take advantage of, vilify, slander, and verbally assault my friend, who I never observed do anything but display acts of kindness, tremendous generosity, compassion and love to others during one of the darkest times of his life.

Two of these opportunists have the unmitigated gall to claim their memory serves them better after the birth of their children.

Those who know me, know that children hold a special place in my heart and held a special place in Michael's heart.

How dare you three opportunists totally recant the previous testimony of your personal experiences with Michael Jackson for monetary gain. How sickening and selfish.

Did you three ungrateful con artists ever once consider how your venomous lies could open wounds and impact Michael's three young children, his elderly mother, his siblings, and a host of relatives, who I'm certain are still experiencing some form of grief?

One of the responsibilities of a father is to protect his entire family.

As fathers, you guys have a lot of growing up to do, especially regarding the seed you are sowing.

One commonality in all religions is you will reap what you sow. I can only hope someone in your lives is praying for you and your family.

Was the monetary gain you acquired for your lies worth more than your personal peace?

Nothing is greater than love and peace of mind. What's so sad is the recollection of your memories failed to remember the love and peace Michael Jackson gave to you and your families.

On a personal note, if either one of you desire to discuss this matter in person, name the place, I'll come to you.

Sincerely
Kerry Anderson

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 febbraio 2019, 11:42

The MJCast‏ @TheMJCast

The MJCast Retweeted Sunrise
We just recorded #TheMJCastEp95 Roundtable with @tajjackson3, @MarcosCabota, @TheMJAP, @CEThomson, Jamon & myself Q. We will discuss #LeavingNeverland, the lack of evidence, Taj’s GoFundMe counter docu-series, + also how fans can best combat this.















Jonathan Sugarfoot Moffett

31 January

As Michael Jackson’s drummer of over 30 years and friend, here is my personal statement in light of the new documentary, “Leaving Neverland” and the allegations against him:

Like that old saying goes: “When at first you don’t succeed…try, try, and TRY again!!” Well, that is what seems to be the motto and the premise for these two guys who keep ON trying to get at Michael through his money. And continue to humiliate and embarrass him with all their own admittedly false accusations evidenced through their admissions they testified and verified of Michael’s innocence time and time again throughout the years since these allegations first came up and about!!! How can they keep being allowed to defame a person who was already cleared on ”14 SEPARATE charges” and accusations in a major public court trial appearance in front of the whole entire world? Why is it allowed again and again…when Michael was proved innocent already? With the same people revamping and reshuffling their decks to try a rehashed version of their same old allegations and accusations in a different light and point of view just to see if THAT WAY works?! Trying to baffle, befuddle, and fool all of the people and public who’ve already seen and heard all the testimonies on both sides (which proved Michael’s innocence in all charges against him!!). When even ONLY “ONE” of the charges could have put him behind bars for a very long time…Yet none did…none could…and none would! Yet even after all of that in that long drawn out trial...

Now, it should be criminal in what they are doing to him! In truly stalking his life, his memory, and legacy over and over and over again…doing this to him! He, who is supposed to be at peace now, at rest now…past and beyond the foils of all this malicious persecution of prosecution people keep throwing at him. Now even in his absence from this world and from Earth, when at rest in his grave, how can this still be allowed?! With the same old unproven evidence as before, only revamped!? How can the judicial system keep allowing for money-hungry seeking people like these to keep on using the system for their own selfish trumped up means? Where is the justice for the “PROVEN INNOCENT”? And why are these once former defenders of Michael and his innocence and integrity allowed to misuse the courts and the court system like this? Giving them a vile voice once again, and again, and again?! It's a waste of time for the already crowded courts and court system. With bigger and important cases to try than to keep retrying the one these particular plaintiffs themselves already proved of Michael’s innocence! Stop the madness! For when even the FBI themselves after decades of investigation and files gathering on him, unbeknownst by him, came to the conclusion that he was INNOCENT of anything of the likes he’d been accused of!!
I LOVE all my “Brothers J” and the Jackson Family! Especially Mother, who to me is like MY Mother in my heart! To keep putting her through all this is just cruel and heartless! So please leave my “brother” in heart, spirit, and soul, Michael Jackson, alone! He has escaped this world of trials, tribulations, torment and persecution. PLEASE LET HIM REST IN HOLY PEACE……Jonathan Moffett

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 febbraio 2019, 12:14

http://www.etinside.com/?p=25266
ETI breaks down why the new Michael Jackson documentary is total bullshit!

January 31, 2019
Immagine
When Michael Jackson died in 2009, Wade Robson—the former choreographer whose allegations of abuse are at the center of a controversial new documentary, Leaving Neverland—wrote in tribute to his friend:


Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk.

Robson was twenty-seven years old at the time. Four years earlier, he testified at Jackson’s 2005 trial (as an adult) that nothing sexual ever happened between them. Prior to the trial Robson hadn’t seen Jackson for years and was under no obligation to be a witness for the defense. He faced a withering cross-examination, understanding the penalty of perjury for lying under oath. But Robson adamantly, confidently, and credibly asserted that nothing sexual ever happened.
What changed between then and now? A few things:
◾In 2011, Robson approached John Branca, co-executor of the Michael Jackson Estate, about directing the new Michael Jackson/Cirque du Soleil production, ONE. Robson admitted he wanted the job “badly,” but the Estate ultimately chose someone else for the position.

◾In 2012, Robson had a nervous breakdown, triggered, he said, by an obsessive quest for success. His career, in his own words, began to “crumble.”

◾That same year, with Robson’s career, finances, and marriage in peril, he began shopping a book that claimed he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher picked it up.

◾In 2013, Robson filed a $1.5 billion dollar civil lawsuit/creditor’s claim, along with James Safechuck, who also spent time with Jackson in the late ‘80s. Safechuck claimed he only realized he may have been abused when Robson filed his lawsuit. That lawsuit was dismissed by a probate court in 2017.

◾In 2019, the Sundance Film Festival premiered a documentary based entirely on Robson and Safechuck’s allegations. While the documentary is obviously emotionally disturbing given the content, it presents no new evidence or witnesses. The film’s director, Dan Reed, acknowledged not wanting to interview other key figures because it might complicate or compromise the story he wanted to tell.
It is tempting for the media to tie Jackson into a larger cultural narrative about sexual misconduct. R. Kelly was rightfully taken down by a documentary, and many other high-profile figures have been exposed in recent years, so surely, the logic goes, Michael Jackson must be guilty as well. Yet that is a dangerous leap—particularly with America’s history of unjustly targeting and convicting black men—that fair-minded people would be wise to consider more carefully before condemning the artist. It is no accident that one of Jackson’s favorite books (and movies) was To Kill a Mockingbird, a story about a black man—Tom Robinson—destroyed by false allegations.

The media’s largely uncritical, de-contextualized takes out of Sundance seem to have forgotten: no allegations have been more publicly scrutinized than those against Michael Jackson. They elicited a two-year feeding frenzy in the mid-90s and then again in the mid-2000s, when Jackson faced an exhaustive criminal trial. His homes were ransacked in two unannounced raids by law enforcement. Nothing incriminating was found. Jackson was acquitted of all charges in 2005 by a conservative Santa Maria jury. The FBI, likewise, conducted a thorough investigation. Its 300-page file on the pop star, released under the Freedom of Information Act, found no evidence of wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, dozens of individuals who spent time with Jackson as kids continue to assert nothing sexual ever happened. This includes hundreds of sick and terminally ill children such as Bela Farkas (for whom Jackson paid for a life-saving liver transplant) and Ryan White (whom Jackson befriended and supported in his final years battling AIDS); it includes lesser-known figures like Brett Barnes and Frank Cascio; it includes celebrities like Macaulay Culkin, Sean Lennon, Emmanuel Lewis, Alfonso Ribeiro, and Corey Feldman; it includes Jackson’s nieces and nephews; and it includes his own three children.

The allegations surrounding Jackson largely faded over the past decade for a reason: unlike the Bill Cosby or R. Kelly cases, the more people looked into the Jackson allegations, the more the evidence vindicated him. The prosecution’s case in 2005 was so absurd Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi described it like this:


Ostensibly a story about bringing a child molester to justice, the Michael Jackson trial would instead be a kind of homecoming parade of insipid American types: grifters, suckers and no-talent schemers, mired in either outright unemployment… or the bogus non-careers of the information age, looking to cash in any way they can. The MC of the proceedings was District Attorney Tom Sneddon, whose metaphorical role in this American reality show was to represent the mean gray heart of the Nixonian Silent Majority – the bitter mediocrity itching to stick it to anyone who’d ever taken a vacation to Paris. The first month or so of the trial featured perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case – almost to a man a group of convicted liars, paid gossip hawkers or worse…

In the next six weeks, virtually every piece of his case imploded in open court, and the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles.
What’s changed since then?

In Robson’s case, decades after the alleged incidents took place, he was barbecuing with Michael Jackson and his children. He was asking for tickets to the artist’s memorial. He was participating in tributes. “I still have my mobile phone with his number in it,” Robson wrote in 2009, “I just can’t bear the thought of deleting his messages.”

Then, suddenly, after twenty years, his story changed and with his new claims came a $1.5 billion dollar lawsuit.
Immagine


As an eccentric, wealthy, African American man, Michael Jackson has always been a target for litigation. During the 1980s and 1990s, dozens of women falsely claimed he was the father of their children. He faced multiple lawsuits falsely claiming he plagiarized various songs. As recently as 2010, a woman named Billie Jean filed a frivolous $600 million paternity lawsuit against Jackson’s Estate.

As someone who has done an enormous amount of research on the artist, interviewed many people who were close to him, and been granted access to a lot of private information, my assessment is that the evidence simply does not point to Michael Jackson’s guilt. In contrast to Robson and Safechuck’s revised accounts, there is a remarkable consistency to the way people who knew the artist speak of him—whether friends, family members, collaborators, fellow artists, recording engineers, attorneys, business associates, security guards, former spouses, his own children—people who knew him in every capacity imaginable. Michael, they say, was gentle, brilliant, sensitive, sometimes naive, sometimes childish, sometimes oblivious to perceptions. But none believe he was a child molester.







https://www.newsweek.com/michael-jackso ... ry-1313821
Michael Jackson's Nephew Taj Slams 'Leaving Neverland,' Wants to Tell the 'Truth': 'Facts Don’t Lie, People Do'

By Renata Birkenbuel On 1/31/19
he oldest nephew of the late Michael Jackson has started a GoFundMe account to help finance a documentary series to refute the ongoing alleged sexual allegations against the superstar.



Most recently, the controversial Leaving Neverland documentary, which debuted at the Sundance Film Festival on January 25, heightens the reported damage new testimony of alleged incidents have wrought upon the Jackson clan and MJ’s devoted fans.

“The time has come to tell the true side of his story,” posted Taj Jackson, Tito Jackson’s son, on Twitter. “Join me on my journey to unmask the truth about Michael Jackson. Not the truth certain media is selling you, but the truth as it actually happened. #proveninnocent #truthrunsmarathons #justiceforMJ”

As of January 31, the GoFundMe account, "Untitled Michael Jackson Documentary Series," has raised $36,684 of Taj’s $777,000 goal.

He lists on the account website he that “we”–supposedly the Jackson family–will use the donations to pay for the following documentary creation costs:

“Hiring key players for the production team, travel expenses for the filmed interviews and meetings, verifying stories and new information, securing licensing and video clips, video and audio editing, local and international distribution and a comprehensive, international marketing and PR campaign (live and digital) that will make it impossible for audiences, targeted and otherwise, to ignore.”

“The media wants this to be true yet can provide ZERO evidence,” posted Taj Jackson, Tito Jackson’s son, on Twitter. “Notice how they are desperately trying to program the people’s mind before the public even sees it. And they have brought out the big guns to do it. There’s a word for this, 'propaganda' Facts don’t lie, people do. ”

Taj Jackson, who said he will direct the series, said he had a “front seat to what the negative media and allegations put him through” and that he lived with his Uncle Michael during the 2005 trial.

“I had the privilege to have grown up extremely close to my uncle and was always a loyal friend and ally to him throughout his entire life.”

Calling himself a survivor of sexual abuse, Taj Jackson indicated his own compassion for sexual assault victims:

“As a sexual abuse victim (from my uncle Chuck on my mom’s side of the family), I know what it means to be a survivor,” said Taj on the GoFundMe page. “I also know what kind of damage sexual misconduct leaves upon the victims. This unique position makes me even more determined and qualified to make the truth, the whole truth known about my uncle Michael’s false allegations.”

Sundance officials and Utah police increased their security during the film festival after MJ fans protested in person on the street in front of the Park City, Utah, theater where director Dan Reed’s Leaving Neverland premiered on January 25, then in Salt Lake City the next day.

Leaving Neverland investigates allegations of sexual abuse and child molestation against Michael Jackson, as told through the personal stories of two of Jackson’s alleged victims who allegedly had relationships with Jackson when they were 7 and 10 years old. The men, now adults, are Wade Robson and James Safechuck.

Taj Jackson’s Twitter feed and Reeds film have drawn a string of comments, including a statement from his uncle Jermaine Jackson, who grew up performing with his brother as part of the famed Jackson 5:


“Easy to say anything you like to some guy with a camera for some shallow documentary devoid of scrutiny, curiosity, proof, or journalistic standard,” wrote Jermaine Jackson. “Harder to lie to judge & jury in 2005 when the truth was the only currency. Join the dots, media. #LeavingNeverland.”

Michael Jackson, who died of a doctor-prescribed prescription drug overdose in 2009 at age 50, was accused of improper contact with young boys through most of his career. He was acquitted on molestation charges in 2005 and always maintained his innocence.

Gayle King, CBS This Morning co-host, reviewed Leaving Neverland on Instagram:

“Just watched ALL FOUR hours of Leaving Neverland … powerful, compelling & a game changer for those who have been afraid to speak up of child sex abuse. My heart goes out to Wade Robson & James Safechuck. (swipe left) Thank YOU for sharing your pain it will make a difference. Bravo to producer Dan Reed. I’m still reeling. ”

Taj Jackson retweeted King’s post and responded: “Amazing how you have seen it but they won’t let our family see it till it airs. Maybe it’s because they know we will poke holes all through it. Having known Wade for nearly 20 years, he is laughing at all of this, thinking he is getting away with murder. But he won’t. Count on it.”

During Sundance, an unidentified Jackson family estate spokesperson told Deadline that Leaving Neverland was “just another rehash of dated and discredited allegations.”

Reportedly, Reed received direct threats for unveiling the controversial documentary.
At the time, Sundance officials defended showing the Reed film and stated: “Sundance Institute supports artists in enabling them to fully tell bold, independent stories, stories on topics which can be provocative or challenging.”

Jackson fans complained loudly, mostly through the #BoycottSundanceFestival hashtag on social media, leading up to the Sundance premiere of Leaving Neverland.

Meanwhile, Taj Jackson seemingly is following through on his uncle Michael’s last wish, as he wrote on the GoFundMe page: “My uncle’s last words to me were … ‘After this, we’re doing films.’ Never did I think that a decade later necessity would require me to direct a film about his proven innocence.”








https://www.facebook.com/cjbaxx/photos/ ... =3&theater
Body Language Analysis – Wade Robson on TMZ.

When providing details as to why this film was made, one aspect which really encapsulated my interest was Wade’s double shoulder shrug. The shoulder shrug often is a non-verbal signal of uncertainty, often unconsciously displayed and prevalent when you’re struggling to find the right words & is also seen in instances where you’ve no real confidence and conviction in what you’ve just said. Think of it as revealing ‘behavioural leakage’- should Wade have conviction in why he participated in this film, you should not be seeing in-congruent behaviour such as shrugging.

When Wade is pressed on why he’s doing this, he sends out a strong signal of discomfort with the prolonged temple rub. These types of dissipating behaviours are often prevalent when we feel the need to displace our discomfort via a comforting ‘touch’ display. I must stress that this action isn’t an ironclad indicator of deceit (research from Vrij/Ekman tells us that observing perceived deceit via body language is fraught with dangers and pitfalls) – think of this action as a gesture of discomfort.

Finally, when asked if there’s a comparison between R-Kelly and Michael Jackson, Wade again uses the same temple rubbing gesture to pacify the discomfort this question gives him. Wade tells us that “Michael is just not really my concern any more” which is a puzzling statement to give as if Wade HAD been abused for 7 years like he’s alleged, he’d be fighting tooth and nail for justice, not telling us that Michael is no longer a concern any more. Again note the shoulder shrug when Wade’s tells us that it’s actually about other people. As mentioned above, we use the shoulder shrug to signal our uncertainty or doubt, peculiar behaviour to observe during a ‘declarative’ statement.

So in conclusion, Wade’s repeated behaviour in this segment in the shoulder shrug and the temple rub – both gestures of doubt and discomfort. Not the actions of a man with confidence or conviction in his words.

I will review the Q&A in due course.

Remember, never discredit how much information your body language leaks without your knowledge.

Kind regards,
CJB
Author of Behind The Mask: What Michael Jackson’s Body Language Told The World - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B009LAMGDY
Credit: TMZ

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 febbraio 2019, 15:07

https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com ... k#comments


← Leaving Neverland Documentary Notes- Jan 26th 2019 at Sundance
An Open Letter To The Michael Jackson Fan Community-
Posted on February 1, 2019 by MJJJusticeProject
NOTE: We have allowed Sean O’Kane to post this Open Letter to MJGlobal family – We can not take credit for it’s content. If you wish to contact Sean O’Kane directly, please use his contact information at botton, or leave a comment here that he my address – MJJJP

An Open Letter To The Michael Jackson Fan Community

Please forgive me for not being as thorough as I would like in the content below. Like many of you, I am having to ‘fight the fight’ during working hours, and time is of the essence. The lengths we will go to for the big man, eh?

Firstly, please note, that I am simply a fan like you, this message comes from a good place and it’s only my advice, please do not mistake it as dictating or trying to lead. I fear some fans will use this as a means to twist it’s content and start bickering, but there really is not any need. It’s all for L.O.V.E.

I know, this is a testing time for all of us. It feels like 1993’ and 2003 combined and on steroids! The huge difference this time however, is that Michael Jackson is not here to defend himself and as his Army, it’s more important now than ever before, for us to come together and protect his legacy. Friends and family may not understand, and work colleagues may think you’re bonkers, but we have been here before and we can win this battle once again. As Michael famously reminded us, ‘You Are Not Alone.’

I know that the fan community is huge and there are lots of difference groups of us. However, I think it is vital that we present a united front to the extent that we can and try to take a unified approach in how we deal with this latest attack. I’m going to break the following down under separate headings, as there are several issues that I feel need addressing.

Responding To Critics/Haters/Misinformed

It’s very easy to get wound up, angry and defensive when faced with those who will believe the lies and fall for the nonsense and want Michael to be guilty. DO NOT STOOP TO THEIR LEVEL.

Let’s not fight fire with fire and instead extinguish it with Truth, Facts and Logic (think TFL, which will be handy for the Londoners amongst us as it refers to our local travel system). We have truth and evidence on our side and ultimately they cannot refute that. It is a fact that Wade Robson ardently defended Michael many times over the years. All the things they have claimed about Michael are simply that: claims. Furthermore, those claims are not supported in any way whatsoever by the evidence available.

If you are struggling to answer questions in a hurry – DON’T. Instead, locate the answers from another fan who you consider to be more knowledgeable, or copy easy-to-understand responses from other Tweets etc – I’ve done it loads of times before. It’s better to do that than come across as a person lacking the correct information as that could just damage our credibility.

Not having the answers is OK.

Why did he settle in 1993?

Why did he allow children to sleep in his room?

What role does Bubbles have in all of this?

The entire subject matter is a minefield and you’d need a PhD in Michael Jackson to fully grasp the entire backstory. So, spare a thought for the misinformed and uneducated; it’s easier for them to decide MJ was guilty, because having to explore the research and truth is complicated and time-consuming.

So, let’s respond with snappy straightforward facts – this includes Links, here are a couple of good ones:

https://www.mjvibe.com/its-time-to-fight-back/

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/

My other suggestion is to replace photos of Michael from your Social Media (unless it’s a necessity to the name/group). I know some of you will be conflicted with this, but trust me, from being a long-time supporter, you are taken much more seriously from the ‘other side’ when you have a picture of yourself or a neutral image, rather than that of MJ. You’re more likely to viewed as obsessive, blinded or non-objective if they think you’re a big fan. My experience has been that being genuine and using a measured and friendly tone has a lasting impact and encourages people to listen, giving you the chance to explain the truth. Do not forget, there are future Moonwalkers out there waiting to join us, but we MUST be relatable.

AND REMEMBER, not everyone can be convinced nor wants to be. It’s easy to spot those keyboard warriors early on. Block them and channel your energies elsewhere. Michael DOES NOT need those people as his fans. It’s definitely a case of picking your battles wisely.

Is There A Larger Force At Work Here?

So I have read on many forums about a ‘conspiracy’ against MJ .We know they exist and the latest one has been in refence to Sundance/Harvey Weinstein/Oprah/David Geffen/HBO etc etc, let’s not go there right now – It’s complicated and can take us down a very deep rabbit hole, distracting from the necessary action that’s required in retaliating against the #LyingAboutNeverland MOCKumentary.

We can deal with the ‘bigger picture’ when the time is right. The general public do not care, or rather have the time to listen about conspiracy theories involving Michael Jackson. On top of that because of the nature of such things, conspiracy theorists are widely viewed as a bit outrageous and those that promote them are often seen as bonkers. We have to deal with being seen as crazy just because we are Michael fans. Let’s not add to that and give them any further ammunition!

Channel 4

The executives at Channel 4 are rubbing their hands with glee at the reaction to Leaving Neverland. From what I gather from the inside, they are loving the attention the fans are giving to the show. Remember, these networks are expected to create controversial subject matters, regardless of the truth, as long as it generates hysteria. You know in the Kanye West and Jay-Z song ‘N*ggers in Paris’, there’s a part where it comes to a crescendo and you can hear the actor Will Ferrell say the words “its provocative it gets people going” – Well that’s what they are hoping for.

For us as fans it poses a complicated dilemma, on one hand do we stay silent and not give it any attention for fear of indirectly promoting it to people? Might that seem as though MJ’s supporters are small due to his declining popularity? Or, do we stand up and beat our drums so loudly in response, and in doing so, cause waves of free promotion for the network?

‘Dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t’ springs to mind. It’s not up to me to tell you what your decision should be; that’s your prerogative. Just don’t forget the silent majority of MJ supporters that do exist amongst us.

Although there is no definite date as to when the show will air, it’s likely to be in two parts at the beginning of March (in the UK). In my opinion, it will be catastrophic, and we must expect the worst outcomes imaginable. I’m sorry, but it will be a difficult time and we will be challenged. I know there are many of you who are divided on this matter, ranging from ‘it will blow over, we have experienced worse’ to ‘this is the end of Michael Jackson.’ Whatever your view, we should all prepare for the worst and formulate a plan of action so we are ready to go once this thing airs. If it turns out that it is not as bad as I fear then great but let’s be prepared for all eventualities.

Peaceful Protest

There is currently a peaceful protest scheduled for outside the Channel 4 headquarters on Wednesday 6th March from 8am onwards.

We need MASSIVE numbers! I’ve already booked the day off work. Please no MJ costumes or anything that they can use to label us as crazy fans blind to the truth. The protest will be at:

124 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2TX

Please do all you can to attend; it will be shambles if only a couple hundred turn up. Although that is a fairly decent amount, the reality is that just like Michael’s album sales, if the numbers are not record breaking, we are seen as pitiful. Let’s unite in abundance and show these bastards we are not messing.

Social Media Groups

Like many of you, I am part of various social media groups on Facebook and Whatsapp. I struggle to keep up.

This means that some great information can get lost easily and it can become a technological minefield with information overload. My advice is to take a break from it all often! Since the news broke about the MOCKumentary I have not slept properly, I feel angry, my fitness has slipped and I am eating crap – this isn’t me. I have had to take a step back to reflect on my mental health throughout this and recalibrate everything.

We cannot go to war on this if we are out-of-shape (emotionally, mentally, physically), forgetful, angry, vengeful, tired. We need to be refreshed, focused and happy within ourselves that ‘WE HAVE GOT THIS.’

I have written up a specific Tweet that you can copy and paste below. I’ve left just enough characters so that it will give you room to ‘@’ someone at the beginning, or simply just Tweet or Pin to your profile/share on Facebook etc:

*EXCLUSIVE* hidden details from the #MichaelJackson doc!

WATCH: https://youtu.be/9yTTEwBLfUQ

WATCH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgSbSotJgUY

READ: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2 ... 771961640f

RESEARCH: https://www.mjvibe.com/its-time-to-fight-back/

#ConnectTheDots

#LyingAboutNeverland

#TheTruthToo #TheRightSideOfHIStory

What Else Can We Do?

Right now, MJ’s legacy is at risk. BUY HIS MUSIC!I personally recommend that we purchase the song ‘SCREAM’ and make it go to number one all over the world. To anyone reading, feel free to set up a group encouraging this. I will strongly back the cause.

I have seen today that the MJ Number Ones album is increasing in the UK charts. Brilliant.

Sadly though, I have seen Michael Jacksons place on Spotify fall sharply. He was 58th in the world last week and has slipped to 63rd as of today (31 Jan 2019).

Get MJ on repeat via Spotify and other music streaming platforms.

More importantly, REQUEST HIS MUSIC on radio – I know this seems like a full-time job, but every little does help. Maybe once a day send in a request via Twitter or radio stations’ Facebook pages. Michael’s music is a powerful entity and the best response to the hate. Remind people why they fell in love with his magic in the first place.

Put Aside Our Differences

I know that rivalry within the MJ community exists and I’ve experienced it myself unfortunately. Whether it’s fans supporting the Estate or believing the Cascio tracks are genuine or having some kind of superiority complex, whatever it is – NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO BE DIVIDED. Put your differences aside and let’s be united; do not underestimate how much strength there is in numbers and that there’s nothing that can’t be done if we raise our voice as one.

We are dealing with a serious matter here on a global scale. There are talks that Michael’s music and the impact he has had on society will eventually diminish and he will ‘fade away’ – WE CANNOT AND WILL NOT LET THAT HAPPEN.

Simply put, we need one another now as much as Michael does.

Let’s Not Forget

Yes, our concern and loyalty are to Michael Jackson and the risk to his legacy, but we CANNOT forget about the genuine victims of childhood sexual trauma – It’s imperative that we drive that message in our retaliation. We must demonstrate that we are compassionate and serious about this matter because Michael did not abuse anyone. Michael was a huge advocate in the fight against child abuse and he dedicated his entire life to helping others. If any one of us thought there was even a tiny bit of truth to any of these allegations, we would not be supporting Michael at all and we need the public and media to understand this. As a father myself, I ensure I drive this message across in every debate and rebuttal.

Of course, in relation to the MOCKumentary involving Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck, feel free to also let people know that Michael is the REAL victim in all of this.

Furthermore, don’t forget to mention the impact this is likely to have on his three children and their futures. That too is important.

What Is Happening Behind The Scenes?

I am sure you are all aware that Michael’s nephew Taj is working on a documentary in response to all of this. I’m not privy to the full details. I hope that this write up is provided to him so he is aware of the blanket message that I hope the fans will embrace as we move forward.

I witnessed Jermaine Jackson on British Television this week. I’ll be honest; I think he could have responded in a more forthright way. Right now, what we need from the Jackson family is a no-nonsense approach and real evidence that they are fighting this. We, the fans, can only do so much. They are the big machine in all of this.

I worry that they do not know the facts in the way that we do and I hope that we see more measured intelligent fans and supporters on radio stations and TV screens in response to the show rather than Jackson family members who might be ill-equipped to deal with the questions. They are grieving and hurting right now. Placing them in front of TV screens with no deep understanding or energy to FIGHT is suicide. KOWLEDGE IS POWER and I am in awe of the amount of rebuttal information that I read from the fan community. Let’s use our skills to speak up in a way that will make doubters listen.

HELP

A few other fans and I have come up with the idea of having adverts placed in the press screenshot2019-01-31at4.30.28pmand on the sides of British buses, both in London and around the country.It will feature an image of Michael, kind of like the one in the flyer here. It was originally created by fan Nastyspaghetti7- To use as leaflet content given out at Sundance. It was very symbolic to the fight, so are going to use it for this too.

WE NEED YOUR HELP. Please go to:

https://www.gofundme.com/MJ-INNOCENT

The Michael Jackson fan community is incredible. The knowledge and dedication we have individually and as a collective is truly spectacular and I am so proud and blessed to be part of this magical and diverse community. The above are just my thoughts on how we can deal with the current crisis effectively and not intended to offend anyone so please don’t take it that way. I truly feel that if we conduct ourselves in a professional, polite and intelligent manner and present a unified front we can really influence others and get the truth out there,

Thank You.



Seány O’Kane (just a regular fan like yourself)

@SeanyOkane

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 febbraio 2019, 21:09

Scottie Shaffer worked for Michael Jackson from approximately 1992 to 1997. He was known around Neverland by the nickname “House.” Shaffer went off to start his own business- he does product placement for movies and is very successful. But he always stayed friendly with all the Jacksons. He’s invited to a Jackson wedding this summer, in fact. And Scottie is outraged by Wade Robson’s accusations that Michael molested him.

“For all the time I was in the inner circle, working for Michael, I never observed any inappropriate behavior. It’s impossible for me to believe,” Shaffer told me the other night.

Scottie started working for Michael in late 1992, when the “Black and White” video was shot. He stayed until 1997-98. He was present through the whole debacle with Jordan Chandler. He was also there as Jackson entertained many kids at Neverland. His title was Special Projects Coordinator. Shaffer was with Michael when they met Omer Bhatti, the kid who Michael later referred to as his son, and who now uses that distinction to stay with the Jacksons. (He is not in any way related to them.)

“People are just after the money now,” Shaffer says. “And it sickens me.”

Shaffer– who’s a nice guy and a straight shooter– also adds that the Robsons didn’t spend that much time at Neverland. His website is www.turnkeyproductionllc.com

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 febbraio 2019, 21:31

https://www.mjvibe.com/they-are-speakin ... l-jackson/
Following the showing of the so called Documentary “Leaving Neverland” at the Sundance Film Festival, many of Michael Jackson’s friends and collaborators have speaking out publicly…
Here some of them.
Immagine
I am saddened by the false attacks on my boss and dear friend Michael Jackson only when sadly he is not here to defend himself. As someone who was with Michael Jackson daily and having spent years traveling with him and spending countless hours in his company, I have absolutely no doubt that the recent stories from Wade Robeson and Jimmy Safechuck are completely false and totally fabricated especially given their own support of Michael through his life and for several years after. It’s truly upsetting what someone will do for fame and money and pure greed despite what Michael Jackson did for these two opportunists and their families for many years. At the end of the day truth always prevails and the world will see Robeson and Safechuck for what they are.
– Michael Bush
Michael Jackson Stylist.
Immagine
A few words about the movie at Sundance.
I decided to not even mention the movie by name, but I wanted to share a quick recap of a conversation I had with one of my daughters about the movie.
Clearly there is a minor buzz about the movie, and she asked my feelings about it. I gave it a few moments of thought, and said something along these lines:

I wasn’t with Michael 24/7.
I have never claimed to be his best friend.
I did, however, know him pretty well.

I also had very unique access to his personal space – meaning I have literally pulled speaker wires under his bed. I have moved boxes in his closets to install amplifiers. I have been in his apartments and hotels, setting up dance floors and playback systems. I have set up his personal lounges in studios – and maintained them. I have seen his books and magazines. I have seen his video collection. I have been places – private places – that very few people have been allowed to enter. This was part of my job.
The same can be said of many celebrities and non-celebrities I have worked with. There is a trust that goes along with working so closely with them, in the most private parts of their home.
You overhear conversations and comments. You learn how to make the client feel completely comfortable around you. They need people around them to provide services (in my case, building music and video systems) without the sense of being “watched”.
I have seen and heard things in OTHER homes that were – for lack of a better word – sad. But not in Michael’s.

Nothing.

Honestly, nothing.

When I started doing seminars about my work and friendship with Michael, more than one person mentioned the accusations – and “what if…”
My response was, and continues to be, if there was even a hint of concern that Michael somehow harmed a child, I would not offer my seminars.
Michael was a very unique person. I didn’t experience his childhood, but I did get a very close look at his adult life. I did have remarkably comfortable conversations with him. I have heard him make funny comments under this breath – but never hurtful, never tawdry. Never.

It isn’t my job to defend him, nor to get riled about a tasteless movie. But I can be one voice saying that over the course of my 18+ year association and friendship with Michael – being allowed into his more personal spaces, bedrooms, lounges, hotel rooms, cars, etc., there is simply nothing I have seen or heard to offer even a shadow of doubt in my mind. Nothing.

Was he perfect? No.
Did he make impeccable decisions every moment of the day? No.
Was there even the smallest of hints that he could harm a child? Absolutely not.
The movie will come and go, and along the way a few people will make some snarky comments on social media.

As for me, I will maintain that I am proud – very proud – to have worked so closely, in so many places, over such a long period of time, with someone I had so much respect for. I love sharing stories from the studio, tours and Neverland. I love meeting his fans, and re-uniting with old friends. I was blessed to have been a small part of his team – allowing so many opportunities along the way.

But mostly, I’m proud that we were friends.

– Brad Sundburg
Studio Engeneer
Immagine
As Larry Stessel, Harvey Leeds, and others have attested here on FB, in our business dealings with Michael, which many times included interaction with children, we never saw anything to suggest these allegations. We are all family men and our children are central to our being. I shot a full day of documentary with 13 Make-A-Wish children and about 100 members of their families at Neverland. I only wish that people could see that day and how Michael embraced those families. He was eccentric and grew up in hotel rooms, with brothers and crew, all living uniquely as music people do. It’s not a normal life. As the point person on his marketing at Epic from ’90 through ’96, I was hypersensitive to the allegations then, and watched for any sign of truth to them. I never saw one. I remain open to reality, but I find this film lurid and an attack on his Estate from bad actors.
– Dan Beck
Ex-Sony Music Employee
Immagine
All the people out here believing Wade and James are weak minding people, they need to learn the truth Michael Jackson is innocent and will always be these men are broke and need money so they’re going back on their word of Michael’s innocence just so they can get money.
– Kelley Parker
Actress
Not only do we have to deal with these lies, but we’ve also got to deal with people perpetuating these lies. The fact that they fail to do the small amount of research it takes to prove these are lies, by choice or not, makes it even worse.
– Brett Barnes
Friend
I was a boy in Michael Jackson’s life, and nothing of what he’s being accused of in this documentary happened!

I urge you to make it your undying responsibility to seek truth and acknowledge all sides in your consumption of how Michael is being depicted in this film. The capitalization of circumstance, divisive use of content and manipulation of media — all combined with rising false senses of entitlement — can quickly nullify a verdict and forever challenge truth to favor the other. This is the loophole with our digital ecosystem that actually determines one’s fate and this is the precise mechanism Leaving Neverland is using, especially when money is at stake. It will ultimately destroy his family, defame his legacy and eradicate his artistry. If you think this little loophole won’t take it that far, well, for starters: it’s already killed Michael Jackson.
– Talun Zeitoun


Immagine
I worked for Michael Jackson for years..I used to be one of his best kept secrets..Thats what he called me..My favorite time was when he was in the the Middle East.I loved going there..He was so happy!.To heal from all the bullshit lies…Michael was around my son Nikko till he was older..My daughterr Sky would sing for him..a few times. He would give her great advice. HE NEVER DID NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE TO EITHER. .MY DAUGHTER GOT SICK HE PAID FOR HER SURGERY..Every year he threw Nikko a birthday party..Why Wade is lying like this Is horrible. MICHAEL WAS PROOVEN INNOCENCE…LET HIM RIP…
– Carol LaMere
Michael Jackson Hair stylist
Immagine
I spent 27 years with Michael, in his homes, traveling, in hotels all over the world, all times of the day and night…watched videos, I too fell asleep in his bed and never saw anything inappropriate. I saw greedy and dysfunctional parents taking advantage of Michael’s kindness.
– Karen Faye
Make up artist
As Michael Jackson’s drummer of over 30 years and friend, here is my personal statement in light of the new documentary, “Leaving Neverland” and the allegations against him:

Like that old saying goes: “When at first you don’t succeed…try, try, and TRY again!!” Well, that is what seems to be the motto and the premise for these two guys who keep ON trying to get at Michael through his money. And continue to humiliate and embarrass him with all their own admittedly false accusations evidenced through their admissions they testified and verified of Michael’s innocence time and time again throughout the years since these allegations first came up and about!!! How can they keep being allowed to defame a person who was already cleared on ”14 SEPARATE charges” and accusations in a major public court trial appearance in front of the whole entire world? Why is it allowed again and again…when Michael was proved innocent already? With the same people revamping and reshuffling their decks to try a rehashed version of their same old allegations and accusations in a different light and point of view just to see if THAT WAY works?! Trying to baffle, befuddle, and fool all of the people and public who’ve already seen and heard all the testimonies on both sides (which proved Michael’s innocence in all charges against him!!). When even ONLY “ONE” of the charges could have put him behind bars for a very long time…Yet none did…none could…and none would! Yet even after all of that in that long drawn out trial…

Now, it should be criminal in what they are doing to him! In truly stalking his life, his memory, and legacy over and over and over again…doing this to him! He, who is supposed to be at peace now, at rest now…past and beyond the foils of all this malicious persecution of prosecution people keep throwing at him. Now even in his absence from this world and from Earth, when at rest in his grave, how can this still be allowed?! With the same old unproven evidence as before, only revamped!? How can the judicial system keep allowing for money-hungry seeking people like these to keep on using the system for their own selfish trumped up means? Where is the justice for the “PROVEN INNOCENT”? And why are these once former defenders of Michael and his innocence and integrity allowed to misuse the courts and the court system like this? Giving them a vile voice once again, and again, and again?! It’s a waste of time for the already crowded courts and court system. With bigger and important cases to try than to keep retrying the one these particular plaintiffs themselves already proved of Michael’s innocence! Stop the madness! For when even the FBI themselves after decades of investigation and files gathering on him, unbeknownst by him, came to the conclusion that he was INNOCENT of anything of the likes he’d been accused of!!

I LOVE all my “Brothers J” and the Jackson Family! Especially Mother, who to me is like MY Mother in my heart! To keep putting her through all this is just cruel and heartless! So please leave my “brother” in heart, spirit, and soul, Michael Jackson, alone! He has escaped this world of trials, tribulations, torment and persecution. PLEASE LET HIM REST IN HOLY PEACE……
– Jonathan Moffett
Musician
Immagine
The moral compass of this world has drastically changed. Corrupt, indecent, mean spirited, immoral, lying, deceitful con artists, prosper regardless of the impact their lying schemes have on compassionate, loving, kind, generous individuals like Michael Jackson.

The recent despicable, disgusting allegations made, are very disturbing and so unbelievable based on the man I knew and lived with for years.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said ” In the end, we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” Because Michael Jackson was my friend, I can no longer remain silent while inconsiderate, selfish, lying opportunists, take advantage of, vilify, slander, and verbally assault my friend, who I never observed do anything but display acts of kindness, tremendous generosity, compassion and love to others during one of the darkest times of his life.

Two of these opportunists have the unmitigated gall to claim their memory serves them better after the birth of their children.

Those who know me, know that children hold a special place in my heart and held a special place in Michael’s heart.

How dare you three opportunists totally recant the previous testimony of your personal experiences with Michael Jackson for monetary gain. How sickening and selfish.

Did you three ungrateful con artists ever once consider how your venomous lies could open wounds and impact Michael’s three young children, his elderly mother, his siblings, and a host of relatives, who I’m certain are still experiencing some form of grief?

One of the responsibilities of a father is to protect his entire family.

As fathers, you guys have a lot of growing up to do, especially regarding the seed you are sowing.

One commonality in all religions is you will reap what you sow. I can only hope someone in your lives is praying for you and your family.

Was the monetary gain you acquired for your lies worth more than your personal peace?

Nothing is greater than love and peace of mind. What’s so sad is the recollection of your memories failed to remember the love and peace Michael Jackson gave to you and your families.

On a personal note, if either one of you desire to discuss this matter in person, name the place, I’ll come to you.

Sincerely
– Kerry Anderson
Michael Jackson Bodyguard

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 3 febbraio 2019, 13:59

PHOENIX‏ @PhoenixLaNegra
It’s a shame we even have to be out here discussing the particulars of a man’s private parts in order to defend him. That’s how low and ugly this situation is. Imagine having strangers debating the appearance of your genitalia. Smh...








RazörFist‏ @RAZ0RFIST
Fast tracking the film to @sundancefest without vetting its content was bad enough. Broadcasting the same defamation worldwide on @HBO to force the Estate to settle an erroneous suit? That makes @WarnerMediaGrp complicit in fraud. Cancel this detritus.




Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson 
Charles Thomson Retweeted Samar @TheMJAP
Despicable. And using Dimond as a source is farcical. She was best pals with Tom Sneddon & just reported whatever he asked her to, including stories which were totally fictitious. She said she ‘absolutely knew of the existence’ of love letters which... turned out not to exist.





Samar @TheMJAP‏ @TheMJAP
Replying to @CEThomson
Indeed. And Diane Dimond was sued by Michael Jackson for defamation but was protected by Santa Barbara DA, Tom Sneddon who even signed a sworn declaration!
Her "source", NAMBLA-associated Victor Gutierrez, wasn't protected, however, & owed MJ $3 Million Dollars. He fled the US!
Immagine





Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson
You know that very accurate description the media keeps falsely claiming Jordan Chandler gave of Michael Jackson’s genitals? Here’s his drawing.

Yes really.

Also told cops MJ was circumcised. Cops checked. He wasn’t.

Also described markings. Cops checked. They didn’t exist.
Immagine





Matt Fiddes‏Verified account
Statement: I have heard the @NatEnquirer have published a false interview with me about @michaeljackson I would like to confirm I have not been interviewed by them or any media about Michael and this film. I ask they politely retract the fake interview.Let MJ RIP #michaeljackson







Matt Fiddes‏Verified account
Matt Fiddes Retweeted National Enquirer
I am fuming with anger about this feature!The @NatEnquirer have 48 hours to remove this nonsense or we will commence legal action. I have given no interviews@about this so called “Film”. I have been battered by false interviews by myself re MJ that never took place. @tajjackson3

Verified account @NatEnquirer
Singer’s ex-bodyguard insists singer flipped personas in private!

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 3 febbraio 2019, 14:06

The new episode of the MJCast reinvingorated me. Taj Jackson was there.

http://www.themjcast.com/episode-095...nd-roundtable/
https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/...29063120&mt=2#

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 5 febbraio 2019, 14:50

andjustice4some‏ @andjustice4some
Also, one of the things that I think convinced the audience was because Robson stressed that he and Jimmy hadn't seen or talked to each other in 6 years. No mention of same attorneys, or meeting with attorneys in 2014. Something that should be mentioned in a rebuttal doc.






https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/me ... mg00000004

Media Accountability and Celebrity Trials: Recent Proof Why We Still Have a Long Way To Go

12/20/2016 03:10 pm ET
Immagine
Why have the last six months seen such an increase in negative publicity against the late Michael Jackson? It would certainly seem that if there was going to be a rush of posthumous claims against his estate for sexual abuse that those would have occurred within the first year of his passing. But that didn’t happen. Indeed, the history of allegations made against the late singer has an interesting and almost predictable pattern. The first two allegations made against him-those which occurred in his lifetime-were made at exactly ten year intervals. Both occurred at just the time when Jackson was planning a major project or, as in the case of the Arvizo allegations in 2003, when a major comeback plan was in the works. Both occurred as a direct result of the same attorneys and the same prosecuting district attorney being involved in both cases. And both cases were simultaneously egged on and cheered from the sidelines by the same cast of media players. If we connect the dots, it doesn’t take much detective work to determine that there remains a direct correlation between the players in those cases and what is happening now-and that the pattern continues.


To be sure, all of it can be pinpointed to exactly one source, and that is a recently amended claim by choreographer Wade Robson as part of his ongoing civil complaint against MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures. To briefly recap, Robson first attempted to go after the Michael Jackson estate in 2013 after claiming he suddenly recalled years of “repressed memories” of sexual abuse. That case was eventually thrown out. But Robson’s civil claim against Michael Jackson’s companies is, for the time being at least, still on. A trial is currently scheduled to begin in March of 2017.


Since its initiation, Robson’s case has gone through at least two sets of attorneys and the number of revolving amendments to this complaint continue to change with such predictable regularity that it has become glaringly obvious that Robson and his attorneys are simply going for whatever they think might stick. It has also become increasingly obvious in recent weeks that Robson’s current attorneys are determined to play the case out in the media, and it is no coincidence that they have been directly responsible for the media smear campaign against Jackson that has been steadily ongoing since the week of Jackson’s death anniversary last June. At that time, Robson’s attorneys-working hand in hand with tabloid Radar Online-created a media sensation by releasing an explosive story regarding alleged “child porn” found at Neverland during the infamous 2003 raid when Santa Barbara district attorney Tom Sneddon sent over seventy armed officers to ransack Jackson’s residence. There was only one problem. The story was a complete hoax, based on 12-year-old court documents that were not only presented to the judge and jury during Jackson’s trial (at which time he was fully acquitted) but have also been available to the public since 2006. Robson’s attorneys attempted desperately—just as had a desperate prosecution a decade earlier— to build a case of child porn possession against Jackson on the grounds of his adult (and, we might add, perfectly legal) art book collection. The jury didn’t buy the argument then, and after the hoax was exposed to the media, it seems Robson must have either made haste to dump his then attorneys or else they quickly bailed out of a sinking ship.


Many of Jackson’s fans believe the entire root of Robson’s claim is little more than an extortion attempt, with Robson and his attorneys waging that the negative publicity will force the Michael Jackson estate’s hand in a cash settlement. And although it is a suspicion that cannot be proven, it is certainly not without merit, given the long history of lawsuits waged against Jackson’s estate and the fact that Robson’s attorneys pride themselves on their long history of negotiating substantial settlements for their clients.


The simple fact is that Robson’s initial claim, back in 2013, registered little media attention. He did do an interview on The Today Show, but beyond that, media interest in his story and in his case all but fizzled. Many understandably questioned his motives. Why come forward now, five years after Michael Jackson’s death when he is no longer here to defend himself against such an allegation? For Robson, in particular, there were even more pointed and puzzling questions. As an adult in 2005, he had successfully and of his own free will testified in Jackson’s defense at his trial, which means he swore under oath that he had never had an improper relationship with Jackson. When Jackson died in 2009, he actually begged the Jackson family to give him a seat at the memorial service, according to Taj Jackson:


Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 Jul 16


Wade begged me on the phone to be invited to my uncles memorial in 2009. This is his follow up email. Don’t believe his lies.

Immagine
Later that year, Robson wrote a touching tribute to his late friend that became the introduction of the Michael Jackson Opus.


My Mentor


I used to talk to Michael for three hours a day. I never really worked out how he came to find so much time because he seemed so busy, but he would ring me and we would talk and talk and talk. When he got a cell phone he would call and text all the time. It was part of an amazing friendship that lasted for 20 years.


I had first met Michael when he was kicking off his bad tour in 1987. I was five, but Michael’s company was holding a dance competition in every country and I entered the one in Brisbane. I remember being a kid and dancing to his video- the first ever I say was “Thriller” when I was two. It was my mum’s tape and I just went nuts over it. I used to run into the kitchen scared every time the werewolf came on. By the time I was three I had pretty much learned its entire choreography.


I ended up winning the dance competition. We went to see Michael in Brisbane and at a meet and greet i was introduced to him. I remember wearing a custom made outfit from “Bad”- my mum’s belt was wrapped around me, like five times. Michael was impressed and asked me if I had danced. I told him that I did and he said ” Do you want to perform with me in the show tomorrow night?”


I couldn’t believe it. He was due to play Brisbane the next night. His idea was for me to come out for the last song of the show which was “Bad”. He was bringing on some orphaned children so he figured it would be cool to bring me out in the full “Bad” outfit. At the end of the song we were all onstage- Stevie Wonder was there too and Michael came on and said “Come on”. I took it as him meaning “Get into it!”.I moved downstage and threw my hat into the crowd and started going crazy. When i turned around Michael was saying goodbye to the crowd, the other kids were gone and Stevie Wonder was being escorted off. What he meant was “Come on lets go, It’s over”.


When I realized, I ran off. After my mum and I spent two hours with Michael into his hotel and we became friends. He showed us clips from the new Moonwalker he was working on and we talked and talked. We didn’t really stay in contact but i joined a dance company- literally the next day and two years later I was in America to play at Disneyland. I got in touch with Michael through his people, he remembered me. Me and my family went to Record One Studio where he was mixing the Dangerous Album. I showed him some of my dance videos and he said to me. “Do you and your family want to come to Neverland tonight”? We all agreed and ended up staying for two weeks.


Our friendship blossomed. For two weeks he’d take me into his dance studio, put some music on and we’d dance and jam for hours. We’d sit there and watch films like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Other times we’d just leave Neverland and drive out in a car, blasting music really loud.


He even taught me how to do the moonwalk. We were in his dance studio. He taught me foot by foot. I couldn’t sleep that whole night. The thrill of pushing off the bar and sliding backwards in a moonwalk with the guy that made it famous was so exciting.


Later, me and my mum wanted to move to America to pursue my dreams of becoming a dancer and he helped us out. He gave me a big start by putting me in some of his videos like “Black or White”. The role he took on was one of a mentor.


He told me when I was seven that I’d be a film director and that’s what I became; he created a thirst for knowledge in me. Once, a mini recording studio turned up on my doorstep, but what was cool was that he stopped me from becoming a spoiled brat. He would say “This is for you, but I want to see you do something with it. Don’t take it for granted or I’ll take it back”.


The last time I saw him was in July 2008. I was in Vegas working on a show and he was living there. Me, my wife and him and his three kids had a barbecue. It was the most normal thing in the world. Me and my wife had been to Whole foods and bought stuff to cook. But when we got there he’d provided loads of catering. I said, “Dude, Why did you bring loads of catering? We’ve got regular food here”. I remember cooking outside while Michael sat there under an umbrella.


We had great times because he was such a caring person. Most of all I’ll miss those phone conversations. I still have my mobile phone with his number on it. I just cant bear the thoughts of deleting his messages.


Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of human kind. He was a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk. I love you Michael.


– Wade Robson

Since the Opus book was an officially estate sanctioned project, this means one thing: That Robson and the Michael Jackson estate were on good terms in 2009. They were still apparently on good terms as late as 2011, when Robson again jockeyed desperately to be assigned the role of director to the Michael Jackson Cirque du Soleil project. The Michael Jackson Immortal tour went on to gross millions and became one of the most successful touring acts in north America in 2012 and, again, in 2014-but it did so without Wade Robson at the helm. Robson never got the gig, which went instead to Jamie King.


The sudden “repressed memories” and allegations then surfaced in 2012. You do the math.

Immagine

The fact that Robson testified for Jackson in 2005, begged for a seat at his memorial, wrote a glowing tribute for the Opus book, etc, may or may not mean much. Those who believe Jackson was guilty will dredge up all of the usual and predictable arguments about the Stockholm syndrome and how victims often bond with their abusers and may not realize until years later that the intimacy they experienced with their abusers was, nevertheless, abuse. That argument, however, is a hard one to buy given that Robson was by this time long an adult, clearly acting of his own free will. For sure, the one thing we can’t ignore in this case is the near perfect timing of Robson’s allegations surfacing right about the time he had begged for-and was denied-the opportunity to direct The Michael Jackson Immortal world tour.


None of these events are exactly coincidences of timing. Has anyone thought to actually question why all of these supposedly official court documents are being put out as media press releases, or conveniently popping up as alleged “leaks?” The timing of the current media smear campaign against Jackson coincided conveniently with Jackson’s seventh year death anniversary and with the switching of Robson’s attorneys. In addition, this latest amendment to Robson’s claims comes on the heels of a dispute that has dragged on for months regarding the Jackson estate’s request to depose Robson following a mental evaluation. It would seem that a lot of side steps are being taken in order to avoid what an independent mental evaluation of Robson might reveal.


The new amendment would put less burden on Robson to attempt to “prove” he was sexually molested by Michael Jackson, which is already a hard sell and faces, perhaps, far too many legal uphill battles (including the statute of limitations on sexual abuse claims and his legal sworn testimony in 2005, for which in order to win this case he must admit to committing perjury then) and, instead, shifts that burden onto Michael Jackson’s companies. But that still leaves a lot of troubling questions, none of which any of the media outlets reporting on this amendment seem willing to ask. For example, in the wake of this new amendment many media outlets rushed to publish Finaldi, Stewart and Manly’s salacious claim that “Jackson’s production company designed, developed, and operated what is likely to be the most sophisticated child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization the world has ever known” without taking into account that the entire amendment rests on a very fallacious premise—Jackson was the boss of his companies and, therefore, his employees worked for him, not vice versa. Therefore, the idea that the companies somehow had an obligation to “control” their own boss is already a ludicrous claim, and from a legal standpoint alone, puts them on shaky ground. But getting past the shaky legalities, there is another, even bigger problematic issue for Robson’s attorneys. The current amendment is reliant on the premise of Jackson’s companies as “grooming agents” who snared a young Wade Robson when, in fact, it was Robson’s own mother, Joy Robson, who first contacted Michael Jackson when the Australian family came to California on what was apparently a stalking mission to track down Michael Jackson. That admission comes directly from Joy Robson’s own court testimony, in which she also admits they had no contact with Jackson for over two years after the dance competition that Robson won in 1987 (thus further damaging the claim made by Finaldi, Stewart and Manly that Jackson began a two year grooming process almost immediately).


25 DIRECT EXAMINATION


26 BY MR. MESEREAU:


27 Q. Good morning, Miss Robson.


28 A. Good morning. 9210


1 Q. Miss Robson, where is your home?


2 A. In Sherman Oaks, California.


3 Q. And do you know the fellow seated at counsel


4 table to my right?


5 A. Yes, I do.


6 Q. Who is he?


7 A. That’s Michael Jackson.


8 Q. How long have you known him?


9 A. 18 years.


10 Q. And how did you meet Mr. Jackson?


11 A. Originally, in Australia in —


12 Q. I think you need to speak up a little bit.


13 A. Sorry. In Australia. He was touring on the


14 “Bad” tour, and my son Wade was five years old and


15 won a Michael Jackson look-alike/dance-alike


16 competition.


17 Q. Did you develop a friendship with Michael


18 Jackson?


19 A. Not immediately. Two years later, we


20 returned to the United States for — Wade was


21 dancing here, and we reassociated with him at that


22 point, and became friends from there, from 1989.


23 Q. Are you still Michael Jackson’s friend?


24 A. Absolutely.


In fact, since last summer, every new amendment to this case has been handled in the same predictable fashion, with a splashy press release and a thinly veiled threat to the Michael Jackson estate of “more to come” if certain demands are not met. It may be no coincidence that within this same time frame, we have seen a host of negative programming and stories relating to the Jackson case, including a horrifically biased and inaccurate episode of Reelz channel’s Rich and Acquitted. It was also in the immediate aftermath of a written threat by Finaldi, Manly and Stewart to the Michael Jackson estate in September of 2016—and the planting of the “pedophilia ring” story-that a most viciously nasty spirited hit piece by Linda Stasi was published in The New York Daily News. It should be noted here that Stasi has been, along with Diane Dimond and a handful of others, among a select group of reporters who have gone beyond merely reporting on Jackson to having made his “guilt” their life’s mission. Without even the slightest veneer of professional journalistic objectivity, Stasi proceeded to parrot the accusation of Jackson’s companies as a “sophisticated pedophile ring” as fact, rather than as allegation, along with many other interestingly stacked phrases like “freak” and “monster” which have no place in objective media reporting. Well, there may be good reason for that, since from the get-go, Stasi made no attempt to even disguise her piece as objective journalism.


“Michael Jackson was a rich and famous freak,” Stasi stated within the article’s first paragraph, “so he had his own private, pedophilia institute in order to abuse and destroy children.” (This comes after an initial introductory sentence ludicrously comparing MJJ Productions and MJ Ventures to the Catholic church). The article goes on:


“It was called Neverland Ranch, where he kept exotic animals in a zoo and exotic children in his bed. That’s what I believe at any rate.”


Aside from the fact that one might take issue with her description of “exotic children” (whatever the holy heck that is supposed to mean), she neatly gives the game up with the clincher statement, “That’s what I believe at any rate.”


Well, Ms. Stasi, if you can express whatever you believe, then others can certainly state what they believe, including me. And I am calling bull. But it gets worse. The article goes on to outright accuse Jackson of having been the one to order a hit on his sister-in-law Delores Jackson, who died under mysterious circumstances in 1994. Donald Bohana was convicted of her murder in 1998 and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. With no evidence other than an alleged phone call from an unnamed Jackson relative, Stasi proceeded in her article to outright accuse Jackson of having ordered the hit on his sister-in-law. In the ultimate act of delusional irony, this same reporter who claims to have had too much journalistic integrity back then to print a story with no evidence to back it up apparently has absolutely no qualms about printing the exact, same accusation in 2016, with no further evidence to substantiate it now than she had in 1994. What has changed? The fact that Jackson now, unlike in 1994, is dead and can’t defend himself? Or more likely that, being deceased, is unable sue for libel? This would seem the likely reason, but the truth is even uglier. Ever since the Chandler scandal broke in 1993, there has been a small but extremely vituperative and vocal minority of journalists whose vendetta against Jackson and his acquittal has become more than personal—to the point that one has to seriously question why. That is, why their invested interest in the case against him is so fanatical to the point that the hatred literally drips from every line of their poison pens? Or why a beloved entertainer and humanitarian is allowed to be described in terms we would normally reserve only for the most vile of serial killers and rapists, based only on accusations that twenty years ongoing, remain circumstantial at best.


The latest addition was (for the media, at least) a rather shocking allegation of abuse from a now adult female victim whose identity has only been released thus far as “Jane Doe.” This time, Finaldi, Manly and Stewart took a slightly different approach, “leaking” the story first to gossip rag TMZ rather than their usual go-to mouthpiece Radar Online. Interestingly, this allegation came only weeks on the heels of salacious claims published by Jackson’s doctor, Conrad Murray, as part of his sordid tell-all memoir, that Jackson wanted to marry Emma Watson when she was only twelve years old. Has anyone thought to connect the dots on these allegations? For over twenty years, the world was aware that Michael Jackson had been accused of molesting boys, but nothing had ever been heard from a female accuser. Then suddenly, Murray’s memoir makes such accusations and-voile’-within weeks we learn a female accuser has jumped on board Robson’s lawsuit!


But who is this alleged Jane Doe, and more importantly, does she even exist?


As usual, media outlets rushed to copy and paste the story without bothering to give even the slightest veneer of scrutiny to the alleged “evidence” being presented. This included a photocopied series of highly suspicious looking cashier’s checks, a series of handwritten notes supposedly written by Michael Jackson to the plaintiff, and an embarrassingly bad photoshopped picture alleged to be of Jackson and the plaintiff.


TMZ posted the images of the alleged cashier’s checks and, without batting an eye, boldly proclaimed them as evidence that “Michael Jackson wrote a bunch of checks totaling over $900,000 to cover up child sex abuse allegations from a then-12-year-old girl...” It is an age old media tactic, of course, especially among the gossip tabloids. Headlines and opening liners are intended to present lurid allegations as factual information (i.e, they are “click bait”) and it is only when the reader bothers to actually delve into the story that they get the truth in very fine print.


But what about the “evidence?” The alleged notes to the girl certainly do not mean much, as there is nothing inappropriate or explicit in their contents, and certainly nothing that was out of character for Jackson in his correspondences with young fans. It was always Jackson’s style to gush affectionately when corresponding with his young fans, male or female. There is nothing here that is particularly unique, nor evidence of unlawful behavior; nothing here that Jackson might not have written to his own daughter Paris.

Immagine
Immagine
Lastly, we do not even know if the letters have been authenticated. Many Jackson fans have already pointed out some interesting discrepancies in the handwriting of the notes, which may be worth considering. The interesting irony is that Jackson’s handwriting-much like his vocal style and dance moves-was so unique that it has invited many knock-off imitations, and through the years there has certainly been no shortage of forged items purporting to contain Jackson’s signature or to be written in his unique signature style.hand. His writing, particularly (Jackson was well known for his flourished, child-like scrawl and blocky letters) is an easy style to mimic; therefore, an easy style to duplicate. Again, without authentication, there is simply no way to know. I also find it puzzling that a series of random notes, supposedly written on several different occasions over a period of months and years, would all be written on apparently the same notepad paper out of the same notebook, or that after thirty years, they would somehow remain magically in the same pristine condition as when they were first written!


Neither are the purported checks sufficient evidence. There are still far too many loopholes for this “evidence” to hold up under scrutiny. The most obvious is that if she had cashed the checks, they would not be in her possession. Banks do not return checks or copies of checks to the payee.

Immagine
Immagine
Immagine
If she didn’t cash them, then the story gets even murkier. Who the heck would sit on that kind of money for over thirty years without bothering to cash the checks? Are we supposed to believe that this girl or her parents would have said, “You know, we have these checks from Michael Jackson but let’s just hang onto them, you know, in case we decide to join a lawsuit against his companies thirty years down the road.” Yes, makes perfect sense. Also, there is nothing on those images to indicate that Michael Jackson ever signed them-that most crucial bit of evidence that one would think would be most important if the checks are expected to hold up as evidence in a civil court, let alone a tabloid story. Any reference to the payee has, of course, been redacted, which leads to another troubling issue: With no signature from either party (either of Jackson or the alleged victim) there is simply no way to know what the purpose of these alleged checks may actually have been, or to who they were written, or even if they came directly from Michael Jackson. Interestingly, at least one of the checks has as its indicated purpose a “Cash Request.” Granted, this could have been a mere cover but in that case why not just refer to it as a “Gift” or something equally vague? A “Cash Request” would seem to indicate that the payee had actually made a request for the cash, which negates the whole idea of the check’s purpose being “hush money.” Also, it makes absolutely no sense that if Jackson had started abusing the girl at twelve, he would have waited four years, until she turned fifteen, to begin a pay out. He would have wanted to ensure her compliance as soon as possible-not four years down the road.


That leads us to the real clincher: Even if we assume that Jackson did write the checks and did bestow monetary gifts on “Jane Doe” that still doesn’t equate to proof of sexual molestation. Jackson was a celebrity known for the legendary generosity he often bestowed upon friends, fans, and even casual acquaintances. Like Elvis Presley and many other celebrities who grew up poor only to find themselves awash in “new money,” Jackson spent on others as lavishly as he spent on himself. This is a man who would think nothing of writing a three figure check if he was given a good enough sob story. He donated millions in his lifetime to help children and families in need. Even a casual search into his humanitarianism reveals countless stories of children whose lives he saved, or whose funerals and burials he paid for, or whose medical expenses he covered. When a family in Germany lost everything they owned in a flood, he invited them to Neverland and gave them assistance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMVVFo2aGZk

So if truth be told, we know Jackson donated a lot of money through the years to help practically anyone who asked him for help. This leads to a very troubling conundrum. So of all those many unfortunate families and children who hit Jackson up for money and favors throughout the decades-anyone for whom he may have cut a check as a personal favor or gift-any of them now can come out of the woodwork and claim that the money they received from Jackson was for some nefarious purpose. And who is going to be able to dispute or deny it, any more than it can be proven or unproven? The tragedy is that the whole “smoke and mirrors” myth that has been erected around Jackson and sexual allegations against minors-one that the media has been responsible for perpetuating-makes it almost perfectly believable to accept these stories at face value. This is how the media operates. It has been the modus operandi of Jackson’s accusers for over twenty years. The ultimate tragedy is that it just may have created the perfect smokescreen, one in which Michael Jackson’s own unchecked generosity and willingness to help anyone in need can now be used against him. A story which originally aired on Hard Copy in 1995 revealed just how pervasive this phenomenon had become, and how apparently easy it became for would-be extortionists to invent claims of abuse against Michael Jackson (moreover, how easy it is to get the desired media attention and reaction from the fabrication of such stories):

In 2012, I broke a story-based on a tip I had received from writer Melinda Pillsbury-Foster- of a 1997 attempt to frame a sexual abuse allegation against Michael Jackson that came directly from a dubious relation to the British royal family, who even attempted to use his own son as the “bait.”


And as for that “photo” of Jackson and the alleged female victim-you know, the one bearing the copyright insignia of Finaldi, Stewart and Manly-the photo appears suspiciously fake.

Immagine
C’mon, did anyone NOT notice the mysteriously unaligned hand and extra set of fingers that Jackson seemed to have sprouted on the girl’s left shoulder, or the mysterious patch of red that is completely out of place with the rest of the background, or that Jackson’s head was somehow unnaturally superimposed over the display case behind them? Really? And yet several media outlets, from The Daily Mail to The Sun to The New York Daily News, ran this photo without hesitation. But let’s cast all of that aside for a moment and assume the photo is authentic. Even if it is, what does that actually prove? That Michael Jackson posed for a photo with a young fan? Such photo ops were the norm for Jackson, but through the years, some fans lucky enough to have had that experience have used those ops for every purpose from inventing friendships that never existed to even inventing fantasy affairs that never existed. In this case, it seemed the only real justification for releasing the photo was to somehow validate “Jane Doe’s” existence, but with no name and only a highly questionable photo with a redacted image, there is no validation-only more dubious questions raised.


But then, let’s not forget this is coming from the same faction that tampered with police documents last summer in an attempt to convince the media and public that “lurid” images of child pornography had been discovered at Neverland. So we know now that at least one media hoax from Robson’s legal team has been committed, although it isn’t entirely certain if his current or former attorneys were the ones responsible for releasing the tampered documents. It may be worth noting that Robson’s former legal team withdrew from the case, and in light of all the recent media hi-jinx, one may certainly wonder why.


Now we have an obviously faked photo, a series of suspicious checks that literally prove nothing, and a new accusation from a nameless victim whose very existence has yet to be validated. The question is: Are we going to continue to allow the tales to grow taller on down the line as Robson’s team attempts to clamp the tourniquet they believe they have on Michael Jackson’s estate to pay out with a cash settlement?


The ultimate goal of this strategy seems apparent enough. The legal team hired by Robson has a reputation for winning large cash settlements in sex abuse cases, but often through means that may be considered questionable at best. Let’s not forget that it was one third of this legal team-Vince Finaldi-who was engaged in ghostwriting the legal papers for Michael Egan, the accuser of Bryan Singer who later admitted to lying about the accusation, and another third of this team-John Manly-has been accused of harassing practices such as unsolicited phone calls and “fishing” for victims. While they may pride themselves as hard hitting and no nonsense advocates for child sex abuse victims-certainly a noble profession-their most highly publicized victories have been the obtainment of substantial financial settlements for their clients. Clearly, one may argue that this has less to do with criminal justice (in fact, criminal justice cases against sexual abuse predators are surprisingly low on their vitae) but everything to do with civil lawsuits in which monetary compensation is the ultimate goal. Using this tactic, it is often easy to get willing particpants to jump on board a lawsuit to claim abuse in order that they, too, may get a piece of the windfall if a cash settlement is reached. It then becomes easy to see how additional claims can be added to a lawsuit. In this case, the appeal becomes even more enticing when it could potentially mean that the proverbial “slice of the pie” is a piece out of the biggest earning celebrity estate in existence. The promise of that kind of money can certainly buy a lot of “suddenly repressed memories”-especially when the celebrity in question isn’t around to fight the accusations. It is indeed the perfect storm whereby we might reasonably expect to find a horde of willing participants to jump on board, including any adult whose childhood may have included the briefest encounter or association with Michael Jackson. Indeed, this is how civil class action suits are born, and it seems to be a hope of both Robson and his legal team to gather as many on board as possible to help bolster an already weak case and one that strains the credibility of legal statutory limitations. It might seem a reasonable strategy, except that this was the same strategy used by the prosecutors against Jackson in the 2005 case and it yielded no results then. In 2016, it has proven no more successful, other than bringing on board James Safechuck, who had already teamed with Wade Robson previously under their former attorneys, and now this mysterious “Jane Doe” whose claim (as well as identity) remain dubious at best.


What we are witnessing in the Jackson civil case-and have been for several months-is a deliberate campaign to try the case in the media and in the court of public opinion. The strategy seems evident: To use the willing mouthpiece provided by tabloid media to both further taint Jackson’s reputation and in hopes that an estate already burdened with legal woes will buckle under the pressure. The media has a choice when it comes to the lengths we are willing to go to act as blind perpetrators of such schemes. Yes, the media has an obligation to report. But that same obligation should hold us to fairness, objectivity, and careful scrutinizing of the stories we print. The problem remains the irresistible lure of copy and paste journalism and the stats that come with a juicy story-regardless of the actual merit or factual accuracy of the piece. In cases of high profile celebrity trials (whether civil or criminal) the presumed guilt of a celebrity-with all of the salacious innuendo and “shocking” headlines that go with that presumption of guilt- has become a cottage industry. We can blame it on our increasing cynicism as a society (certainly since the verdict in the O.J.Simpson trial, the apparent faith in the American justice system when it comes to celebrity acquittals has been seriously eroded) but we also must apply the same cynical eye to what we read and see in print. We often wonder why we are so shocked when high profile cases-particularly high profile celebrity cases-don’t turn out with the verdict we expect, without stopping to consider why we expect a guilty verdict in the first place. We must consider that every thing we know about any celebrity case comes to us filtered solely through the media’s lens. And that is indeed solely, for I think it can be safely assumed that none of us were there, and that none of us are present in the court rooms where the evidence is actually weighed and presented; still fewer will ever bother to actually read court transcripts because we simply aren’t that invested. But yet, our opinions will be formed out of a cottage industry that has built itself on tabloid sensationalism and the presumption of celebrity guilt. Out of this cottage industry has come the presumption (fostered by dozens of recent, high rated documentary series) that all wealthy celebrities can somehow “buy” their way out of justice. No doubt, celebrities can afford to hire the best defense teams their money can buy, and it would be presumptuous to assume this doesn’t give them an advantage. But we also have to weigh the individual circumstances of every case. In Jackson’s case, the allegations made against him only served to feed a media cottage industry that had already built itself on selling us the idea of his “weirdness” and “grotesqueness.” The allegations simply added fuel to the fire. The story of an innocently accused “freak” simply didn’t sell as much copy as a guilty one, which is why after circulating like hounds sniffing out a kill during “The Celebrity Trail of the Century” in 2005, the media elapsed into embarrassed silence following Jackson’s acquittal on all counts. There was no apology; no admittance that maybe we got it wrong this time. Instead, legal analysts rushed to “reexamine” the case from every angle in an attempt to figure out where the prosecution went wrong (never mind what the defense had done right). In fact, it has been well documented that the media purposely ignored much of the defense’s testimony in favor of the far more salacious details provided by the prosecution witnesses. Often, these same witnesses crumbled under the defense’s cross examination, but these successful cross examinations were rarely reported in the media.


Michael Jackson’s acquittal, like that of O.J. Simpson a decade before, sent ripples throughout the media and forever changed the perception of celebrity trials, but in truth the cases were very different. One involved a violent murder in which the motive of the defendant seemed a foregone conclusion; the other was a case built entirely on circumstantial evidence and an accuser’s word. Yet there seemed to have been a pervasive conclusion among the media that Michael Jackson must somehow serve as the sacrificial scapegoat for “the one that got away” in 1995. Indeed, we couldn’t possibly allow another rich black male celebrity to “get away” this time, could we?


For too many, the acquittal of Jackson represented just that. In the decade since, an entire mini industry has sprung up around a desperate desire to somehow prove that the jury got it wrong in 2005. For some determined factions, that is and remains the only justifiable closing chapter of Jackson’s life and legacy that will be accepted.


For others, those of us who have delved further and questioned the circumstances of the allegations made against him, it is a frustrating uphill battle, and is likely to remain so until we can convince an entire industry that the real story of what happened to Michael Jackson is perhaps far more compelling-and certainly far more tragically horrific-than any falsified claim made against him could ever possibly be


UPDATE: Since this article’s initial publication in December of 2016, both the “Jane Doe” and Jimmy Safechuck cases have been dropped.

An old article but still relevant today.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 5 febbraio 2019, 15:00

https://theblast.com/michael-jackson-le ... tt-barnes/

Michael Jackson’s Boyhood Friend Defends Singer Amid ‘Leaving Neverland’ Claims


January 27, 2019

A man who was friends with Michael Jackson when he was 10 years old — and has testified that nothing sexual ever happened between them — is defending the pop icon following the release of the documentary “Leaving Neverland.”

Brett Barnes, who traveled the world with MJ in the early 90s, lashed out against the film on Twitter, mocking the fact people have been accepting the allegations made as if they are fact.
“So people are getting their facts from a movie now?” Barnes wrote. “I wonder how they feel about the documentary showing the great alien invasion of ‘96. I think it was called Independence Day.”
When Robson came forward with his claims in 2013, Barnes made vague mention of the allegations, writing, “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.”

Barnes is referred to in “Leaving Neverland” but he was not interviewed for the film.

In 2005, Barnes testified at Michael Jackson’s child molestation trial in Santa Maria, California. Barnes said that while he did sleep in the same bed as Jackson, nothing sexual ever happened between the two.

According to reports, during his testimony, when asked if Jackson ever molested him, Barnes responded, “Absolutely not. And I can tell you right now that if he had, I wouldn’t be here right now.”
Immagine
As The Blast previously reported, the estate for Michael Jackson believes the film is a “tabloid character assassination.”

In a statement, the estate told The Blast, “The film takes uncorroborated allegations that supposedly happened 20 years ago and treats them as fact. These claims were the basis of lawsuits filed by these two admitted liars which were ultimately dismissed by a judge.”

The estate also took issue with director Dan Reed on the topic of not interviewing people like Barnes who have said Jackson never molested them, saying, “By choosing not to include any of these independent voices who might challenge the narrative that he was determined to sell, the director neglected fact checking so he could craft a narrative so blatantly one-sided that viewers never get anything close to a balanced portrait.”

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 6 febbraio 2019, 10:04

VP_Advocacy‏ @VP_Advocacy

FACT 1

#LeavingNeverland #MichaelJackson

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 6 febbraio 2019, 10:12


Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 7 febbraio 2019, 14:35

https://www.showbiz411.com/2019/01/26/m ... and-sister
Michael Jackson Criminal Defense Lawyer Thomas Mesereau Is “Shocked” By Claims Made By Wade Robson: “He was adamant that nothing had happened to him. So were his mother and sister”

by Roger Friedman - January 26, 2019
Immagine
EXCLUSIVE This morning I spoke with Thomas Mesereau, Michael Jackson’s brilliant criminal defense lawyer in his 2005 child molestation and conspiracy trial. Michael was found not guilty on all counts.

The first witness Mesereau put on the stand in Jackson’s defense was Wade Robson, who now claims Jackson molested him when he was a child. In 2005, Robson, Mesereau says, was “adamant” that Jackson had never done anything wrong to him. Robson’s mother and sister also took the stand and said the same thing.

The Robsons flew in from Australia for the trial. They stayed at Neverland. Mesereau interviewed them extensively.

Mesereau told me: “I found Wade articulate and likeable. But he staunchly defended Michael. His mother and sister supported him in their statements. On the stand, Wade was then subjected to a withering prosecutor. I’m shocked that he’s taken a position contrary to what he told me, and what he testified to in court.”

Mesereau hasn’t seen the documentary “Leaving Neverland” but he is very surprised. And this is a man who has examined and cross examined some of the toughest witnesses ever.

One important thing Mesereau agreed with me on. Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon, now deceased, thoroughly investigated Jackson twice, over a 10 year period. He looked ceaselessly for young boys who might have been abused by Jackson. Sneddon was obsessed with tagging Jackson. It was Sneddon who slid his card on the door of the Arvizo family after he saw them on TV, and crafted an unsuccessful prosecution against Jackson using their crazy testimony.

Sneddon knew the names of Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck, the two men who claim in the documentary to have been molested. If Sneddon had thought there was any real story there, he’d have gone after it. He never did.

Meanwhile, Robson has started a not for profit foundation and is soliciting donations. There can be no transparency, as he’s parked his 501 c3 very cleverly under something called the Hawaii Community Foundation. That way, Robson doesn’t have to file a form 990. We’ll never know if the makers of “Leaving Neverland” have donated money to it, for example. This was done on purpose. Leonardo DiCaprio does the same thing with his Foundation. It’s hidden.

Safechuck, meantime, is accused by Jackson fans of creating his story from a very disgusting book published years ago by a man named Victor Guitierrez. Jackson sued Guitierrez and won a $2.7 million judgement against. The writer has never paid up, and now lives in Chile. I threw my copy out a long time; I didn’t want it in my house.

“Leaving Neverland” can’t be taken seriously, and I’m surprised the press in Sundance– who didn’t cover Jackson — was so swayed by it. The movie offers no independent evidence, or third parties, just the claims of Robson and Safechuck. Just because it’s graphic, doesn’t mean it’s true. The rush to judgement here is alarming, and dangerous.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 8 febbraio 2019, 10:23

This kind of article needs to be shared everywhere because it's obvious the tabloids wont help.


https://www.foxnews.com/story/former-pr ... -for-jacko

By Roger Friedman, | Fox News

Michael Jackson

Former Protégé Vouches for Jacko


No matter who testifies next in Michael Jackson's alleged "prior acts" of sexual abuse mini-trial, the prosecution will have to deal with the fact that only one boy will show up to say he was molested many years ago by the pop star.

Now comes Robert Newt, 30, long a "Holy Grail" for The National Enquirer from its investigation into Jackson circa 1993.

Newt and his twin brother Ronald Newt Jr. (now deceased) were aspiring performers and spent two weeks as guests in the Jackson family home in Encino, Calif., around 1985. They were about 11 years old. This all occurred before Neverland was completed. Michael, Janet Jackson and LaToya Jackson were all there, as well as the Jackson parents.

Fast-forward to December 1993. The National Enquirer, desperate to get a scoop that Jackson has abused children, heard that the Newt kids once spent time with Jackson.



The tabloid offered the Newts' father, Ronald Newt Sr., $200,000 to say that something happened between his kids and Jackson.

Newt, a San Francisco "character" and filmmaker whose past includes pimping and jail time, considered the offer.

A contract was drawn up, signed by Enquirer editor David Perel. Enquirer reporter Jim Mitteager, who is also now deceased, met with Newt and his son at the Marriott hotel in downtown San Francisco.

It seemed that all systems were go. But the Newts declined the offer at the last minute.

Ron Newt Sr., to whom $200,000 would have seemed like the world on a silver platter, wrote "No good sucker" where his signature was supposed to go. The reason: Nothing ever happened between Jackson and the Newt boys.

Indeed, no kids, no matter how much money was dangled by the tabloids, ever showed up to trade stories of Jackson malfeasance for big lumps of cash after the first scandal broke in 1993.

"Maybe there aren't any other kids," a current Enquirer editor conceded.

I met Bobby Newt yesterday near the office where he works as a mortgage broker in suburban Los Angeles.

Just as his dad promised me a few days earlier, he's a good-looking kid. He's half black and half Chinese.

Robert and his twin brother were likely very cute kids. They have the same features as other boys advertised as alleged Neverland "victims." But all Bobby Newt remembers of his encounter with Jackson is good times.

And all he remembers about the man from The National Enquirer is that he wanted Bobby, then 18, to lie.

"He said, 'Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,'" Newt said. "He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told us he took all these other famous people down. All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, 'We take these people down. That's what we do.'"

Prior to Bobby's meeting with Mitteager, Bobby's father met with him and brought along an intermediary, San Francisco politician, businessman and fellow jailbird Charlie Walker.

Walker is infamous in San Francisco circles for being "hooked up" to anything interesting cooking on the West Coast.

"My dad said these dudes are offering this money to take Michael Jackson down. And the guy [Mitteager] said, 'Say he touched you. All you have to do is say it. But you might have to take the stand. You might have to go on 'Oprah' in front of all these people. You have to be prepared for this thing. Just say it. And we'll give you money,'" Newt said.

Two pieces of evidence confirm the Newts' story. One is the actual contract proffered by the Enquirer and signed by Perel, who declined to comment for this story.

The contract, written as a letter, says it's an agreement between the tabloid and the Newts for their exclusive story regarding "your relationship with and knowledge of Michael Jackson, and his sexuality, your knowledge of Michael Jackson's sexual contact and attempts at sexual contact with Robert Newt and others."

Mitteager expected them to sign, even though it was completely untrue and there was, in fact, no story.

He knew you were lying, I reminded Bobby Newt.

"Exactly! And he didn't care! He was like, 'Just say it and we'll give you the money.' And I was like, 'He [Jackson] never touched me!" Newt said. "He [Mitteager] was really fishing and really digging. Think about it — most people you say it to, 'We'll give you this money,' even [if it's not true]. And they'd take it."

Bobby Newt recalled more details of the 30-minute meeting with The National Enquirer's reporter:

"He was trying to coach me — if I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said 'You know, it's going to be a huge scandal. You'll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You're going to be famous!' But to me, you'd be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn't do anything even close to trying to molest us."

Ironically, the second piece of evidence also backs up the Newts' story. Unbeknownst to them, they were taped by Mitteager.

I told you last week that Mitteager did more surreptitious taping than Richard Nixon. When he died, the tapes were left to Hollywood investigator Paul Barresi. His dozens of hours of tapes include a conversation between Mitteager, Ron Newt Sr. and Charlie Walker.

When I read some of the transcript back to Newt the other day, he was shocked.

"I said all that," he observed, surprised to have his memory prodded some 12 years later.

Back in the mid-'80s, Ron Newt Sr. put his three sons together as a singing group much as Joseph Jackson did. He called them The Newtrons.

After much pushing, he got the attention of Joe Jackson, who agreed to manage the group. Joe Jackson got the Newtrons a showcase at the Roxy in West Hollywood.

Michael showed up and loved them. The result was a two-week stay for the boys at the Encino house on Hayvenhurst Ave., where they were supposed to work on their music.

"We would see Michael in passing. We didn't see him, maybe, because he was working on an album. We saw him downstairs in the kitchen and we talked to him," he said.

The Newtrons eventually got a record contract and recorded the Jackson 5 hit "I Want You Back" at Hayvenhurst. They also spent the night at Tito Jackson's house. But nothing about what Bobby Newt hears now about himself or others makes sense.

"I don't know what to believe. He had prime time with me and my brother in the guest room for two weeks," he said. "And he didn't try anything."

As a footnote to all of this: In the small world of the Los Angeles music business, Bobby Newt recently worked with choreographer and alleged Jackson "victim" Wade Robson on tracks for his first album, a potential hit compendium of original R&B ballads.

Jackson's former maid Blanca Francia implicated Robson in the case during Monday's testimony. Robson is not testifying for the prosecution.

"Wade is straight as they come. He's getting married. And nothing ever happened to him, either," Newt said.

He shakes his head, thinking about those who have made claims against Jackson.

"You have to look at these people, go back and see when their relationship with Michael fractured. The calls stopped coming," he said.

And Newt should know. After the adventure in 1985, the Newts never saw Jackson again. It didn't bother them, Bobby says, as much as it might have others.

"They probably didn't like it. And this is their way of getting back at him," he said.







Steve Dennis‏ @SteveDennis71 
Steve Dennis Retweeted Daily Mail Celebrity

The #MichaelJackson coverage has descended into absurdity. Facts and credibility be damned. Part of the embittered "Neverland 5" staff, this maid's testimony and reliability was cut to shreds at 2005 trial. She even admitted lying "the whole time" in a '93 sworn #MJ deposition.

Daily Mail Celebrity‏ @DailyMailCeleb
EXCLUSIVE: Michael Jackson's former maid claims she fished little boy's underwear from his Jacuzzi and he had tapes of sex acts with children








From 2011
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles- ... mg00000004

Charles Thomson,

Award-winning writer

One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History

06/13/2010 07:28 pm ET | Updated May 25, 2011
It was five years ago today that twelve jurors unanimously acquitted Michael Jackson on various charges of child molestation, conspiracy and providing alcohol to a minor. It is difficult to know how history will remember the Michael Jackson trial. Perhaps as the epitome of western celebrity obsession. Perhaps as a 21st century lynching. Personally, I think it will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in journalistic history.


It’s not until you find yourself digging through newspaper archives and re-watching hours of TV coverage that you truly understand the magnitude of the media’s failings. It was industry-wide. No doubt, there were certain reporters and even certain publications and TV stations that overtly favored the prosecution, but many of the media’s shortcomings were institutional. In a media obsessed with soundbites, how to you reduce eight hours of testimony into two sentences and remain accurate? In an era of rolling news and instant blogging, how do you resist the temptation to dash out of the courtroom at the earliest opportunity to break news of the latest salacious allegations, even if it means missing a slice of the day’s testimony?


Looking back on the Michael Jackson trial, I see a media out of control. The sheer amount of propaganda, bias, distortion and misinformation is almost beyond comprehension. Reading the court transcripts and comparing them to the newspaper cuttings, the trial that was relayed to us didn’t even resemble the trial that was going on inside the courtroom. The transcripts show an endless parade of seedy prosecution witnesses perjuring themselves on an almost hourly basis and crumbling under cross examination. The newspaper cuttings and the TV news clips detail day after day of heinous accusations and lurid innuendo.


It was November 18th 2003 when 70 sheriffs swooped on Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch. As soon as news of the raid broke, news channels abandoned their schedules and switched to 24 hour coverage. When it emerged that Jackson was accused of molesting young cancer survivor Gavin Arvizo, the boy who famously held the singer’s hand in Martin Bashir’s ‘Living With Michael Jackson’, the media went into overdrive. Networks were so obsessed by the Jackson scandal that a terrorist attack in Turkey went almost entirely unreported, with only CNN bothering to broadcast George Bush and Tony Blair’s joint press conference about the disaster.


All three major networks immediately set about producing hour-long specials on the Jackson case, apparently undeterred by the fact that nothing was yet known about the allegations and prosecutors weren’t answering questions. CBS dedicated an episode of 48 Hours Investigates to the arrest, while NBC’s Dateline and ABC’s 20/20 also rushed out Jackson specials. Within two days of the Neverland raid, and before Jackson had even been arrested, VH1 announced a half-hour documentary called ‘Michael Jackson Sex Scandal’.


Daily Variety described the Jackson story as “a godsend for... media outlets, particularly cable news channels and local stations looking to pump up Nielsen numbers in the final week of the all-important November sweeps.”


Daily Variety was right. Celebrity-oriented news shows saw figures spike when the Jackson story hit. Viewing figures for Access Hollywood were up 10% on the previous week. Entertainment Tonight and Extra both achieved season best audience numbers and Celebrity Justice also enjoyed an 8% rise.


Newspapers reacted just as hysterically as TV stations. ‘Sicko!’ shrieked the New York Daily News. ‘Jacko: Now Get Out Of This One’ goaded the New York Post.


The Sun - Britain’s biggest newspaper - ran an article titled ‘He’s Bad, He’s Dangerous, He’s History’. The piece branded Jackson an ‘ex-black ex-superstar’, a ‘freak’ and a ‘twisted individual’ and called for his children to be taken into care. “If he weren’t a pop idol with piles of cash to hide behind,” it said, “he would have been picked up years ago.”


Encouraged by the audience boosts the Jackson scandal had produced, media outlets made it their mission to milk the case for all that they could. Entertainment Weekly’s Tom Sinclair wrote, “Media mavens, from the tackiest tabloid reporter to the nattiest network news anchor, are in overdrive scrambling to fill column inches and airtime with Jacko scoops and talking heads.”


“Pressure on news people is enormous,” attorney Harland Braun told Sinclair. “So lawyers you’ve never heard of wind up on television talking about cases that they have no connection to.”


Sinclair added, “And not just lawyers. Everyone from doctors, writers, and psychiatrists to convenience-store clerks who once waited on Jackson are weighing in on TV and in print.”


While the media was busy badgering a host of quacks and distant acquaintances for their views on the scandal, the team of prosecutors behind the latest Jackson case was engaging in some highly questionable behavior - but the media didn’t seem to care.


During the Neverland raid District Attorney Tom Sneddon - the prosecutor who unsuccessfully pursued Jackson in 1993 - and his officers breached the terms of their own search warrant by entering Jackson’s office and seizing hoards of irrelevant business papers. They also illegally raided the office of a PI working for Jackson’s defense team and lifted defense documents from the home of the singer’s personal assistant.


Sneddon also appeared to be tampering with fundamental elements of his case whenever evidence came to light which undermined the Arvizo family’s claims. For instance, when the DA found out about two taped interviews in which the entire Arvizo family sang Jackson’s praises and denied any abuse, he introduced a conspiracy charge and claimed they’d been forced to lie against their will.


In a similar instance, Jackson’s lawyer Mark Geragos appeared on NBC in January 2004 and announced that the singer had a ‘concrete, iron-clad alibi’ for the dates on the charge sheet. By the time Jackson was re-arraigned in April for the conspiracy charge, the molestation dates on the rap sheet had been shifted by almost two weeks.


Sneddon was later caught seemingly trying to plant fingerprint evidence against Jackson, allowing accuser Gavin Arvizo to handle adult magazines during the grand jury hearings, then bagging them up and sending them away for fingerprint analysis.


Not only did the majority of the media overlook this flurry of questionable and occasionally illegal activity on the part of the prosecution, it also seemed perfectly content to perpetuate damning propaganda on the prosecution’s behalf, despite a complete lack of corroborative evidence. For example, Diane Dimond appeared on Larry King Live days after Jackson’s arrest and spoke repeatedly about a ‘stack of love letters’ the star had supposedly written to Gavin Arvizo.


“Does anyone here... know of the existence of these letters?” asked King.


“Absolutely,” Dimond replied. “I do. I absolutely know of their existence!”


“Diane, have you read them?”


“No, I have not read them.”


Dimond admitted that she’d never even seen the letters, let alone read them, but said she knew about them from “high law enforcement sources”. But those love letters never materialized. When Dimond said she ‘absolutely knew’ of their existence she was basing her comments solely on the words of police sources. At best, the police sources were parroting the Arvizos’ allegations in good faith. At worst, they’d concocted the story themselves to sully Jackson’s name. Either way, the story went around the world with not a shred of evidence to support it.


It was over a year between Jackson’s arrest and the beginning of his trial and the media was forced to try to pad the story out for as long as they could in the interim. Aware that Jackson was bound by gag order and therefore powerless to respond, prosecution sympathizers started leaking documents such as Jordan Chandler’s 1993 police statement. The media, hungry for scandal and sensationalism, pounced on them.


At the same time, allegations sold to tabloid TV shows by disgruntled ex-employees in the 1990s were constantly re-hashed and presented as news. Small details of the Arvizo family’s allegations would also periodically leak.


While most media outlets reported these stories as allegations rather than facts, the sheer amount and frequency of stories connecting Jackson to ugly sexual abuse, coupled with his inability to refute them, had a devastating effect on the star’s public image.


The trial began in early 2005 with jury selection. Asked by NBC about prosecution and defense jury selection tactics, Dimond said the difference was that prosecutors would be looking for jurors who had a sense of ‘good versus evil’ and ‘right and wrong’.


No sooner had the jurors been selected than Newsweek was trying to undermine them, claiming that a middle class jury would be unable to fairly judge a family of lower class accusers. In an article titled ‘Playing the Class Card’ the magazine said, “The Jackson trial may hinge on something other than race. And we don’t mean the evidence.”


As the trial kicked into gear, it became quickly apparent that the case was full of holes. The prosecution’s only ‘evidence’ was a stack of heterosexual porn magazines and a couple of legal art books. Thomas Mesereau wrote in a court motion, “The effort to try Mr. Jackson for having one of the largest private libraries in the world is alarming. Not since the dark day of almost three quarters of a century ago has anyone witnessed a prosecution which claimed that the possession of books by well known artists were evidence of a crime against the state.”


Gavin Arvizo’s brother, Star, took the stand early in the trial and claimed to have witnessed two specific acts of molestation but his testimony was completely inconsistent. Regarding one alleged act, he claimed in court that Jackson had been fondling Gavin, but in a previous description of the same incident he told a wildly different story, claiming Jackson had been rubbing his penis against Gavin’s buttocks. He also told two different stories about the other alleged act on two consecutive days in court.


During cross examination Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, showed the boy a copy of Barely Legal and repeatedly asked if it was the specific edition Jackson had shown him and his brother. The boy insisted that it was, only for Mesereau to reveal that it was published in August 2003; five months after the Arvizo family had left Neverland.


But this information went almost entirely unreported, the media focusing on the boy’s allegations rather than the cross examination which undermined them. Allegations make good soundbites. Complex cross examination does not.


When Gavin Arvizo took the stand, he claimed that Jackson had instigated the first act of molestation by telling him that all boys had to masturbate or else they would turn into rapists. But Mesereau showed under cross examination that the boy had previously admitted his grandmother made that comment, not Jackson, meaning that the whole molestation story was predicated on a lie.


Under cross examination the boy severely undermined the prosecution’s conspiracy charge by claiming he’d never felt afraid at Neverland and he’d never wanted to leave. His accounts of the alleged molestation also differed from his brother’s.


Unfortunately for Jackson, Gavin Arvizo’s cross examination was all but ignored as newspapers giggled and gossiped about what became known as ‘pajama day’. On the first day of the boy’s direct examination Jackson slipped in his shower, bruised his lung and was rushed to hospital. When Judge Rodney Melville ordered a bench warrant for Jackson’s arrest unless he arrived within an hour, the singer sped to the courthouse in the pajama trousers he’d been wearing when he was rushed to hospital.


The photographs of Jackson in his pajamas went all over the word, often with no mention of Jackson’s injury or the reason he was wearing them. Many journalists accused Jackson of faking the entire event in order to gain sympathy, although sympathetic is the last word you’d use to describe the media’s reaction.


The incident didn’t stop the media from sending Gavin Arvizo’s lurid allegations around the world the following day. Some outlets even ran the boy’s testimony as fact rather than conjecture. “He Said If Boys Don’t Do It They Might Turn Into Rapists - Cancer Boy Gavin Tells Court of Jacko Sex,” wrote The Mirror.


But the boy’s cross examination was another story. It went almost completely unreported. Instead of stories about Gavin Arvizo’s lies and the two brothers’ contradictory allegations, newspaper pages were filled with snarky opinion pieces about Jackson’s pajamas, even though ‘pajama day’ had been days previously. Thousands of words were dedicated to whether or not Jackson wore a wig and the Sun even ran an article attacking Jackson for the accessories he pinned to his waistcoats every day. It seemed like the press would write anything to avoid discussing the boy’s cross examination, which severely undermined the prosecution’s case.


This habit of reporting lurid allegations but ignoring the cross examination which discredited them became a distinct trend throughout Jackson’s trial. In an April 2005 interview with Matt Drudge, Fox columnist Roger Friedman explained, “What’s not reported is that the cross examination of these witnesses is usually fatal to them.” He added that whenever anybody said anything salacious or dramatic about Jackson, the media ‘went running outside to report on it’ and missed the subsequent cross examination.


Drudge agreed, adding, “You’re not hearing how witness after witness is disintegrating on the stand. There is not one witness, at least lately, that hasn’t admitted to perjuring themselves in previous proceedings either in this case or in some other case.”


This alarming trend of ignoring cross examination was perhaps most apparent in the media’s coverage of Kiki Fournier’s testimony. Under direct examination by the prosecution, Fournier - a Neverland housekeeper - testified that when at Neverland children often became unruly and she had sometimes seen children so hyperactive that they could, feasibly, have been intoxicated. The media scurried outside to report this apparent bombshell and missed one of the most significant pieces of testimony in the entire trial.


Under cross examination by Thomas Mesereau, Fournier said that during the Arvizo family’s final weeks at Neverland - the period during which the molestation supposedly happened - the two boys’ guest room had been constantly messy, leading her to believe they’d been sleeping in their own quarters all along - not Michael Jackson’s bedroom.


She also testified that Star Arvizo had once pulled a knife on her in the kitchen, explaining that she did not feel it had been intended as a joke and that she thought he’d been ‘trying to assert some sort of authority’.


In a devastating blow to the prosecution’s increasingly hilarious conspiracy charge, Fournier laughed at the idea that anybody could be held prisoner at Neverland Ranch, telling the jurors that there was no high fence around the property and the family could have walked out at any time ‘with ease’.


When Gavin and Star’s mother Janet Arvizo took the stand Tom Sneddon was seen with his head in his hands. She claimed that a videotape of herself and her children praising Jackson had been scripted word for word by a German man who barely spoke English. In outtakes she was seen singing Jackson’s praises then looking embarrassed and asking if she was being recorded. She said that had been scripted too.


She claimed she’d been held hostage at Neverland even though log books and receipts showed that she’d left the ranch and returned on three occasions during the period of ‘captivity’. It became apparent that she was currently under investigation for welfare fraud and had also been falsely obtaining money on the back of her son’s illness, holding benefits to pay for his cancer treatment when he was already covered by insurance.


Even the most ardent prosecution supporters had to admit that Janet Arvizo was a disastrous witness for the state. Except Diane Dimond, who in March 2005 seemed to use Janet Arvizo’s welfare fraud (she was convicted in the wake of Jackson’s trial) as roundabout proof of Jackson’s guilt, signing off a New York Post article with the gob smacking line, “Pedophiles don’t target kids with Ozzie and Harriet parents.”


Watching their case crumble before their eyes, the prosecution applied to the judge for permission to admit evidence of ‘prior bad acts’. Permission was granted. Prosecutors told the jury they would hear evidence of five former victims. But those five prior cases turned out to be even more laughable than the Arvizos’ claims.


A parade of disgruntled security guards and housekeepers took the stand to testify that they had witnessed molestation, much of it carried out on three boys; Wade Robson, Brett Barnes and Macauley Culkin. But those three boys were the defense’s first three witnesses, each of them testifying that Jackson had never touched them and they resented the implication.


Moreover, it was revealed that each of these former employees had been fired by Jackson for stealing from his property or had lost a wrongful termination suit and wound up owing Jackson huge amounts of money. They’d also neglected to tell the police when they supposedly witnessed this molestation, even when questioned in connection with Jordy Chandler’s 1993 allegations, but subsequently tried to sell stories to the press - sometimes successfully. The more money on the table, the more salacious the allegations became.


Roger Friedman complained in an interview with Matt Drudge that the media was ignoring the cross examination of the ‘prior bad acts’ witnesses, resulting in skewed reporting. He said, “When Thursday started, that first hour was with this guy Ralph Chacon who had worked at the Ranch as a security guard. He told the most outrageous story. It was so graphic. And of course everybody went running outside to report on it. But there were ten minutes right before the first break on Thursday when Tom Mesereau got up and cross examined this guy and obliterated him.”


The fourth ‘victim’, Jason Francia, took the stand and claimed that when he was a child, Jackson had molested him on three separate occasions. Pushed for details of the ‘molestation’, he said Jackson had tickled him three times outside his clothes and he’d needed years of therapy to get over it. The jury was seen rolling their eyes but reporters including Dan Abrams heralded him as ‘compelling’, predicting that he could be the witness who put Jackson behind bars.


The media repeatedly claimed that Francia’s allegations had been made in 1990, leading audiences to believe that the Jordy Chandler allegations were predated. In actuality, although Jason Francia claimed that the acts of molestation occurred in 1990, he didn’t report them until after the media storm over Chandler’s claims, at which point his mother, Neverland maid Blanca Francia, promptly extracted $20,000 from Hard Copy for an interview with Diane Dimond and another $2.4million in a settlement from Jackson.


Moreover, transcripts from police interviews showed that the Francia had repeatedly changed his story and had originally insisted that he’d never been molested. Transcripts also showed that he only said he was molested after police officers repeatedly overstepped the mark during interviews. Officers repeatedly referred to Jackson as a ‘molester’. On one occasion they told the boy that Jackson was molesting Macauley Culkin as they spoke, claiming that the only way they could rescue Culkin was if Francia told them he’d been sexually abused by the star. Transcripts also showed that Francia had previously said of the police, “They made me come up with stuff. They kept pushing. I wanted to hit them in the head.”


The fifth ‘victim’ was Jordy Chandler, who fled the country rather than testify against his former friend. Thomas Mesereau said in a Harvard lecture later that year, “The prosecutors tried to get him to show up and he wouldn’t. If he had, I had witnesses who were going to come in and say he told them it never happened and that he would never talk to his parents again for what they made him say. It turned out he’d gone into court and got legal emancipation from his parents.”


June Chandler, Jordy’s mother, testified that she hadn’t spoken to her son in 11 years. Questioned about the 1993 case, she seemed to suffer from a severe case of selective memory. At one point she claimed she couldn’t remember being sued by Michael Jackson and at another she said she’d never heard of her own attorney. She also never witnessed any molestation.


When the prosecution rested, the media seemed to lose interest in the trial. The defense case was given comparatively little newspaper space and air time. The Hollywood Reporter, which had been diligently reporting on the Jackson trial, missed out two whole weeks of the defense case. The attitude seemed to be that unless the testimony was graphic and salacious - unless it made a good soundbite - it wasn’t worth reporting.


The defense called numerous fantastic witnesses; boys and girls who had stayed with Jackson time and again and never witnessed any inappropriate behavior, employees who had witnessed the Arvizo boys helping themselves to alcohol in Jackson’s absence and celebrities who had also been targeted for handouts by the accuser. But little of this testimony was relayed to the public. When DA Tom Sneddon referred to black comic Chris Tucker as ‘boy’ during his cross examination, the media didn’t bat an eyelid.


When both sides rested jurors were told that if they found reasonable doubt, they had to acquit. Anybody who had been paying attention to proceedings could see that the doubt was so far beyond reasonable it wasn’t even funny. Almost every single prosecution witness either perjured themselves or wound up helping the defense. There wasn’t a shred of evidence connecting Jackson to any crime and there wasn’t a single credible witness connecting him to a crime either.


But that didn’t stop journalists and pundits from predicting guilty verdicts, CNN‘s Nancy Grace leading the way. Defense attorney Robert Shapiro, who had once represented the Chandler family, stated with certainty on CNN, “He’s going to be convicted.” Ex-prosecutor Wendy Murphy told Fox News, “There is no question we will see convictions here.”


The hysteria of the fans outside the courthouse was mirrored by that of the reporters who secured seats inside, who were so excitable that Judge Rodney Melville ordered them to ‘restrain themselves’. Thomas Mesereau commented retrospectively that the media had been “almost salivating about having [Jackson] hauled off to jail.”


When the jury delivered 14 ‘not guilty’ verdicts, the media was ‘humiliated’, Mesereau said in a subsequent interview. Media analyst Tim Rutten later commented, “So what happened when Jackson was acquitted on all counts? Red faces? Second thoughts? A little soul-searching, perhaps? Maybe one expression of regret for the rush to judgment? Naaawww. The reaction, instead, was rage liberally laced with contempt and the odd puzzled expression. Its targets were the jurors... Hell hath no fury like a cable anchor held up for scorn.”


In a post-verdict news conference Sneddon continued to refer to Gavin Arvizo as a ‘victim’ and said he suspected that the ‘celebrity factor’ had impeded the jury’s judgment - a line many media pundits swiftly appropriated as they set about undermining the jurors and their verdicts.


Within minutes of the announcement, Nancy Grace appeared on CourtTV to allege that jurors had been seduced by Jackson’s fame and bizarrely claim that the prosecution’s only weak link had been Janet Arvizo.


“I’m having a crow sandwich right now,” she said. “It doesn’t taste very good. But you know what? I’m also not surprised. I thought that celebrity is such a big factor. When you think you know somebody, when you have watched their concerts, listened to their records, read the lyrics, believed they were coming from somebody’s heart... Jackson is very charismatic, although he never took the stand. That has an effect on this jury.


“I’m not gonna throw a stone at the mom, although I think she was the weak link in the state’s case, but the reality is I’m not surprised. I thought that the jury would vote in favor of the similar transaction witnesses. Apparently the defense overwhelmed them with the cross-examining of the mother. I think it boils down to that, plain and simple.”


Grace later stated that Jackson was ‘not guilty by reason of celebrity’ and was seen attempting to hound jury foreman Paul Rodriguez into saying he believed Jackson had molested children. One of Grace’s guests, psychoanalyst Bethany Marshall, leveled personal attacks towards one female juror, saying, “This is a woman who has no life.”


Over on Fox News, Wendy Murphy branded Jackson ‘the Teflon molester’ and said that the jurors needed IQ tests. She later added, “I really think it’s the celebrity factor, not the evidence. I don’t think the jurors even understand how influenced they were by who Michael Jackson is... They basically put targets on the backs of all, especially highly vulnerable, kids that will now come into Michael Jackson’s life.”


Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin told CNN that he thought the ‘prior bad acts’ testimony had been ‘effective evidence’, even though various boys at the heart of that testimony had taken the stand as defense witnesses and denied ever being molested. He also claimed that the defense had won because “they could tell a story, and juries, you know, always understand stories rather than sort of individual facts.”


Only Robert Shapiro was dignified in the face of the verdicts, telling viewers that they should accept the jurors’ decision because the jurors were from “a very conservative part of California and if they had no doubt, none of us should have any doubt.”


The following day on Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer upheld the notion that the verdict had been influenced by Jackson’s celebrity status. “Are you sure?” she pleaded. “Are you sure that this gigantically renowned guy walking into the room had no influence at all?”


The Washington Post commented, “An acquittal doesn’t clear his name, it only muddies the water.” Both the New York Post and the New York Daily News ran with the snide headline ‘Boy, Oh, Boy!’


In her final New York Post article about the trial, Diane Dimond bemoaned the not guilty verdict, saying that it left Michael Jackson untouchable. She wrote, “He walked out of court a free man, not guilty on all counts. But Michael Jackson is so much more than free. He now has carte blanche to live his life any way he wants, with whomever he wants, because who would ever try to prosecute Michael Jackson now?”


In Britain’s Sun newspaper, celebrity rent-a-gob and talking head extraordinaire Jane Moore penned an article titled ‘If the jury agree Janet Arvizo is a bad mum (and she IS)... How did they let Jackson off?’ It began: “Michael Jackson is innocent. Justice has been done. Or so the loony tunes gathered outside the courthouse would have us believe.” She went on to question the jurors’ mental capacity and dismiss the American legal system as ‘half-baked’. “Nothing and no one truly emerges as a winner from this sorry mess,” she finished, “least of all what they laughably call American ‘justice’.”


Sun contributor Ally Ross dismissed Jackson’s fans as ‘sad, solitary dick-wits’. Another Sun article, penned by daytime TV presenter Lorraine Kelly, titled ‘Don’t forget the kids still at risk... Jacko’s own’, overtly labeled Jackson a guilty man. Kelly - who never attended Jackson’s trial - bemoaned the fact that Jackson ‘got away with it’, complaining that “instead of languishing in jail, Jackson is now back home in Neverland.” Jackson, she concluded, was “a sad, sick loser who uses his fame and money to dazzle the parents of children he takes a shine to.”


After the initial outrage, the Michael Jackson story slipped out of the headlines. There was little analysis of the not guilty verdicts and how they were reached. An acquittal was considered less profitable than a conviction.


Indeed, Thomas Mesereau said in later years that if Jackson had been convicted it would have created a ‘cottage industry’ for the media, generating a story a day for years to come. Long-running sagas like custody of Jackson’s children, control of his financial empire, other ‘victims’ filing civil suits and the long-winded appeals process would have generated thousands of stories each for months, years, perhaps even decades.


Jackson’s imprisonment would have created a never ending supply of gratuitous headlines; Who is visiting? Who isn’t? Is he in solitary confinement? If not, who are his cellmates? What about his prison wardens? Does he have a prison pen-pal girlfriend? Can we fly a helicopter over the prison yard and film him exercising? The possibilities were endless. A bidding war was raging over who would get the first leaked images of Jackson in his cell before the jury even began its deliberations.


A not guilty verdict was not quite so lucrative. In an interview with Newsweek, CNN boss Jonathan Klein recalled watching the not guilty verdicts come in and then telling his deputies, “We have a less interesting story now.” The Hollywood Reporter noted that hastily assembled TV specials about Jackson’s acquittal performed badly and were beaten in the ratings by a re-run of Nanny 911.


The story was over. There were no apologies and no retractions. There was no scrutiny - no inquiries or investigations. Nobody was held to account for what was done to Michael Jackson. The media was content to let people go on believing their heavily skewed and borderline fictitious account of the trial. That was that.


When Michael Jackson died the media went into overdrive again. What drugs had killed him? How long had he been using them? Who had prescribed them? What else was in his system? How much did he weigh?


But there was one question nobody seemed to want to ask: Why?


Why was Michael Jackson so stressed and so paranoid that he couldn’t even get a decent night’s sleep unless somebody stuck a tube full of anesthetic into his arm? I think the answer can be found in the results of various polls conducted in the wake of Michael Jackson’s trial.


A poll conducted by Gallup in the hours after the verdict showed that 54% of White Americans and 48% of the overall population disagreed with the jury’s decision of ‘not guilty’. The poll also found that 62% of people felt Jackson’s celebrity status was instrumental in the verdicts. 34% said they were ‘saddened’ by the verdict and 24% said they were ‘outraged’. In a Fox News poll 37% of voters said the verdict was ‘wrong’ while an additional 25% said ‘celebrities buy justice’. A poll by People Weekly found that a staggering 88% of readers disagreed with the jury’s decision.


The media did a number on its audience and it did a number on Jackson. After battling his way through an exhausting and horrifying trial, riddled with hideous accusations and character assassinations, Michael Jackson should have felt vindicated when the jury delivered 14 unanimous not guilty verdicts. But the media’s irresponsible coverage of the trial made it impossible for Jackson to ever feel truly vindicated. The legal system may have declared him innocent but the public, on the whole, still thought otherwise. Allegations which were disproven in court went unchallenged in the press. Shaky testimony was presented as fact. The defense’s case was all but ignored.


When asked about those who doubted the verdicts, the jury replied, “They didn’t see what we saw.”


They’re right. We didn’t. But we should have done. And those who refused to tell us remain in their jobs unchecked, unpunished and free to do exactly the same thing to anybody they desire.


Now that’s what I call injustice.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 8 febbraio 2019, 10:42

Samar @TheMJAP‏ @TheMJAP
When Michael Jackson's defense attorney, Thomas Mesereau, asked Adrian McManus how many times she'd lied under oath, she told the court, "The whole time," she said. "I believe I didn't tell the truth."










Samar @TheMJAP‏ @TheMJAP
Adrian McManus was part of the "Neverland 5" - a group of petty criminals who tried to sue Michael Jackson for unfair dismissal. They lost their case, and owed MJ $1.5 Million Dollars in costs.

McManus, herself, was ordered to pay Michael $35,000 for stealing items from his home







HBO Said to be Reconsidering Showing Controversial Michael Jackson Documentary After Estate Complains





“Leaving Neverland” may not be ready for prime time, after all.

I’m hearing that Dan Reed’s controversial documentary that portrays Michael Jackson as a pedophile may not show up on HBO’s schedule as planned.

Apparently Jackson’s estate lawyer Howard Weitzman, according to sources, has sent HBO very tough communications about the downside of libeling the King of Pop even in death.

The documentary is incredibly one-sided according to those who saw it at Sundance. It gives only specious claims by Wade Robson and James Safechuck, includes no defense of Jackson or any kind of counterbalance.

HBO’s documentary division is so well respected that I’m told Weitzman’s criticisms, as well those voiced in other places including this column, may wind up killing the doc’s presentation.

No one would accuse HBO of caving in, but rather having a thoughtful re-evaluation of the material at hand. Robson and Safechuck could not find a court of law to help them. An unbalanced documentary would cause damage to Jackson’s reputation that the Estate would have to spend a lifetime correcting.

Also, there may be interference from HBO’s new owner, AT&T. They may not be so keen to see lots of bad press from claims that can’t be backed up. So far the only endorsements the doc is getting are from completely discredited former Neverland employees who were also bounced out of court in the 90s after selling their stories to the tabloids.

I saw revived claims yesterday from Adrian McManus, one of the infamous former Neverlanders who thought they could cash in after Jackson’s payoff to Jordan Chandler was revealed in the 90s. They are, like the stories made up by other staff who were kicked out at that time, ridiculous. Some of them testified against Jackson in 2005, and they were completely unbelievable. If HBO is going to rely on that gang, they should definitely reconsider. https://www.showbiz411.com/2019/02/0...tate-complains

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 8 febbraio 2019, 14:57

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.co ... legations/
The Wade Robson Allegations (summary version)

Posted on September 23, 2018 by jacksonallegations


On May 1, 2013 Wade Robson filed a creditor’s claim/civil lawsuit against Michael Jackson’s Estate and companies for a monetary compensation with claims of childhood sexual abuse by the entertainer. This was a shocker, because Robson previously always defended Jackson against such allegations and denied that anything like that had ever happened to him. So what happened? In this section of the document we will go through the process of Robson’s changing of his story, the circumstances surrounding it, and the legal proceedings in this case.

Wade Robson on the Today’s Show in May 2013

Wade Robson is a dancer-choreographer, whose career peaked in the early 2000’s as a choreographer for artists like the boy band, NSYNC or teen idol, Britney Spears. As a child he was mentored by Michael Jackson when he and his family moved to the United States from Australia.

Over the years, both as a child and as an adult, Wade Robson always defended Jackson privately and publicly alike, and often volunteered to do so. At no times did he give any hint of distress or confusion while talking about Jackson, he always seemed very open and genuine about their friendship. There are also no stories of him telling anyone or hinting to anyone, either publicly or privately, that he had been sexually abused.

In 1993, when the Chandler allegations became public, the police contacted many families and their children who had spent time with Michael Jackson over the years, including the Robsons. Wade Robson (who at the time was 10-11 years old), his mother or any of their family members never said anything incriminating about Jackson during that investigation. In fact, they defended him in a police interview, in a Grand Jury testimony and even in a television interview.

In 2005, during the Gavin Arvizo criminal trial, this time as an adult man, Robson continued to defend Jackson. He testified at the trial and denied ever having been sexually abused by Jackson.

Robson continued to defend Jackson privately and publicly alike.

His mother, Joy Robson (who is supportive of Wade and accepts whatever her son claims now) said in her 2016 deposition: “[Wade] would look me in the eye time and time again and tell me that nothing ever happened. He should have had an Oscar. He was very convincing.”

That was up until May 8, 2012 when he changed his story.

So what happened? Why and how did Robson change his story after all those years of defending Jackson?

His claim is that it was not until 2012 that he realized that Jackson had sexually abused him as a child. He does not claim repressed memories, he claims that he has always remembered what he now alleges happened to him – only he did not know until 2012 that it was sexual abuse and that it was wrong.

That is a quite incredible claim considering that during the 2005 trial Wade was already an adult man and it was discussed everywhere how wrong such alleged acts would be and how there would be nothing consensual about sexual relations between a child and an adult. Another thing to consider is that when the Arvizo allegations became public, just a couple of days later, Robson was asked about them in an interview and he said: “I never had that experience and I hope that it never happened to anybody else”. That sounds like a man who fully understood that a sexual relationship between a man and a child would be wrong. And please consider that, among other things, Wade claims things like anal rape.

He also offered other various, contradictory claims about why he didn’t tell his alleged “truth” until 2012. In one version Jackson told him that both of them would go to jail if anyone ever found out, and Robson supposedly believed that until 2012. This seems to contradict the claim that he did not know it was wrong until 2012: if it is something to go to jail for then it is certainly something wrong.

According to yet another version, that he told his mother Joy Robson (as per her deposition), he denied being abused at the 2005 trial because he felt shame about it. Joy Robson: “He told me that — he told me that after he told us about the abuse, when he talked about the trial, and that’s why he didn’t want to testify. Because if he told the truth, it would be the shame.”

But Wade contradicted that in his own deposition. There he was on his version where he didn’t know in 2005 yet that what allegedly was done to him as a child was wrong, so he did not feel any shame or guilt about it either at the time.


Question: When you testified at the criminal trial in 2005, did you feel a sense of shame of what had happened between you and Michael?

Wade Robson: “No. I didn’t, I didn’t have any, as I stated, I didn’t have any perspective on it.”

(…)

“I didn’t know that at the time. I didn’t know that at any, at any time until post May 2012.”

Wade also made the claim that both in 1993 and in 2005, when he was already an adult man, Jackson allegedly coached him on the phone in the form of a “role play” and that supposedly made him a masterful liar – or a “master of deception”, as he put it – for more than two decades. What was this powerful “role play” that supposedly made Wade such a convincing “liar” both as a child and an adult?

Well, Jackson allegedly told Robson on the phone: “They are making up all these lies about you and me, saying that we did all this disgusting sexual stuff. They are just trying to take US down, take away my power and my money, take away OUR careers. We can’t let them do this. We have to fight them together.”

That’s it. That is the sophisticated, powerful “coaching” and “role playing” method that supposedly made Robson a masterful, Oscar-worthy “liar” for more than two decades.

Although, interestingly, in his 2016 deposition Wade commented at a point that it was his perspective NOW that this was some sort of role play. It sounded like a hindsight re-evaluation of something that at face value would rather point to Jackson’s innocence. After all, when an abuser talks directly to his victim they would both know the abuse happened, so it makes no sense for an abuser to deny it and call it “lies” while talking about it directly to his victim. Robson also claims here that Jackson had told him that what was alleged was “disgusting sexual stuff”, which goes against Wade’s claim elsewhere that Jackson taught him to believe that such acts were “an expression of love” and because of that he never realized until 2012 that he was allegedly sexually abused. Here he quotes Jackson himself telling him that such acts would be “disgusting sexual stuff”, so how would that not ring a bell to an adult man, like Wade was in 2005, that something was wrong with that picture, after all?

There is no claim that Jackson told Robson in a direct manner before his 2005 testimony what to say or how to testify on the stand. All Robson can claim is this supposed “role playing” on the phone.

Think about it: if Jackson had really molested Wade, it would have been incredible risk-taking on his part, both in 1993 and 2005, to put this guy on the stand (in 2005 as his first witness) and to rely on such lame supposed “role plays”, and hope not only that Wade would understand what Jackson wanted with those cryptic comments on the phone, but also that he would surely go along with it and would know exactly what to say, how to behave on the stand and how to be convincing.

In a draft for a book that Wade was shopping about his allegations in late 2012-early 2013 (more about that later), he explains his consistent, convincing denial of sexual abuse by describing himself as “a master of deception”.

But was Wade Robson a master of deception all those years while he denied sexual abuse, or is he a master of deception now, when he changed his story and filed a lawsuit amidst monetary demands? Once someone is a self-admitted master of deception, how do you decide WHEN he is deceiving you?

Because let’s not forget: One is under oath and under a penalty of perjury while testifying at a criminal trial AND also while making a declaration or testifying at a deposition in a civil case. That means there is no way around it: Wade Robson is a proven liar who has no qualms about lying under oath and under a penalty of perjury. He either lied in 2005 or he is lying now that he has changed his story and filed a lawsuit with monetary demands.

Let’s investigate further!

A Failed Prophecy

On June 25, 2009 Michael Jackson passed away. Wade and his family mourned him and they went to his public memorial. After Jackson’s death Wade had nothing but praise for Jackson, just like during his lifetime.

In an exclusive book, The Official Michael Jackson Opus that was published in late 2009, Wade made an entry in which he wrote among others: “Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of human kind.”

He also wrote an e-mail to Jeff Thacker, Co-Executive Producer of So You Think You Can Dance saying “I wanted to write you now so if you guys are thinking of doing any dance tribute to MJ on the show, I would like it to be me who does it.”

He also participated in a tribute by Janet Jackson to her brother at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards. In an e-mail dated October 8, 2009 Wade asks James Phares, director Kenny Ortega’s personal assistant, if his family could get an invitation to the premier of the This Is It movie (a movie made of Jackson’s final rehearsals).

For several years after Jackson’s death, up until 2011, Wade continued to praise Jackson in various media interviews.

In November 2010 Wade and his wife Amanda had a son. A month later, in December, Wade was offered to direct the dance movie, Step Up Revolution, and he accepted the offer. According to his court papers and a blog post he wrote in November 2017, he considered this as the fulfillment of Michael Jackson’s “prophecy” to him as a child that he would become a movie director of “epic proportions”, bigger than Steven Spielberg.

In early 2011 Wade crumbled under the pressures of the job, which triggered a nervous breakdown in him, made him pull out of the project and left him purposeless.

He wrote about it in a blog post in 2017: “Additionally, I was now ravaged by a de-habilitating feeing (sic) of shame that I was a complete failure. I felt that my entire life had been building to this opportunity to become a Film Director. It had arrived, I was fulfilling Michael’s prophecy, and then I blew it, therefore my entire life, I believed, had been in vein. Thank God I had [his wife] Amanda and our baby boy because beyond that, I felt no purpose anymore.”

Wade Goes into Therapy

On May 16, 2011, after his nervous breakdown due to the “failed prophecy” of him becoming a film director of epic proportions, Wade went into therapy. He did not make any allegations of childhood sexual abuse to his therapist or anyone at all.

On May 21, 2011, so only five days after he started therapy, Wade wrote an e-mail to a director of Cirque du Soleil, begging him to let him direct and/or choreograph Cirque’s Michael Jackson themed Las Vegas show called “ONE”. “I always wanted to do this MJ show, badly”, Wade wrote in the e-mail.

Cirque du Soleil told Wade that he needed to be validated by Michael Jackson’s Estate, so Wade met with John Branca, the executor of the Michael Jackson Estate, in Branca’s Los Angeles office where they discussed Wade’s ambition to be involved in the project.

During John Branca’s deposition in 2017, Wade’s lawyers suggested that Wade was eventually hired to do the Cirque show. Branca, however, answered: “Huh. That’s another — another Wade Robson fantasy.” According to Branca, they decided that Jamie King was better qualified for the job and they picked him, rather than Wade. Branca speculated at one point in his deposition that it would be possible that as the director of the show, Jamie King might have hired Wade in some lower position, such as a dancer, but he insisted he was definitely not hired in a leading creative role, such as a director or a lead choreographer that would be validated by the Estate.

Despite of that, in a July 30, 2011 interview, Wade talked about it as if he had a main role in doing the Cirque show. In this interview he praises Jackson again. This was only a couple of months before he made his U-turn and first started making allegations against the star.

In March 2012, about a year after his first breakdown, Wade suffered a second nervous breakdown. He went to a new therapist in April 2012 where he started an insight-oriented therapy. According to his story, about three weeks into the therapy, on May 8, 2012, he first started making allegations of child sexual abuse against Michael Jackson to his therapist, or anyone at all.

So what happened between Robson’s first therapy in 2011 and his second in 2012? How did he come from praising Jackson and wanting to work on Cirque du Soleil’s Michael Jackson show “badly” in 2011, to claiming childhood sexual abuse by Jackson in May 2012?

Wade now claims that what triggered his “realization” that he had allegedly been sexually abused by Jackson as a child was watching his one and a half years old son and imagining and visualizing him being sexually abused – things that he now alleges had happened to him when he was 7-14 years of age. Apparently he needed to imagine and visualize his infant son being sexually abused to be able to muster up any emotion that he could build on in his own story of alleged childhood sexual abuse.

“[O]ften in therapy I would hit a wall when trying to connect to my younger self. But similar as to what inspired me to disclose in the first place: having visual flashes of my son being sexually abused and feeling so viscerally in response to them, in therapy, my Son became a profound access point to little Wade. Upon difficulty connecting with my younger self, I would often envision my son in the traumatic scenario from my past that I was trying to process. I could then feel it deeply, tap into what little Wade was feeling, and what he really needed, to heal”, Wade wrote on his blog.

Mind you, visualizing things that he wanted to turn into “reality” was no stranger to Wade. In a 2002 interview he said: “Learn how to visualize. If (you) have a goal you’ve got to visualize every little aspect of it. You know, if I want to do a song for somebody, and I really want it happen, I’ll put myself in the situation. I’ll visualize what the studio looks like when we’re recording, I’ll picture myself walking to go get coffee, simple little things. But it just places you in the situation and makes it reality before it happens and then there’s not even a question that it’s going to happen. Every time I’ve done that, wholeheartedly, it’s always happened. It’s never failed.”

In 2014 he posted a Neale Donald Wash quote on his Facebook saying: “Think ONLY what you choose to experience, say ONLY what you choose to make real, and use your mind to consciously instruct your body to do ONLY what you choose to demonstrate as your highest reality.”

Wade also claimed on his blog that what prompted him to “confess” to his therapist was a popular TED talk by Brené Brown about “The Power of Vulnerability” that he was listening to on the way to his therapist that day. The talk is about “the courage to be imperfect”. It mentions how parents commit a mistake when they raise their children to be “perfect” and want “to make sure [they] make the tennis team by fifth grade any Yale by seventh”, which echoes Wade’s life who by the age of sixteen choreographed for international stars, such as Britney Spears. The lecture seems more related to Wade’s struggle with career expectations and his struggle to be “perfect” in his job from an early childhood (that we will address soon) than sexual abuse.

So these are the things Wade now claims triggered his alleged “realization” of sexual abuse.

But when we put together all elements of his story, including elements that he omitted from his court documents, a completely different story emerges.

After his first breakdown in 2011, but still before his turnaround in 2012, Wade returned to work “with his former sense of invincibility”, as he put it in his court papers. However, for a long time he had been struggling with the expectations and pressures of his job. He completely omitted this element from his lawsuit, but from his blog posts that he has published in 201 7 and 2018 (after his lawsuit was tossed) we learn about these struggles in detail.

Moreover, the therapist he went to in 2012, Dr. Larry Shaw, is a therapist whose focus is on people in high pressure jobs, whether in business or entertainment, and especially people who are in those jobs because of their family’s high expectations of them.

Dr. Shaw wrote in an article in 2015:“The guys I’ve worked with recently have father issues, which means they had very powerful fathers, so there’s an aspect of living under the father’s shadow. They’ve got this inner dialogue that’s really their father’s voice saying, “You’re not good enough. Everyone I’ve worked with, they all want to get out of the business. They’re at the top of their game and they’re miserable.”

That THIS was Wade’s real issue indeed, is echoed in several blog posts that he wrote in 2017-2018. For example, he wrote: “[A]gain and again, I set my sights higher, believing that the achievements were just not large enough yet, and that was why I hadn’t found fulfillment and happiness. But on that quest, I never found them. On that quest, I eroded and eventually crumbled.”

“I actually became more depressed, the more success I achieved because time after time, the expectation of fulfillment and happiness was not met. It felt like climbing a mountain and every time I looked up to the summit, it had moved further out of my reach. Nothing was ever enough.

The crumbling forced me to question all that I believed to be true. What if there was no achievement or bundle of achievements that could ever make me happy? What then would be the purpose of work? What then would be the purpose of life?”

In another blog post in April 2018 he reveals that he lost his fun in dancing and music when his career got to a level where a high pressure to achieve and succeed started accompanying those activities, from when he was about 19 years of age.

In yet another blog post in January 2018 he reveals that it were the pressures to achieve and succeed those lead to his nervous breakdowns:

“In my classes, I talk about my story of external success and all of the pressure and stress that came along with that. About my fruitless search for happiness and fulfillment via my external achievements. About how I was educated out of play and learned to be devastatingly serious. And how all of this led to complete breakdowns and the (temporary) destruction of my relationship with my gifts.”

[…]

“Through this indoctrination our children learn things like, “If I’m not busy and stressed, I’m lazy and unworthy,” “If I’m not the best, I’m nobody at all,” and “Never be satisfied, always strive for more.”

This contradicts the narrative in his lawsuit about the reason for his breakdowns. There he claims that the reason was his realization of alleged sexual abuse by Jackson and that show business was now associated with sexual abuse for him because of that. Otherwise, he claims in his complaint, his career would have continued “an upward trajectory”. In his complaint he never mentions that he had a long time struggle with career pressures and expectations and THAT is the reason why he broke down.

In his declaration (so under oath), Wade claims:

“Before my final breakdown in 2012, I was on a path to major notoriety and success in my field.”

“Had it not been for the sexual abuse I suffered as a child, my emotional breakdowns as a result and my subsequent inability to return to the life that [Jackson] “prophesized” I would have, I believe my career would have continued this upward trajectory.”

As you have seen, this is quite simply not true. Based on his own blog posts his career would not have continued “this upward trajectory”. On his blog he admits that he has LONG struggled with the pressures and expectations of his job, and that those pressures and expectations were the reason for his breakdowns. Moreover, his career crumbled way BEFORE he “realized” that he had allegedly been sexually abused.

This means that the whole premise of his lawsuit about his breakdowns being a result of sexual abuse, is nothing but a lie. The reality is that the breakdowns were a result of career pressures and expectations that he couldn’t handle.

And it was a very convenient lie too: He crumbles under career pressures and expectations. According to his mother Joy Robson’s testimony, he also had financial problems at the time, and worries about how he would provide for his family with his career struggles. And THEN he suddenly “realizes” that he was allegedly sexually abused by Michael Jackson as a child – allegations that he can then use to sue Michael Jackson’s entities for money. Of course, one cannot sue for a “failed prophecy”, but one can sue if he starts alleging childhood sexual abuse.

In his deposition and on his blog Wade made claims that it was Jackson who taught him to always work and who is responsible for his unhealthy work attitudes from an early childhood. He tried to blame that on Jackson telling him things like “study the greats and become greater” or “be in the history books”. While Jackson was known to make such comments to people as a way of inspiration and motivation, Robson’s perception that this was some sort of “prophecy” that he was entitled to fulfill, and his resentment of Jackson because it did not materialize, is certainly weird.

The reality is that Wade’s mother, Joy Robson, was a very ambitious stage mom and it was her who trained her kids to work hard from an early childhood. Wade makes absolutely no mention of that in his lawsuit. However, in a 2011 podcast interview Joy Robson proudly declared that she was the driving force behind her children’s strict working attitude and schedule. Apparently she was the one who “educated her children out of play”.

Joy Robson: “[Wade and Wade’s sister Chantal] have always been busy and I think boredom breeds trouble. […] My kids worked every weekend, every school vacation, their birthday parties were backstage, their Christmas parties were backstage. No regrets.“

In an article about the Robsons from 1995, we learn: “Wade was doing three or four auditions between 3-7 pm each day. While Wade worked hard, attending audition after audition, learning lines, practising and rehearsing his dance movements, so too did Joy – his greatest supporter. The two are almost inseparable and make career decisions together.”

Also from the 1995 article (as well as from the Robsons’ testimonies in 2005 or Joy Robson’s deposition in 2016) we learn that Jackson was actually hardly present in their life at the time: “The first 18 months in LA was really tough going. We had taken six suitcases and little money and knew no-one in LA, only Michael who spent much of the time away.”

Meanwhile, on contrary to Wade’s contention that it was Jackson who taught him that he had work all the time and that he had to give up all fun of life at the altar of work, Jackson actually begged Wade’s mother to let Wade have his childhood. Joy Robson herself testified to that in her 2016 deposition. She said that Jackson “used to call me and ask — and beg me not to make Wade work all the time, to let him have his childhood”.

Despite of clear evidence that it was Wade’s mother who made her children work so hard, in Wade’s new version of his life it is Jackson who is made out to be the scapegoat for his unhealthy work attitudes, his own and his mother’s professional or personal failures and he even hints at his father’s suicide in 2002 being a result of anxiety and fear that Jackson might have been sexually abusing Wade, even though Wade’s own claim is that he never told or hinted to anyone until 2012 that he had allegedly been sexually abused. That includes his father, who did not even live with Wade, his sister and mother in the United States, but stayed back in Australia with Wade’s older brother.

Wade’s father was bipolar and according to Joy Robson’s deposition the actual issue was that he felt that his family did not care about what he was going through with his mental illness.

It has to be noted that mental illness seems to run in Robson’s family. Besides his father’s bipolar disorder, a male first cousin of Wade, also on his father’s side (son of his father’s sister), committed suicide in 2014 at the age of 30, due to depression.

On top of Wade’s career struggles and financial struggles at the time when he first made his allegations, he also had a marital crisis. According to his own deposition, his wife Amanda had a hard time handling his breakdowns and threatened to leave him if he got back to work again and didn’t get out of this cycle of breakdowns.

So this is the context in which Wade – as a quite convenient solution for all of his problems – suddenly “realized” that had allegedly been sexually abused by Michael Jackson as a child.

This U-turn made it possible for him to sue Jackson’s entities for money or to use his new found story in other ways, like seeking a lucrative book deal, since the accused is an internationally known celebrity.

Moreover, apparently his alleged “victimhood” is also something that Wade intends to build on in his new career as a selling point. In a note that he wrote to himself and that the Jackson Estate found out about and presented at his 2016 deposition, Wade stated: “My story of abuse and its effects will make me relatable/relevant.”

When asked what he meant by that, Wade said that he contemplated a career as a Vedic meditation teacher and he thought potential clients who went through childhood trauma would find someone with a similar story more relatable. The same notes also contain a sentence saying: “It’s time for me to get mine!” When asked what he meant by that Wade said he did not know.

There would also be a benefit in scapegoating someone else for his professional and personal problems and failures. With the claim of sexual abuse, Wade is suddenly seen as a “victim”, not as someone who failed in his profession and failed as the family breadwinner. The blame is shifted on someone else. Amanda surely would not leave him then.

By the way, Wade’s “memories” of the alleged abuse also “evolved” during his case. That is it to put it euphemistically that his story has changed even since he first made his allegations in 2012. There are different stories in his book draft that he was shopping late 2012- early 2013 and different ones in his lawsuit.

“So, have your memories changed as you’ve gone through that process?”, asked the Jackson companies’ lawyer at one point during Wade’s deposition in 2016. “They’ve evolved”, Wade answered.

After Wade first made claims of sexual abuse to his therapist in May 2012, he spent several months e-mailing with his mother, Joy about the events and circumstances surrounding their relationship with Jackson. From the e-mails it is clear that Wade does not have much independent memory of his own about those events, and he has to heavily rely on his mother’s recollections to construct a story for his lawsuit.

The e-mails also revealed in discovery that in late 2012-early 2013 Wade was shopping a book about his allegations. He contacted several book publishers, but apparently they all turned him down. During Wade’s deposition in 2016, Katherine Kleindienst, an attorney for the Jackson companies revealed that she spoke to Wade’s literary agent, Alan Nevins on the phone and he volunteered to her that Wade had asked for “a large amount of money” for his book. Wade denied this.

No more dance, films, entertainment?

On May 1, 2013 Wade Robson filed a civil lawsuit against Jackson’s companies and a creditor’s claim against Jackson’s Estate. In both he demanded a financial compensation. His claim was that it was due to Jackson’s alleged childhood sexual abuse of him why his career crumbled, so Jackson’s entities needed to financially compensate him for that. As we have discussed earlier, this is quite simply not true. It were the pressures and expectations of his job why he crumbled.

And this was not the only false claim in his complaint.

Wade claimed that because of Jackson’s alleged sexual abuse of him, he was no longer able to do any kind of entertainment activity because those activities were now too associated with Jackson and sexual abuse for him. He claimed that he could not dance, make music, make or even watch films any more because of those activities association with Jackson was so triggering to him.

The fact is, however, that Wade continued to do all of those activities all the while claiming in court documents that he was so traumatized by such activities’ association with Michael Jackson that he would never be able to do them again, so he needed financial compensation.

On June 19, 2015 Wade’s wife, Amanda posted a photo of Wade teaching their son to dance on her Facebook and on her Instagram. Wade also posted the same photo the same day on his own Facebook. Amanda captioned it as “Wade wisdom #1: “Don’t think. If it feels good, you’re doin it right.” Rather than it being Wade’s own wisdom, it actually echoes Michael Jackson’s philosophy in dancing and something that he would likely tell Wade as a child while teaching him to dance.
In 2015 he wrote and directed a dance video entitled “Flight”. Also in 2015, he advertised a dance session with him on his Facebook.
The same year he created a teaser trailer for a dance company. In 2016 he directed another dance video entitled “Life in Color”. On his video channel Wade also posted “making of” footage of it where he is seen dancing, directing, choreographing, laughing and – far from seeming traumatized by dancing or “unable to continue directing in any manner or capacity whatsoever” (like he claimed in his lawsuit) – having a lot of fun with the project.

Likewise in 2016, Blake McGrath, a professional dancer and choreographer with pop star ambitions, announced on his Instagram that he was working on his first music video with Wade Robson as the director/choreographer. They eventually created three music videos together – the first two heavily focused on dancing.
There are several other dance and film projects that Wade was involved in during the period when he claimed in court documents that he was unable to do such activities in any manner or capacity.

In September 2017 then, while his lawsuit was predictably heading towards dismissal, he declared himself “healed” from the bad associations regarding entertainment activities and announced his return to the dance, choreography and entertainment scene. So, the alleged bad associations and his inability to work were suddenly all gone when his lawsuit was close to dismissal.

Robson’s Creditor’s Claim

Now, a summary of Robson’s creditor’s claim and lawsuit. First, the creditor’s claim.

Under US law when someone dies, those who have any sort of claim against the deceased can file those claims against the deceased person’s Estate – this is called a creditor’s claim. There are certain statutes of limitations to file a creditor’s claim, though. A claimant has to file his creditor’s claim no later than 60 days from the date when he first has knowledge of the facts reasonably giving rise to the existence of the claim and the administration of the Estate.

In this case it meant that Robson should have filed his creditor’s claim within 60 days of when he knew both of the following: 1. that he was allegedly sexually abused as a child by Michael Jackson, 2. that Michael Jackson had an Estate.

As we have seen before, Robson claimed that he did not understand that he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson as a child until May 8, 2012. “[Robson] lacked any understanding that his long-term childhood relationship with [Jackson] included ongoing sexual abuse over a seven-year period – the acts giving rise to this claim – prior to May 8, 2012”, we read in Wade’s court petition.

In his declaration and creditor’s claim, Robson also claimed that he did not know about the administration of Michael Jackson’s Estate until March 4, 2013 when he first met with his lawyers, Henry Gradstein and Maryann Marzano: “Prior to March 4, I did not understand or was even aware that an Estate had been opened for administration or that I could seek to make a claim.”

If this was true it would put Wade within the 60 days requirement, as he filed his creditor’s claim on May 1, 2013, within 60 days of obtaining knowledge about the administration of Jackson’s Estate.

However, this is yet another lie in his complaint.

As it was revealed during discovery, Wade was well aware of Jackson’s Estate years before March 4, 2013. Like we discussed earlier, in 2011 Wade was eager to work on Cirque du Soleil’s Michael Jackson show and to discuss the show, in early 2011 he made a visit to the office of John Branca, one of the executors of the Michael Jackson Estate. Not only he knew that Jackson had an Estate, but he even negotiated with them!

Moreover, Wade’s longtime lawyer and family friend, Helen Yu, who helped him in shopping around his book in 2012-2013, discussed the Michael Jackson Estate in an interview on her law firm’s website in 2009. She mentioned the Estate’s executors, John Branca and John McClain, and she talked about how Jackson “will most likely earn more dead than alive” through his Estate.

In a ruling by Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff, the Court dismissed Wade Robson’s creditor’s claim on May 26, 2015. Although immediately after the ruling Wade’s lawyer, Maryann Marzano vowed to appeal, they eventually never did.

The Civil Lawsuit

Parallel with the creditor’s claim in the Probate Court, Wade filed a civil lawsuit against two of Jackson’s companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, also for monetary compensation.

In the lawsuit, to get the monetary compensation he desired, Wade portrayed these companies as “the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization[s] the world has known” that knowingly and deliberately “facilitated” his alleged sexual abuse.

However, his own mother’s deposition in 2016 inadvertently exposed Wade’s allegations as lies.

The Robsons, who are originally from Brisbane, Australia, first met Jackson in 1987 when he was on tour in Australia and Wade, who was 5 year old then, won a dance competition at a Target store where the prize was to meet Michael Jackson.

Wade alleged in his lawsuit: “[Robson] alleges these “meet and greets” were purposely orchestrated by MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures as a sexual grooming mechanism to acquire minor sexual abuse victims for Michael Jackson, disguised as charitable events for minors.”

First of all, the meet-and-greet was not organized by either of Jackson’s companies, but by Target, Pepsi and CBS. Wade knows that too, since in his 2005 testimony he himself made mention of Target organizing it.

More importantly, his own mother’s deposition in 2016 totally destroyed Wade’s narrative in which he attempted to portray this meet-and-greet as some sort of plot to groom him as a sexual abuse victim.

Joy Robson testified that the meet-and-greet was an event where a lot of people were present and they only had a couple of minutes with Jackson. Then Jackson invited Wade to dance on stage with him at one of his upcoming shows. According to Wade’s own deposition at the concert he did not spend any time with Jackson off stage, their only interaction was on the stage.

Their encounter would have ended there, if it was for Jackson or his companies. It was Joy Robson who then made further efforts to contact Jackson again. She, with her son, had delivered a “thank you” note to Jackson’s hotel room a couple of days later and as a result they had another meeting with the star, for about one and a half hours. Again, this would have been the end of their encounters if for Jackson or his companies.

Over the next few years Joy Robson sent Jackson letters and videos about Wade’s progress as a dancer, but they never heard back from the star. The next time they met or even talked to Jackson again was more than two years later, in 1990, when, once again, it were the Robsons who sought contact with the star, not the other way around.

How does this make the meet-and-greets “a sexual grooming mechanism to acquire minor sexual abuse victims for Michael Jackson”, as Wade alleges?

When Wade constructed his story he was well aware of the real story of how they came in touch with Jackson and that it was his mother who contacted Jackson again. So the only conclusion can be that Wade deliberately lies and twists facts in his complaint in order to implicate Jackson’s companies and receive the monetary award he desires.

In January 1990, the Robson family traveled to the USA for Wade and Chantal to perform at Disneyland with a talent school. Before leaving Australia, Joy Robson already tried to obtain contact information for Jackson by calling several Australian television channels and asking if they had any sort of contact for him. Eventually she managed to get the phone number of MJJ Productions.

While in the US, Joy Robson called MJJ Productions and Jackson’s personal assistant Norma Staikos. At Joy’s request, Staikos arranged for the Robson family to meet with Jackson at a recording studio where Jackson was working at the time.

Wade’s complaint claims about that meeting: “[Robson] is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that Ms. (Norma) Staikos was acting on behalf of MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, as a “madam” or “procurer” of child sexual abuse victims for Michael Jackson. Although disguised as another charitable “meet and greet” between [Robson], his parents and Michael Jackson, this event was purposely orchestrated by Ms. Staikos, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures as a further means for Michael Jackson to acquire another sexual abuse victim and grooming him and his parents for such.”

When you read Joy Robson’s deposition, Wade’s claims are simply absurd. According to Joy Robson’s own story, it was Joy who initiated the contact with MJJ Productions and Norma Staikos (MJJ Ventures did not even exist at the time), and her ultimate goal was, of course, to contact Michael Jackson. The companies and Staikos were incidental to that event and definitely NOT the initiators.

How does that make Norma Staikos “a “madam” or “procurer” of child sexual abuse victims for Michael Jackson” and Jackson’s companies “child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization(s)”, as Wade tries to portray them in his lawsuit?

It is clear that it was Joy Robson who “purposely orchestrated” the meeting, not Norma Staikos, MJJ Productions or MJJ Ventures. That Wade claims otherwise in his lawsuit seems to be a deliberate lie to try to implicate the Jackson companies and Norma Staikos, because that is the way Wade could sue the companies for money.

Next Robson claims in his lawsuit: “In order to arrange for their immigration to the United States, Michael Jackson had MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures hire [Robson] and his mother, and arranged for [Robson], his mother and sister to move permanently to California. [Robson] alleges this was done by Michael Jackson, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures for the explicit purpose of allowing Michael Jackson access to [Robson] for sexual abuse.”

However, according to Joy Robson’s testimony, the idea for the Robsons’ immigration to the USA came from Wade’s father, Dennis. Joy herself too wanted it: “You know, I — I believed that Wade had a future here, and I — I felt like he had gone as far as he could go in Australia. He really needed to be here”, she said in her 2016 deposition.

The role of Michael Jackson’s companies in all this was that when Joy eventually decided to immigrate in September 1991, the Robsons needed a sponsor and an employer in the USA to be able to stay. Joy Robson asked Jackson to help them with that, and Jackson instructed his office to do it.

This goes against Wade’s narrative that Jackson and his companies brought him to the USA “for the explicit purpose of allowing Michael Jackson access to [Robson] for sexual abuse”. Jackson and his companies reacted to the expressed desire of the Robson family to have a career for Wade in dancing and choreography, which could be better pursued in the USA than in Australia.

Moreover, the reality is that after the Robsons moved to the USA, Jackson did not even spend much time with them, including Wade. In actuality, in her deposition Joy Robson revealed that she had to be the one to pursue Jackson about calling Wade, putting him in projects such as his “Jam” music video in 1992, and that “Wade felt pushed aside a little bit” because Jackson would rather spend time with others.

Joy testified that one time she cut ties with Jackson for six months – and that was for Jackson NOT calling Wade from the Dangerous Tour. Wade also wanted to go on tour with Jackson, but the star would not take him.

So the narrative that Jackson moved the Robsons to the USA “for the explicit purpose of allowing Michael Jackson access to [Robson] for sexual abuse” makes little sense when he then hardly wanted to spend time with Wade and he “spent much of the time away”, as Joy Robson stated in a 1995 interview and Wade rather “felt pushed aside”.

The allegation that Jackson’s companies were “the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization(s) the world has known” is also outrageous because if that was the case it should have been a regularity for these companies to employ children like Wade, but his employment was a one-off, and specifically in answer to Joy Robson’s request to help them with their immigration.

Wade is most likely aware of all of the above considering his detailed e-mail correspondence with his mother while putting together his allegations. That he claims that Jackson’s companies arranged their immigration to the USA in some evil plot with the explicit purpose of Jackson having access to him to molest him, is a misrepresentation of what actually happened – and that in order to be able to sue Jackson’s companies for money.

Wade put other stories in his complaint too about which he knew that they were false. For example, he put a story in his complaint by a disgruntled ex-employee, Charli Michaels about which story his own mother told him in an e-mail that it was not true. But because he could use that story to try to implicate Norma Staikos, Wade did not care about it being untrue, he used it anyway.

This shows him as an opportunistic person who does not have any qualms about being dishonest in court documents and to embrace untrue stories if they serve him.

Here we have to mention two other supposed witnesses for Wade, whose stories he previously had denied. These people are ex-employees of Jackson, who came out with claims of inappropriate behavior by the singer during the 1993 Chandler allegations and the accompanying tabloid media frenzy. They have been paid money by the tabloid media for their stories.

One is Mark Quindoy, who worked for Jackson with his wife between 1989 and 1990. In the wake of the Chandler allegations in 1993 they sold stories to the tabloid media, claiming that they quit, because they were so disturbed by what they had allegedly witnessed Jackson do with children, including Wade.

Thing is that the Quindoys gave media interviews about Jackson before the 1993 Chandler allegations too, but those stories never included claims of inappropriate behavior with children. In fact, before the 1993 allegations the Quindoys talked about Jackson as a kind, shy man who was good with children.

Their stories only changed when in 1993 the tabloid media offered money for molestation stories about Jackson. Various journalists revealed that the Quindoys shopped their new found stories for $250,000 – $900,000. The Quindoys also tried to shop around a book deal, and court documents revealed that the real reason why they left their employment was because of a disagreement about their wages and conflicts with other employees.

Even tabloid journalists noted about the Quindoys that they found them to be completely untrustworthy.

The other main “witness” of Wade is a maid called Blanca Francia, who worked for Jackson between 1986 and 1991. She is the mother of Jason Francia.

In 1993, in the wake of the Chandler case, she alleged that on one occasion she witnessed Jackson showering with a child Wade Robson. Francia was paid $20,000 by the tabloid TV show Hard Copy for her story – an amount that was more than her annual salary at the time.

There have been several versions of Francia’s story that she told over the years. At Jackson’s 2005 trial, on direct examination she claimed that although the window of the shower was fogged up, she definitely saw two figures in the shower: one of Jackson, one of Wade. However, on cross-examination it turned out that she said something completely different during the 1993-94 investigation. During Wade’s current case, in 2016, Francia was deposed again and through her recent deposition we got an even more detailed insight into what she actually said in a deposition in 1994.

In her deposition in January 1994 Blanca Francia admitted that she never saw OR heard Wade Robson in the shower with Michael Jackson. She admitted that she only ever saw Jackson in the shower and she never saw a second figure with him. She also admitted that she never heard anyone else in the shower than Jackson himself.

She just assumed Wade to be in the shower (even though that is not what she actually saw) – an assumption that was probably fuelled by the Chandler allegations, in the hindsight. That assumption evolved into a full-blown story by her that she actually saw and heard Wade Robson in the shower with Michael Jackson. Remember, that she testified to that in 2005, which makes her a liar under oath.

A lot of other details emerged from Blanca Francia’s 2016 deposition that show her as unreliable, dishonest and changing her stories at will.

Raising Awareness of Facilitators of Abuse?

The reason why Norma Staikos and Jackson’s companies are emphasized so much through these proceedings is that, due to certain legal requirements, Wade needed to make them responsible for his alleged abuse in order to get the monetary compensation that he desired.

This explains why Robson made all those contrived and absurd claims to link the companies and Staikos to his alleged abuse. He needed to demonstrate that the companies and Staikos were in some evil plot to “acquire him as a sexual abuse victim for Jackson”. But this narrative is clearly a lie based on his own mother’s testimony. The reality is, and Wade knew this full well, that it was his mother who pursued Jackson, not the other way around, and that the companies and Staikos were only incidental to their relationship with the star.

This leads us to the next point about the alleged purpose of Wade’s lawsuit. On his blog he claimed that it was not about money (of course), but about raising awareness of sexual abuse and “of the people along the way that help facilitate the child abuse directly or indirectly” and “to hopefully play any role in helping other victims of Michael Jackson’s”.

First, let’s see the claim about raising awareness of the people who allegedly facilitate abuse directly or indirectly.

Joy Robson

If Wade’s story was true then there was no bigger facilitator of his alleged abuse than his own mother, Joy Robson. The mother who pursued the relationship with Jackson. The mother who asked Jackson to help them move to the United States. The mother who admittedly and knowingly allowed Wade to sleep in Jackson’s bedroom – and that even after the 1993 Chandler allegations. The mother who, if Wade’s story is true, did not pay attention to her son enough to realize that something was wrong. Yet, Wade does not make ANY mention of his mother’s responsibility in his lawsuit at all.

Instead, as we have seen above, Joy Robson’s actions are twisted into being the actions of Norma Staikos and the companies (eg. about who really orchestrated certain meetings). Wade tries hard to make the companies and Norma Staikos, responsible for his alleged abuse, while his mother’s responsibility is completely missing from the narrative in his complaint.

In actuality, in his 2016 deposition, in order to implicate the companies, Wade blames Staikos (and Jackson’s next personal assistant after Staikos, Evvy Tavasci) more than even Jackson himself:

“Michael was like a child in a lot of ways, like, he could do his work, he could do his art, right, but beyond that, everyday life stuff, I mean, he could heartly (sic) work a microwave. So, Michael wasn’t organizing any of that stuff, [Norma Staikos and Evvy Tavasci] were helping to facilitate all of that stuff.”

In his deposition Wade makes absurd claims like that Staikos should have called the authorities when the Robsons contacted Jackson in January/February 1990. (For what, exactly?) He also blames Staikos because “[Jackson] didn’t know about me again until [Staikos] made the connection”, once again “forgetting” that it was his mother who initiated that connection, not Staikos.

That Norma Staikos is made out to be the main “facilitator” of Wade’s alleged abuse instead of his mother, is a big red flag regarding what this case really is about. It has all to do with the fact that this is the way Wade could try to sue Jackson’s companies for money.

Coupled with the fact that his mother’s responsibility is completely missing from his lawsuit, this shows Wade’s dishonesty when claiming that his lawsuit is for “raising awareness” about people who supposedly “facilitate sexual abuse”. His lawsuit and his public communication of it did nothing to raise awareness about his mother’s role and responsibility.

Wade’s other claim is that he filed his lawsuit to help Jackson’s supposed “other victims”, but his treatment of those other alleged victims was certainly inconsistent with that. In his deposition Wade admitted that he never attempted to reach out to Gavin Arvizo, the boy at the center of the 2005 trial. So despite of his claim that he filed this lawsuit, not for money but as some sort of advocacy for Jackson’s other “victims”, he never bothered to reach out and apologize to the boy whose justice Wade obscured if we believe the current version of his story that he falsely testified at that trial.

He did “reach out” to Jackson’s 1993 accuser, Jordan Chandler, but not in the way one would expect from a compassionate fellow “victim”. He tried to depose Jordan in support of his lawsuit, despite of Jordan obviously being opposed to it. Instead of respecting the Chandlers’ obvious wish to stay away from the case, Wade’s legal team aggressively pursued them, filing counter-motions and trying to force them to testify. They even bragged in a tabloid article that they were trying to hunt down Jordan wherever he was hiding from them.

They also aggressively pursued Jonathan Spence, a man who befriended Jackson in the 1980s as a child. Spence never accused Jackson of any wrongdoing and he still says that Jackson never did anything wrong to him. Robson’s lawyers aggressively tried to depose him as well. In a motion where Spence opposed Robson’s strong-arm tactics to depose him without any sign of willing to compromise on the date when Spence could be available for a deposition, among other things, we read: “Plaintiff Wade Robson and his counsel have treated Spence in the most abominable manner – without the slightest regard for Spence’s concerns and objections regarding Spence’s unilaterally-noticed deposition” and “[Robson’s] bullying behavior toward a non-party is inexcusable and speaks for itself.”

Brett Barnes, a fellow Australian who befriended Jackson as a child as well, and always maintained that Jackson never molested him, did not want anything to do with Robson and his so-called “advocacy” either. When Robson’s allegations became public in May 2013, Barnes tweeted: “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.”

The reality is that Robson’s lawsuit advocates for no one but his own pocket.

A long but extremely interesting report which shows huge inconsistencies in Wade's 'story'.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 9 febbraio 2019, 7:32

New Announcement from the Estate:

Hello #MJFam:

As we all know, the past few weeks have been very difficult for both the Estate and Michael’s worldwide fan community. As we have communicated with many of you personally, you know that there is a significant amount of work going on behind the scenes at the Estate that is not visible to the public in order to address the spurious accusations made in Leaving Neverland and protect Michael’s legacy moving forward.

In the past few days, several of you have written to us about an absurd and obscene article that appeared this week in RadarOnline. RadarOnline is, of course, nothing more than an entertainment site existing to appeal to the most base instincts of humanity, and is barely worthy of the designation of tabloid.

However, since they published their absurd story, the Estate’s attorneys have sent the publishers this response. We hope this will allay some of the concerns you have expressed over the last few days. The text of the letter may be read here.

Furthermore, we wanted to share the text of the letter that was recently sent by the Estate's attorneys to HBO. It may be read at The Hollywood Reporter.

Sincerely,

MJOnline
The Official Online Team of The Michael Jackson Estate™

Letter: https://gallery.mailchimp.com/…/c8ec55e ... ment_1.pdf

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 9 febbraio 2019, 7:57

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-e ... D-0Ab8eOzk
FEBRUARY 08, 2019 2:14pm PT by Eriq Gardner
Michael Jackson Estate Wants HBO Meeting; Letter Warns 'Leaving Neverland' Will Be HBO's Greatest Shame
HBO chief executive Richard Plepler is told the documentary has violated journalistic ethics and norms and shouldn't be aired in March.
Just as HBO sets a March 3 premiere date for Leaving Neverland, the documentary that left audiences at the Sundance Film Festival in tears with tales of Michael Jackson sexual abuse, the late pop star's estate has sent a blistering 10-page letter to HBO to address problems in the documentary and requesting a meeting to discuss a "solution."

The Hollywood Reporter has obtained the letter, which can be read in full below.

In the letter, addressed to HBO chief executive Richard Plepler from attorney Howard Weitzman, Leaving Neverland is characterized as "an admittedly one-sided, sensationalist program" that ignores journalistic ethics. In particular, the Michael Jackson Estate is upset that documentarian Dan Reed didn't seek out the Estate's views on allegations from Wade Robson and James Safechuck and tells HBO that litigations with these two accusers "made it unequivocally clear that they had no credibility whatsoever."

The letter avoids explicit legal threats for airing the film, but does attack HBO's decision to do so.

Weitzman writes that HBO "is being used as part of Robson's and Safechuck's legal strategy," as the two are currently seeking appeals, and slams the network and filmmakers for "intentionally" choosing not to interview anyone that would detract from their story.

The letter conveys the case that Michael Jackson's two accusers have been "caught lying" in testimony and slams HBO's decision to bolster their credibility.

Weitzman writes, "Given all of this, which are facts readily available to anyone doing minimal due diligence, why would HBO produce a documentary based solely on the words of these two liars and director/producer Dan Reed? Why would HBO produce this documentary without even seeking comment and response from the Jackson Estate who spent years successfully litigating these false allegations with Robson and Safechuck? Is there any other artist who HBO would do this to? Is there any other artist who HBO would not even seek comment from when making such serious accusations?"

The Michael Jackson Estate asserts that if HBO cared about ethics, it would not air the documentary.

"That HBO has now joined the tabloid media’s 'Michael Jackson cacophony'—ten years after his death—is truly sad," continues the letter. "We know that HBO is facing serious competitive pressures from Netflix, Amazon and other more modern content providers, but to stoop to this level to regain an audience is disgraceful. We know HBO and its partners on this documentary will not be successful. We know that this will go down as the most shameful episode in HBO’s history."

HBO on Friday sent THR a statement in response to the letter: "Our plans remain unchanged. The two-part documentary, LEAVING NEVERLAND will air as scheduled on Sunday, March 3rd and Monday, March 4th. Dan Reed is an award-winning filmmaker who has carefully documented these survivors’ accounts. People should reserve judgment until they see the film.”

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 9 febbraio 2019, 11:09

MICHAEL JACKSON‏ @The_Kings777 · Feb 7
Mark Lester defends M. Jackson:
"I’ve taken my children, on numerous occasions, to meet MJ. We’ve stayed in Neverland and I never witnessed anything other than a very kind and wonderful guy"
@MarkalesterMark






MJJLegion ‏ @MJJLegion
MJJLegion Retweeted Lesley Goldberg

.@HBO, @HBOPR & @Caseybloys will air #LeavingNeverland despite the complete lack of basic journalistic ethics being met because they only care about one thing: RATINGS. They do not care for the truth or fairness. If they did, why not meet with the MJ Estate? #CancelHBO





The Estate of Michael Jackson have written a blistering 10-page letter to @HBO outlining in detail exactly why #LeavingNeverland will ‘go down as the most shameful episode in HBO’s history’.

MUST READ full document here:
-> https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... ackson.pdf … #CancelHBO







https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/peo ... 591290002/

Macaulay Culkin defends Michael Jackson friendship: He 'wanted to make sure I wasn't alone'


Erin Jensen, USA TODAYPublished 12:22 p.m. ET Jan. 16, 2019
Immagine


Macaulay Culkin at the 2018 American Music Awards on Oct. 9, 2018 in Los Angeles. (Photo: Emma McIntyre/Getty Images For dcp)


Macaulay Culkin is addressing his friendship with the late Michael Jackson, who was accused of having inappropriate relationships with children.

As a guest on Tuesday's episode of the podcast "Inside of You with Michael Rosenbaum," the "Home Alone" star described his relationship with Jackson as "so normal and mundane."

"It's almost easy to try say it was 'weird' or whatever, but it wasn't, because it made sense,” Culkin, 38, reasoned. “It's one of my friendships that people question, only because of the fact that he was the most famous person in the world."

When former "Smallville" star Rosenbaum brought up the age difference between the two – Jackson was born nearly 22 years before Culkin – the former child star explained his life experiences isolated him from other kids.

“I was a peerless person,” he said. “Nobody else in my Catholic school even had this... idea of what I was going through, and he was the kind of person who'd been through the exact same freakin' thing and wanted to make sure I wasn't alone in that...

"He reached out to me ‘cause a lot of things were happening big and fast with me,” Culkin said, deeming Jackson’s efforts protective. “I think he identified with that."
Culkin said he was "thoroughly unimpressed" by celebrities and believes that's one of the things Jackson liked about him.

"I think that's one of the reasons also why we got along, is that everyone’s always thoroughly impressed by him," he said. "So the fact that somebody treated him like a normal person... It was that simple."

Remembering his friend, the "Richie Rich" star called him "awesome" and said the two would prank call people.

“He was hilarious; he was sweet,” Culkin shared. “People don’t know how funny he (expletive) was.”

Culkin is now the godfather of Jackson's only daughter, Paris.

He previously spoke out about their friendship at the King of Pop's 2005 child molestation trial. Culkin said at the time he was never molested by the singer, though he said they shared a bed. Jackson was acquitted on felony and misdemeanor charges.

Jackson was also accused of molesting a child in 1993, resulting in a multi-million dollar settlement from the "Billie Jean" singer.

Jackson died on June 25, 2009 at age 50.

A two-part documentary featuring a pair of men who alleged Jackson sexually abused them called "Leaving Neverland," is set to air on HBO this spring.








Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 9 febbraio 2019, 11:16

BEAT IT Michael Jackson estate slams ‘disgraceful’ Leaving Neverland documentary that claims he molested boys
The estate's lawyer says the film is 'one-sided' and a 'disgrace'.

By Debbie White
9th February 2019, 9:13 amUpdated: 9th February 2019, 9:24 am

MICHAEL Jackson’s Estate has slammed as “disgraceful” the contentious Leaving Neverland documentary that claims he molested boys.

The estate’s lawyer has sent a 10-page letter to HBO boss Richard Plepler, criticising the two-part film as “one-sided and a disgrace".

The controversial documentary features fresh abuse claims by former childhood fans of the Thriller singer.

These include accusers Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who said they suffered abuse in *****’s enormous California mansion he dubbed Neverland.

The documentary debuted at the Sundance Festival late last month, and HBO yesterday announced that the network will air Leaving Neverland on March 3 and 4.

This prompted Michael Jackson’s Estate to pen a letter to Plepler, reports Rolling Stone.

Part of it says: “The Estate spent years litigating with Robson and Safechuck, and had four different lawsuits by these two men dismissed with prejudice.

“Today, Robson owes the Estate almost $70,000 in court costs, and Safechuck owes the Estate several thousands dollars as well.”

Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed, a British filmmaker, was singled out for failing to contact or interview anyone who could dispute the men’s sexual abuse allegations.

This includes the star’s family, former legal team, or people who had spent time with Jackson during their youth.

The Estate added: “The fact that HBO and its producing partners did not even deign to reach out to any of these people to explore the credibility of the false stories Robson and Safechuck told violates all norms and ethics in documentary filmmaking and journalism.

“It is a disgrace.”

The letter points out that Robson was once a witness offering support to the star during his molestation trial.

And after Jackson’s death in 2009, the choreographer called him “one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of human kind.”

The letter also noted that in 2011, when his now-accuser was rejected by the estate for a Michael Jackson themed Cirque de Soleil event, he reportedly came forward with his “fabricated”allegations against the singer.

It says: “Robson is an admitted perjurer who proudly called himself (in his draft book) a ‘master of deception.

“His own mother testified under oath… that she could not tell when he was lying.

“As for Safechuck, by his own admission, he did not ‘realize’ that he had been abused until after he saw Robson on the Today Show in May 2013.

“All of a sudden, Safechuck realized that he had been abused. He then contacted Robson’s lawyers and filed copycat lawsuits against the Estate for millions of dollars.

“And like Robson, he too had testified under oath that Jackson never did anything inappropriate with him.

“His two cases against the Estate were also dismissed.

“We would be happy to meet with HBO to discuss a solution. We have plenty of further information and witnesses that would expose these two for who they are.

“If HBO wants to maintain its industry position as a valid source of news and fact, it owes an obligation to the public – not to mention the deceased Michael Jackson with whom HBO had previously partnered with during his lifetime – to actually investigate these matters.”

HBO said in response to Rolling Stone: “Our plans remain unchanged.”

It intends showing the two-part documentary as scheduled.

Dan Reed, meanwhile, was described by the network as an “award-winning filmmaker who has carefully documented these survivors’ accounts.

"People should reserve judgment until they see the film.”

Michael’s nephew Taj is preparing a “series of rebuttal films” to shoot down the “vicious and calculated lies” of Wade Robson and James Safechuck.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/838947...box=1549703848

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 10 febbraio 2019, 9:23

Claudia Almeida‏ @cacaubrazil
The #Brazilian Media is reporting #leavingNeverland as nonsense, covering and exposing the truth behind #WadeRobson allegations. Completely supporting #MichaelJackson - The American media is so incredibly corrupt it sickens me. #MJInnocent #shameOnHBO








Samar @TheMJAP‏ @TheMJAP
Samar @TheMJAP Retweeted The Sun

The Sun are spreading the lies of a woman who ADMITTED perjury, who (along with other fraudsters) owed Michael Jackson over $1 Million Dollars in court costs and was ordered to pay Michael Jackson $35,000 for items she stole from his house.
But, such is the state of UK/US media.






Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts · Feb 9
James Baldwin wrote of how the media subjected Michael to the "jaws of a carnivorous success” and that he "will not swiftly be forgiven for having turned so many tables." #LeavingNeverland is a 1-sided hit job @HBO top execs -- not a very diverse crowd -- should be ashamed of.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 11 febbraio 2019, 9:24

Daniel D'Addario‏Verified account
I predicted in this column that my defending "Leaving Neverland" would elicit vitriolic tweets from Jackson's fanbase. (I don't like calling shots like that, but it was in service of a larger point.) I was right but the tone has been surprisingly extreme!

Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson
Charles Thomson Retweeted Daniel D'Addario

You predicted that your deliberately dishonest column would attract criticism?

So why did you publish it then?

Why did you publish a deliberately dishonest column?





The MJCast‏ @TheMJCast
I wouldn’t call it thoughtful, Dan. More of a transparent puff piece. Real journalism would acknowledge how deeply unreliable the two con men are that you’ve partnered with. The only people who are supporting your hack film are other lazy hack journalists. Zero credibility. J.








Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson
Didn’t want to send reporters to that trial, funnily enough, which exposed their biggest advertisers as violent criminals. Horrifying evidence given - and ignored - daily.
But HBO makes an indefensible hatchet job promoting proven perjurers & they line up to shill for it.






@DonaldJTrumpJr
“@KeyaMorgan: Most people don't know Michael Jackson was neighbors w Donald Trump & played w his kids, my good buddy @DonaldJTrumpJr” TRUE!

Keya Morgan‏ @KeyaMorgan
Keya Morgan Retweeted Donald Trump Jr.
I have like 15 good friends who as little kids played with Michael Jackson all the time & were safe. One of them is the son of the President of the United States. MJ was ONLY kind to kids, never hurt them.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 11 febbraio 2019, 21:22

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... lOXxtS_G5Q
February 7, 2019
VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Richard Plepler
Chief Executive Officer
Home Box Office, Inc.
1100 Avenue of the Americas - 15th Floor
New York, NY 10036
(212) 512-1960
E-Mail: richard.plepler@hbo.com
Re: Michael Jackson
Dear Mr. Plepler:
We are counsel to the Co-Executors of the Estate of Michael J. Jackson, as well as
various wholly-owned entities which own intellectual property and other intangible rights
associated with the late Michael Jackson (collectively the “Estate” or the “Jackson Estate”).
We write regarding Leaving Neverland, an admittedly one-sided, sensationalist
program—referred to as a “documentary” by HBO and others—that HBO apparently funded
and intends to air this Spring. The Estate first learned about this program in early January
when its premiere at Sundance was announced in the press. As you must know, contrary to all
norms of documentary filmmaking, the Estate was never contacted by the supposed
“documentarian,” Dan Reed (or anyone else associated with the program) to provide the
Estate’s views on, and responses to, the absolutely false claims that are the subject matter of
the program. Likewise, no one else who might offer evidence to contradict the program’s
premise was consulted either, as Dan Reed has publicly admitted.
When the program was first announced, HBO and its producing partners did not
disclose the identities of the two subjects of the documentary, but referred to them only as
“two men.” However, from even the brief descriptions of the “two men” in the announcement,
the Estate knew exactly who they were: Wade Robson and James Safechuck. The Estate knew
this not because it had any inside “sources” about the documentary—it had none—but
because these two men have been peddling their false “story” for years now, most notably in a
series of failed legal actions against the Estate. The Estate did not hesitate to advise the media
of their identity. The Estate was one-hundred percent confident that there were no other
purported “victims” who this documentary could be about (because, contrary to Robson’s and
Richard Plepler
February 7, 2019
Page 2
Safechuck’s lawyers’ predictions when they first filed their lawsuits for hundreds of millions
of dollars in 2013, no “flood” of further identifiable “victims” ever came forward beyond
these two). HBO and its producing partners were then forced to acknowledge that the Estate
had “guessed right” and that the two subjects of the film were indeed those two admitted
perjurers who had filed lawsuits against the Estate, all of which have now been dismissed
with prejudice (but as noted below are pending on appeal).
The Estate spent years litigating with Robson and Safechuck, and had four different
lawsuits by these two men dismissed with prejudice. (Today, Robson owes the Estate almost
seventy thousand dollars in court costs, and Safechuck owes the Estate several thousand
dollars as well.) In those litigations, the Estate discovered troves of information about Robson
and Safechuck that made it unequivocally clear that they had no credibility whatsoever. We
discuss some of that information below, but the information discussed in this letter is just the
tip of the iceberg on these two. Had HBO actually complied with the most basic of
journalistic ethics—rather than just accept their salacious allegations at face value—it would
have discovered so much more long before it ever got involved in this disgraceful project.
Obviously, that is the reason that Dan Reed and HBO’s producing partners initially tried to
hide the identities of Robson and Safechuck. This ambush was carried out because Dan Reed
knew that Michael Jackson’s family and friends, his Estate, and his millions of fans who are
deeply knowledgeable about the case would have discredited Robson and Safechuck before
filming began.
HBO Is Being Used As Part of Robson’s and Safechuck’s Litigation Strategy
Robson and Safechuck are pursuing appeals of the judgments against them, appeals
that will probably be heard this year. As many other press outlets noted when their lawsuits
were still pending in the trial court, Robson, Safechuck, and their shared attorneys have long
engaged in a deliberate campaign to try their case in the media, most often through leaks of
false information to some of the most salacious online tabloids. Had HBO done any research
into this, it would have easily discovered that every year or so while the litigation was
pending, before a major issue was to be decided, the tabloids would suddenly be full of false
claims being peddled by Robson’s and Safechuck’s attorneys about Michael Jackson. The
trial court never let this avalanche of false claims affect it, and we have no doubt that the
Court of Appeal will not be affected by it either. That said, Robson’s and Safechuck’s lawyers
will continue attempting to try their cases in the media.
As noted, Robson and Safechuck are now appealing the dismissal of their multimillion dollar lawsuits. Not coincidentally, their appeals are likely to be heard later this year.
HBO’s “documentary” is simply just another tool in their litigation playbook, which they are
obviously using in a (very misguided) effort to somehow affect their appeals. Sadly, it appears
that HBO—a once great and respected network—has now been reduced to the pay television
version of Hard Copy (with a little mix of The Jerry Springer Show). Most pathetically, HBO
has been reduced to a pawn in part of Robson’s and Safechuck’s attorneys’ litigation strategy.
Richard Plepler
February 7, 2019
Page 3
HBO and Dan Reed Intentionally Chose Not to Interview Anyone Who Would
Detract From Their Story
Leaving Neverland rehashes accusations against the late Michael Jackson of
committing the most heinous crimes any person can be accused of in modern society. Given
the seriousness of those allegations, one would have expected that HBO and its producing
partners would contact: (1) the Jackson family; (2) persons who worked with Jackson during
the relevant time period; (3) other young men and women who spent time with Jackson as
children (including ones mentioned by name in the “documentary”); (4) friends of Michael
Jackson who knew him for his whole life; (5) the many persons who know Safechuck and
Robson well but do not believe them; (6) Tom Mesereau and his investigator, Scott Ross, who
Robson happily met with for hours in 2005 to tell them about his experiences with Michael,
with Mesereau finding Robson so credible that he made Robson the first witness for the
defense in Jackson’s 2005 trial; and (7) the Estate, who spent years litigating the very claims
discussed in the “documentary” by Safechuck and Robson. Yet, shockingly, HBO and its
producing partners never attempted to contact any of these people. The fact that HBO and its
producing partners did not even deign to reach out to any of these people to explore the
credibility of the false stories Robson and Safechuck told violates all norms and ethics in
documentary filmmaking and journalism. It is a disgrace.
In fact, Dan Reed admitted in the question and answer session at Sundance that he
never even attempted to contact the many, many other young men and women who spent time
with Jackson as children, yet continue to defend him to this very day. And at least two of
these young men are referenced by name in the film with the implications that they “replaced”
Robson and Safechuck as Jackson’s “abuse victims.” Both have gone on record since the
documentary was announced to explain that they were never abused by Jackson. One of them,
who Robson explicitly claimed in the film “replaced” him, has released several “tweets”
denouncing the documentary as a work of fiction. Yet neither of them—among the many
others who spent time with Jackson as children—were ever approached by Dan Reed and
HBO.
In other words, HBO’s “documentary” is based solely on the word of two admitted
perjurers. HBO and its partner, Dan Reed, never even attempted to explore whether these two
men might not be telling the truth. We have read reports that these two men are supposedly
“credible” in the documentary because they tell their story so fluidly. Yet they have been
practicing their stories and rehearsing their lines (which changed throughout the litigation as
discussed below) for years now. Thus, it is no surprise that these two men—who have also
both acted professionally—tell their false story well. The bottom line is that any halfway
skilled filmmaker could make a “documentary” telling any outrageous story about a dead man
if they can just find two people willing to tell that story and then not challenge those two at
all. That is particularly the case when one of the men—Wade Robson—is a self-described
“master of deception”; and his own mother testified under oath that he should “have had an
Oscar” given how good a liar he is (as discussed below).
Richard Plepler
February 7, 2019
Page 4
In Interviews, Dan Reed Is Using HBO in Order to Bolster the Credibility of the
Program Despite Making Blatantly False Statements in Those Same Interviews
Notably, HBO’s reputation is being used as one of the main reasons that the
“documentary” should be taken seriously. The producer of this program, Dan Reed, is telling
the media that one of the principal reasons the documentary is credible is because of HBO’s
reputation. When asked whether an attorney had vetted the film, he responded, “that’s what
happens on every single film I make or, to my knowledge, that anyone makes, certainly for
HBO.”1
The usual checks on filmmakers are ethical and normative ones, such as factchecking (e.g., are their stories consistent? see below), investigating the motivations of people
(e.g., do they have a financial motivation to say what they are saying?), talking to others with
knowledge who may have something different to say, etc. But as is apparent from our
discussion below, HBO apparently no longer cares about these ethical and normative checks
on documentary filmmaking and journalism anymore. If HBO does care about such things,
this documentary will never air on HBO.
In the same interviews where he touts HBO’s involvement as a reason for his
“documentary’s” supposed “credibility,” Mr. Reed has also made blatantly false statements
about Robson and Safechuck in an effort to bolster their credibility. For example, in the same
Huffington Post interview discussed above, Mr. Reed agrees with the interviewer that “one of
the most impactful things in the documentary is the way [Robson’s and Safechuck’s] stories
align … even though they didn’t know each other until now.” In another interview, Reed
“confirms” that “for legal reasons, [Robson and Safechuck] were kept apart, long before you
even approached them about making the movie.” Reed expands on that and says that this was
done so “they couldn’t exchange stories. Sundance was the first time [as adults] that they’d
met. It’s the first time they’ve had any significant time together.”2 This is utterly false. In
Robson’s 2016 deposition, he testified that he had spoken to Safechuck in 2014, the year
Safechuck filed his lawsuit against the Estate. When asked what the two men had spoken
about, Robson refused to answer the question—his attorney instructed him to remain silent
because Robson’s and Safechuck’s common attorneys were involved in the conversations
between the two men in 2014. Accordingly, we can never know what they talked about and
how they aligned their stories with their attorneys’ help. 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.
1
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/le ... f9be689ab0
2
https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/mov ... ew-785817/
Richard Plepler
February 7, 2019
Page 5
In any event, the idea that two men who are represented by the same attorneys for the
last six years would have stories that “align” is hardly surprising. You really cannot be so
naïve that you would not understand this.
Finally, we must note that we can only assume that the legendary Sheila Nevins had
nothing to do with the decision to go forward with this “documentary.” It is a shame that she
is no longer involved in these types of decisions for HBO. That HBO, the once iconic
network, would fund, produce and distribute this pathetic and untruthful vehicle for these
admitted liars to revisit false allegations made as part of their effort to revive their dismissed
lawsuits is just plain sad.
Robson and Safechuck Were Repeatedly Caught Lying During Their Failed
Lawsuits Against the Jackson Estate
Wade Robson testified in detail as an adult before a jury in 2005 that Michael Jackson
never did anything wrong with or to him. He was then subjected to a withering crossexamination by Ron Zonen, one of California’s most-seasoned prosecutors. Yet, despite that,
Wade Robson never wavered. Moreover, even after his testimony, there are many videos of
him (readily available online) where he praises Michael Jackson as an inspiration and denies
that Michael ever molested him.
But even setting that aside, Robson was also caught lying repeatedly in the dismissed
litigations with the Estate. For example, in order to try to get around the statute of limitations
for monetary claims against the Estate, Robson testified under oath that “[p]rior to March 4,
[2013,] I did not understand or was even aware that an Estate [of Michael Jackson] had been
opened for administration.” That was a lie. In truth, Robson had personally met with John
Branca, one of the Estate’s executors, at Mr. Branca’s office in 2011 in a (failed) effort to
solicit work with the Estate on a Michael Jackson-themed Cirque du Soleil show. Prior to
meeting with Mr. Branca, Robson’s talent agent told him that he had to contact “John Branca,
the person in charge of MJ’s estate.” Not surprisingly, the trial judge dismissed Robson’s
claims against the Estate, finding that no rational person could believe Robson’s declaration
that he did not know about Michael Jackson’s Estate until March 4, 2013 when he, in fact,
had met with John Branca, the Co-Executor of the Estate. In plain English, the judge found
that Robson had lied in his sworn declaration. (The idea that Robson would want to spend
years of his life creating and directing a Michael Jackson-themed show, when he was in fact a
victim of horrendous abuse by Jackson, is itself hard to take seriously.)
Robson’s meeting with Mr. Branca was hardly the first time that he tried to capitalize
on his relationship with Michael Jackson after Michael’s death when he thought it would help
him make money. In the days after Michael’s death, Robson released a statement praising
Michael as “one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of human kind.” He
then tried to solicit work from Kenny Ortega, the director of Michael Jackson’s This Is It, to
help work on the movie. Robson was able to secure work with Janet Jackson, in her 2009
MTV Video Music Awards tribute to Janet’s late brother Michael. In videos behind the scenes
Richard Plepler
February 7, 2019
Page 6
of the tribute show (easily found online), Robson is seen praising Michael Jackson in the most
effusive terms.
During the litigation with Jackson’s companies, Robson was also caught trying to hide
evidence before his cases were dismissed. For example, Robson lied under oath and stated
that, other than one brief email in late 2012, he had had “no written communications” with
anyone (other than his attorneys) about his newly-concocted allegations that he was abused by
Jackson. This turned out to be a complete and utter lie. Robson had actually shopped a book
about his allegations in the year prior to filing his lawsuit—a book he tried to hide from the
Estate. That book told a completely different story of how he was first abused by Jackson.
When asked about some of these discrepancies at his deposition, Robson explained that his
memories had “evolved” since writing the draft of the book in late 2012 and early 2013. He
explained that “post disclosing the abuse in 2012 and beginning that healing journey, they've
evolved as far as I remember more details about scenarios. As it goes along, you know, it
evolves, details get added to.”3

Moreover, despite lying under oath in his lawsuit that he had had “no written
communications” with anyone about his supposed abuse, he was eventually ordered by the
trial court to produce all such documents. Robson produced hundreds (if not thousands) of
written communications (emails, texts, etc.) with his family and friends about his false abuse
allegations. He never explained why he lied and said he had no such communications.
Most notably, many of these communications were with his mother where he
admittedly was trying to reconstruct his own “memories” of the time period when he was
supposedly abused—i.e., in his own words, to “add” the “details” that he did not know when
he was drafting his book. In one email, he lists over twenty different questions to his mother
asking her about the specific details of his interactions with Michael Jackson. Some of these
include: “Can you explain all that you remember of that first night at Neverland? What
happened when we drove in what did we do? And that first weekend at Neverland?” Notably,
in the “documentary,” Robson now recounts “his” supposed “memories” of these events in
great detail. But Mr. Reed and Robson never explain that he had to first ask his mother scores
of questions before he could tell his story. Indeed, despite telling the story of his first night at
Neverland in the documentary as if it is his own memory, at his deposition, he admitted that
he “did not know” if his memory of that night “came from [his] own recollection or [if] it was
told to [Robson] by someone else.”
Simply put, Robson is an admitted perjurer who proudly called himself (in his draft
book) a “master of deception.” Robson is such a good liar that his own mother testified under
3
We would be happy to provide you with any source documents, such as depositions,
documents produced in discovery, etc. It is a shame Mr. Reed and your colleagues at HBO
were not interested in such documents when producing their “documentary.”
Richard Plepler
February 7, 2019
Page 7
oath at her deposition that she could not tell when he was lying; she even volunteered that “he
should have had an Oscar” given how convincing his lies were. It may just be that he
deserves an Oscar for HBO’s “documentary” as well.
Robson’s fabricated story, of course, is that Jackson’s abuse caused him to have two
self-described nervous breakdowns in 2011 and 2012. Those breakdowns, according to
Robson, caused him to realize that he had been abused by Jackson decades before. But there
is a much more simple explanation for Robson’s breakdowns. He has a family history of
suicidal, major depression on his father’s side. Robson’s father committed suicide in 2002.
Robson’s first cousin on his father’s side committed suicide in 2012. Unfortunately, major
depression is a very heritable disease. Thus, it is no surprise that Robson had these
breakdowns. And it is even less surprising that he has continued to have breakdowns given
that when Robson saw a psychiatrist in 2011 he was prescribed anti-depressant medication.
But he refused to ever take that medication. To be clear, we ascribe no “fault” or “weakness”
whatsoever to those who suffer or who have suffered from clinical depression. That said, we
must note Robson’s mental illness, and his abject and stubborn refusal to get appropriate
medical treatment for it, because Robson’s claim is that his “nervous breakdowns” are strong
evidence of his abuse by Jackson. But those breakdowns are much more easily explained by
Robson’s family history of major depression and his own (apparent) diagnosis of depression
for which he stubbornly and irrationally refused to take the medication prescribed to him by a
medical doctor to treat it.
As for Safechuck, by his own admission, he did not “realize” that he had been abused
until after he saw Robson on the Today Show in May 2013 being interviewed by Matt Lauer
about Robson’s newly-concocted story of abuse. All of a sudden, Safechuck realized that he
had been abused. He then contacted Robson’s lawyers and filed copycat lawsuits against the
Estate for millions of dollars. And like Robson, he too had testified under oath that Jackson
never did anything inappropriate with him. His two cases against the Estate were also
dismissed.
Safechuck’s frivolous lawsuits were dismissed so early in the proceedings that
significant discovery was never taken in his case, and he was able to avoid having his
deposition taken and producing documents. But even in his sworn declarations in the
litigations, there are clear signs that he is lying and trying to construct a false story of abuse
from his vague memories of his interactions with Jackson. For example, Safechuck claimed in
his sworn declaration that he was first abused on the Paris leg of the Bad Tour, which he
correctly identifies as taking place in late June 1988 (as a simple Wikipedia search would
reveal). He later says that after the Bad tour ended, Michael flew him out to New York “in
February 1989” where Michael was performing at the Grammy’s. Safechuck states in his
declaration that he was abused on this New York trip for the Grammy’s. However, the
Grammy’s were not in New York in 1989; they were in Los Angeles that year (and in 1990).
And Michael did not perform at the Grammy’s in 1989. However, Michael did perform at the
Grammy’s in New York in February 1988, i.e., before Safechuck claims he was first abused
Richard Plepler
February 7, 2019
Page 8
in June 1988. Yet he somehow claims that he was abused on a New York trip to the
Grammy’s that occurred before he claims he was first abused. Safechuck’s “error” here is
obviously reflective of an effort to create a story of abuse out of whole cloth. Or in other
words, Safechuck is just making it up as he goes along.
In the “documentary” and in his declaration for the litigation, Safechuck spins a tale
about how he refused to testify for Jackson in 2005, despite threats from Jackson and his legal
team. Setting aside the absurdity of Jackson and his sophisticated legal team trying to
convince an unwilling and unstable witness to testify on such a sensitive issue, Safechuck’s
story is demonstrably false. In particular, Safechuck declares that Michael and his legal team
called him “towards the end of the criminal trial” trying to pressure him to testify. But this
statement cannot be true. Early on in the trial, the Judge precluded the prosecution from
allowing evidence regarding alleged molestation of Safechuck and others because the
“evidence” of such molestation was unreliable. The exceptions were that the Judge did allow
testimony from certain disgruntled workers that they had heard that Michael had molested
Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes. That is why those three specifically
testified, and all of them denied the molestation (including Robson of course), and were
subject to cross-examination by prosecutors but did not waver. And that is why Jackson and
his attorneys would not have ever tried to pressure an unwilling and unstable Safechuck to
testify, particularly “towards the end of the criminal trial” as Safechuck so falsely claims in
the documentary and under oath.
* * *
Given all of this, which are facts readily available to anyone doing minimal due
diligence, why would HBO produce a documentary based solely on the words of these two
liars and director/producer Dan Reed? Why would HBO produce this documentary without
even seeking comment and response from the Jackson Estate who spent years successfully
litigating these false allegations with Robson and Safechuck? Is there any other artist who
HBO would do this to? Is there any other artist who HBO would not even seek comment from
when making such serious accusations?
Michael Jackson was subjected to a decade-long investigation by an overly-zealous,
ethically-challenged, and ultimately disgraced prosecutor in Santa Barbara County, Tom
Sneddon, who looked anywhere and everywhere for supposed “victims” of Jackson’s. Yet, he
never found those “victims.” Indeed, the 2005 criminal trial of Jackson was a complete farce,
and Michael Jackson was completely exonerated. As anyone who has studied that trial knows,
the jury utterly repudiated the prosecution’s case. In both his opening and closing statements,
Jackson’s attorney, Tom Mesereau, took the unusual step of telling the jury that they should
acquit Jackson because Mesereau and his team had proven Jackson innocent. In other words,
he did not try the case as a “reasonable doubt” case. Mr. Mesereau tried the case with the
purpose and goal of proving Jackson innocent. And he did exactly that. As recently as 2017,
several jurors were re-interviewed about the case in light of Robson’s about-face, and they all
agreed that they would still acquit Jackson today. The jurors have been interviewed many
Richard Plepler
February 7, 2019
Page 9
times; they are articulate bright people, not the gullible idiots that Dan Reed tries to paint
them as in his “documentary.” Yet HBO is relying on the uncorroborated stories of two
admitted perjurers over the weight of the American justice system.
Of course, the tabloid media’s fascination with Michael Jackson and telling more-andmore ridiculous stories about him is nothing new. The great American intellectual, James
Baldwin, wrote about “the Michael Jackson cacophony” all the way back in 1985 when the
media first began subjecting him to “the jaws of a carnivorous success.” As Baldwin saw it,
Michael “will not swiftly be forgiven for having turned so many tables, for he damn sure
grabbed the brass ring, and the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo has nothing on
Michael.” By 1985, when Baldwin wrote those words, Michael Jackson was a 27-year-old
African-American from Gary, Indiana who had “turned the tables” on the entire power
structure in the music business. Leveraging his unprecedented success, Michael insisted that
MTV and mainstream radio play his music and that of other African-American artists like
him. Michael also insisted that his record company assign him ownership of his own master
recordings. In other words, Michael Jackson, the young artist, insisted on controlling his own
art and not leaving it to the whims of big business. And more still—the 27 year-old Michael
did not just own his own music publishing, he had the gall to outbid other more established
players in the industry for one of the crown jewels of music publishing, the ATV catalogue
(which famously included the Beatles catalogue).
We suspect that even James Baldwin could not have imagined that his words would
still ring so true today, over thirty years later. Michael Jackson has yet to “be forgiven for
having turned so many tables” even ten years after he left this world forever. Even the once
great HBO—who had partnered with Michael to immense success—is subjecting the
deceased Michael Jackson to “the jaws of a carnivorous success” in death, devoting four
hours of its programming to the words of two serial perjurers, whose sole agenda has been to
extract money from Jackson’s rightful heirs and chosen beneficiaries.
That HBO has now joined the tabloid media’s “Michael Jackson cacophony”—ten
years after his death—is truly sad. We know that HBO is facing serious competitive pressures
from Netflix, Amazon and other more modern content providers, but to stoop to this level to
regain an audience is disgraceful. We know HBO and its partners on this documentary will
not be successful. We know that this will go down as the most shameful episode in HBO’s
history. We know that Michael’s devoted fans, and all good people in the world, will not
swiftly forgive HBO for its conduct.
Richard Plepler
February 7, 2019
Page 10
Mr. Plepler, as you yourself said in late 2017: “A lie goes halfway around the world
before the truth puts its boots on.”4
The media coverage alone of this disgraceful
“documentary” has proven you right.
We would be happy to meet with HBO to discuss a solution. We have plenty of further
information and witnesses that would expose these two for who they are. If HBO wants to
maintain its industry position as a valid source of news and fact, it owes an obligation to the
public—not to mention the deceased Michael Jackson with whom HBO had previously
partnered with during his lifetime—to actually investigate these matters.
Barring that, this “documentary” will say a lot more about HBO than it ever could
about Michael Jackson.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Howard Weitzman
HW/JPS
cc: Jonathan P. Steinsapir, Esq.
Bryan Freedman, Esq.
Eve Konstan, Esq. General Counsel, HBO
Glenn Whitehead, Esq., EVP, Business & Legal Affairs, HBO
10386.00347/618197

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 12 febbraio 2019, 9:41

Brandi Jackson‏ @BJackson82
Wade and I were together for over 7 years, but I bet that isn’t in his “documentary” because it would ruin his timeline. And did I mention, it was my uncle, #MichaelJackson, who set us up? Wade is not a victim, #WadeRobsonIsaLiar



Brenda Harvey Richie‏ @BrendaRichie

Brenda Harvey Richie Retweeted Brandi Jackson

I am so proud of you Brandi for coming forward with this. I know exactly who this huge Pop Star is. I wish she would come out and tell her story. It broke up her relationship with her huge Pop Star boyfriend.







Samar @TheMJAP‏ @TheMJAP
So the lesson to be learnt - if you're a Black man in Hollywood IT DOESN'T MATTER if you've never committed a crime, IT DOESN'T MATTER if you've been fully exonerated AND vindicated, in court, by a jury of your peers... EVEN IN DEATH they will find you guilty!








Verified account @tajjackson3
Taj Jackson Retweeted Justice for The Falsely Accused
Exactly. Wade is counting on people's ignorance and gullibility. He's counting on the #Metoomovement rushing to his side without properly vetting him or looking into his many inconsistencies. As a victim myself, when you tell the truth you don't need to change your story 3 times.



Justice for The Falsely Accused‏ @JuliaBerkowitz1
Thank you @BJackson82!
Now, Ladies and Gentlemen! How does this jive with Wade supposedly being "in love" with MJ and MJ being "in love" with him and MJ supposedly talking his "victims" out of dating girls/women? #LyingAboutNeverland #LeavingNeverlan
12:51 AM - 12 Feb 2019







Wingman‏ @Wingman67848478
#Wade #Robson, one of the two men who acuse late #Michael #Jackson of sexual abuse, has been paid $100.000 through his Robson Family Fund. Dan Reed lies he's not paying J. Safechuck and W. Robson for appearing in #Leavingneverland #followthemoney #HBO
Truth will come out.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 12 febbraio 2019, 9:50

29:20 Host - Taj, you’ve got a GoFundMe. Can you tell us about it and what you want to release to counter this film?

Taj Jackson: "I’m not the best marketer for myself but I think the thing is that I’m someone who’s spent so much time with my uncle Michael. I don’t even know if I can count how many hours that would be, but basically ever since I was born until he passed we were super close. This documentary, this docu-series – it is going to be more than one for sure, probably it’ll be around 4 or 5 episodes as parts to it – it is going to dive into everything. When I say everything I mean all the misconceptions focusing mainly on the allegations, because that’s where we have to really start.

I can’t tell how many times I’ve read that stupid phrase “Where is smoke there is fire” or “Why did he do this settlement in 1993? An innocent person wouldn’t do that.” I think we really have to go back to that and explain the logic and how he was basically backed against the corner. And he fought it. He literally tried to fight it from August to January, he tried to fight for the truth, but at the end of the day he was backed into a corner by California basically, who would not let the civil trial go after the criminal trial.

And the reason I know this is because when the allegations broke out we were the first to be flown up to him, to be with him, and I can tell you – he was angry. He was like “No, I’m not letting this happen.” And at the same time …. my uncle was a very sensitive person and as this carried on we saw what it did to him – going through a trial because we got to see it in 2005. He was already going through a lot when he was in Asia and we were there with him [in 1993]. He was already feeling that he was being tortured and he wasn’t there to fight.

I understand that but we also need to understand the mindset of the public, because a lot of people don’t know. Just like a lot of people don’t know about the drawing of the kid – that it didn’t match. Everyone says, “Oh, it matched”. A circumcised penis and a not circumcised penis doesn’t match, sorry to say."

32:25 HOST: And also if it did match I’m pretty sure that the DA would have run with that to the hills.

32:30 Taj Jackson: That would have been it. Let me ask you this – why would my uncle subject himself to being photographed naked before settling? He always wanted to fight it. If I am going to settle and get this out of my head I am not going the public to know about it first of all, and the media. But he let them drag him through the mud and then photograph him naked and then settled.

And the settlement was about the civil case. And it never prevented Jordie from testifying in a criminal case, and that’s the thing that they don’t understand.

33:15 SAMAR: Or his family, or his friends. The argument that Michael Jackson paid off and that means that he paid the family and they couldn’t go to trial – no, that’s not what happened. In the settlement that was leaked illegally in 2003 before the 2005 trial, it is explicit that the settlement doesn’t preclude the family from testifying in a trial, any further trials. Hence Jordie’s mother was able to testify in 2005 (no one believed her). There is such a massive misconception, it is such a lie that is perpetuated over and over again. And it is easily disproved. It there is factual, printed in black-and-white evidence to disprove it. But Marina Hyde and all the other pseudo-journalists don’t want to talk about it.

34:10 Taj Jackson: I think also that people are lazy. They don’t want to do the research. A lot of the fights I’ve had on Twitter have been with people who are like “It’s not my job to do this research”. I think that what my documentary is going to do is basically put it out there very easy to digest, in a way that it is so blatantly obvious and so fact-based that there is no disputing it. And this is going to be something different in that way, because a lot of this is on Youtube already, but it requires someone to go click on something and sit there and watch it. And I think the difference is that this is going to have enough noise in a positive way that people actually want to click and watch.

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/20...D49dU7dmd4KWAI

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 13 febbraio 2019, 10:32

Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts
From the court records: 5/21/2011 email from Wade Robson to Cirque du Soleil: "I always wanted to do this MJ show, badly...I'd love nothing more than to choreograph the MJ show..." No mention of this from @HBO @HBODocs @danreed1000 in #LeavingNeverland
Immagine








Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts
Another #LeavingNeverland @HBODocs @DanReed1000 left out..email from Wade agent 2/22/11 to meet w/John Branca "the person in charge of MJ's Estate."...Wade under oath 2 yrs later saying he "wasn't even aware" of estate before 3/4/13 to excuse why he failed to ask for $$$ in time.
Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 13 febbraio 2019, 16:13


Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 14 febbraio 2019, 9:27

Verified account @RealMattLucas
Leaving Neverland is a very tough watch indeed but the brave and vital testimonies of Wade Robson and James Safechuck and their families must be heard. After four heartbreaking hours, you don't doubt them for a moment. Michael Jackson can rot.
1:02 PM - 13 Feb 2019

Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson ·
No we can’t. It presents already debunked allegations by two proven liars/perjurers, with zero supporting evidence. It fails to mention both men’s stories keep changing & what they say on screen doesn’t match what they said in court when demanding hundreds of millions of dollars.

Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson
As I say - if Matt Lucas is genuinely this thick, gullible and petulant in his refusal to listen to facts over emotive allegations, let’s just hope to fuck he never get selected for jury duty.
Especially if the defendant’s a black man accused of a sex crime.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 14 febbraio 2019, 10:00

Michael Jackson is Back: Danish Mall Reverses Removal

https://www.billboard.com/articles/c...ck-danish-mall

Denmark’s oldest shopping mall has reversed its decision not to exhibit a statue of Michael Jackson.

Jesper Andreasen, manager of the Roedovre Centrum mall in suburban Copenhagen, says on Facebook it was “an overreaction” to remove the statue, adding the late singer “has never been found guilty of any of the accusations against him.”

The statue was taken out after about 15 online complaints, mostly from families with children, fearing it could offend customers and may be vandalized because of allegations that Jackson molested boys.


The mall is displaying wax statues of major stars, including Marilyn Monroe and Julia Roberts, on a central square to coincide with Danish schools’ weeklong winter break that started Monday. The Jackson figure was back Wednesday (Feb. 13).

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 14 febbraio 2019, 10:03

In her new book, Raising Trump, Ivana Trump says she "never believed" the allegations of child molestation against Michael Jackson

Donald Trump warned his children from an early age, “Don’t trust anyone.”

His first wife, Ivana Trump, was similarly wary of social climbers and spies, and discouraged young Ivanka, Donald Jr. and Eric from hosting playdates at their lavish Trump Tower home.

But there was one person who was allowed in the Trump Tower circle of trust — the King of Pop.

In her new book, Raising Trump, Ivana reveals that “the only person who had an open invitation to come to the triplex for playdates whenever he wanted was Michael Jackson.”

The singer, who lived in Trump Tower at the time, was a close friend of the entire Trump family, Ivana explained.

“He’d stop by and chat with Donald and me for twenty minutes, and then he’d go up to the kids’ floor to hang out with them for hours and hours,” she said. “They’d watch MTV, play Mario Brothers or Tetris, and build Trump Tower in Legos.”

“Michael was a 30-year-old kid. He could relate to Ivanka and the boys better than to us,” she added.

Ivana said she or the children’s nannies were always in the room during the playdates — but that she “never believed the accusations that he molested those kids” anyway.

In June 2005, Jackson was acquitted of child molestation charges following a highly publicized, four-month trial. But the accusations would dog him for the rest of his life — and even beyond his death in 2009.

“My read on him was asexual,” Ivana said. “He was a child himself in a man’s body, tender, sweet and gentle … there’s no way he could have hurt anyone.”

Ivana also recalls how Jackson, at the peak of his fame, went to see young Ivanka perform in The Nutcracker.

“Michael told me that she looked like an angel that night,” Ivana recalls.
https://people.com/politics/ivana-tr...e-allegations/

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 14 febbraio 2019, 21:13

Karen Faye‏ @wingheart
Karen Faye Retweeted santikapowski
My last memory was in Budapest...having a great time with Jimmy and his mom. These boys parents enjoyed all expenses paid luxury of Michael’s life (I did too) and they NEVER seemed to notice any psychological changes in their own child. It NEVER happened!








Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts
When an adult at age 30 willingly states a provable lie under penalty of perjury, that's a pretty big red flag. Because if you are willing to lie under penalty of perjury, you are willing to lie to a camera no matter how well you read your lines. #LeavingNeverland @HBODocs

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 15 febbraio 2019, 10:10

Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts
Something else from the court files @Dan1000 @HBO and @HBODocs never disclose in #LeavingNeverland. Robson pitching a dance tribute to Michael to producer of So You Think You Can Dance?...btw/June 26, 2009 was just one day after Michael died.
Immagine







Brad Sundberg‏ @InStudioWithMJ
But beyond that, I had a young family back then, and I was around kids a lot at my church. I know kids. I know when something is wrong. I am fiercely protective of kids. I wasn't everywhere all the time, but it is repulsive that now WR is dragging Record One into his story.






Brad Sundberg‏ @InStudioWithMJ
Don't believe me? Ask the youth worker that I helped put in prison a few years later for harming children. This madness really has to stop.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 15 febbraio 2019, 15:11

https://leavingneverlandfacts.com/dan-r ... edibility/
Dan Reed’s “Missing” video and what it says about Safechuck’s credibility

February 14, 2019 by Leaving Neverland Facts
In his insatiable quest to use anything salacious for attention, Dan Reed has tossed out in interviews the wacky theory that Michael Jackson once made a sex tape.

He has so much confidence in this irresponsible claim that he never put it in his film, and he conveniently tells interviewers that it was taped over or destroyed, while offering no more proof than it is something that Safechuck told him.

As Reed told Rolling Stone, “James mentioned to me at one point, ‘You know, Michael had a video camera and he recorded a sexual act.’ But he didn’t go into detail. And then Jackson was like, ‘Oh, what did I do?’ and taped over it.” This is from a director who admits he intentionally didn’t fact check his film or do interviews beyond his two sources.

What sharp-eyed fans have noted is that the story Safechuck told Reed mirrors a myth told by the thoroughly discredited author Victor Gutierrez, who was ordered by a judge in 1998 to pay Michael $2.7 million after he alleged that he seen a 27-minute videotape of Michael Jackson having sex with a minor. Other similarities with Gutierrez tales have been noted as well.

But now that the dead can’t sue, Reed and Safechuck can make these same false claims that Michael held irresponsible accusers accountable for in life.







TSCM‏ @MJJRepository
"Wade Robson pulls out a jewelry box full of gold rings that were supposedly given to him by MJ for sexual favors...he tearfully exclaims it’s hard for him to look at the jewelry. Then why are they still in your possession????????" -Film critic Carla Reneta
Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 15 febbraio 2019, 21:05

@MJJRepository
FROM THE ARCHIVES: The moment in 1996 when Evan Chandler tried suing MJ & 300 co-conspirators in civil court—seeking $60M & rights to produce his own album. This was after two grand juries had already rejected the criminal allegations.
Immagine

Rispondi