Leaving Neverland

[soulmum]

‘Leaving Neverland’ case to remain open as judge rejects Jackson estate’s arbitration request

HBO faced legal action ahead of the film's premiere earlier this year

HBO has won the first round of Michael Jackson‘s estate’s Leaving Neverland lawsuit, it has been reported.

Directed by Dan Reed, the documentary focuses on testimony by Wade Robson, 36, and James Safechuck, 41, who both claim that Jackson sexually abused them when they were children.
Ahead of its premiere in March, Jackson’s estate sued the HBO network while protesting the late star’s innocence. Claiming that his accusers are seeking financial gain, the complaint to Los Angeles Superior Court read: “Michael is an easy target because he is not here to defend himself, and the law does not protect the deceased from defamation, no matter how extreme the lies are.”

Now, it has been reported that the case will remain open in court. Following a hearing last week, a federal judge has rejected a motion from Jackson’s estate to throw the case to an arbitrator.

The plaintiff alleges that Leaving Neverland constitutes a breach of a non-disparagement clause in an agreement that is 27 years old. It’s said that the deal provided the network with rights to air a Michael Jackson live show around the time of his 1991 album, ‘Dangerous’

The estate doesn’t want to litigate in open court, but instead invoked an arbitration clause in the old deal, aiming to resolve the conflict before the American Arbitration Association.

HBO previously claimed that the decades-old deal had expired, and therefore does not cover the Leaving Neverland film. The broadcasters hit out at legal action set in motion by Jackson’s estate, claiming it was a “transparent effort to bolster their publicity campaign against the documentary”.

Michael Jackson denied any wrongdoing before his death in 2009.

Meanwhile, pop star Aaron Carter has recently spoken out on how Jackson behaved inappropriately “one time” during their friendship. The singer, who was friends with the King of Pop when he was a teenager, had previously slammed accusations made in Leaving Neverland.



Read more at https://www.nme.com/news/leaving-nev...7shWV3CVLjT.99

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

https://toofab.com/2019/05/31/michael-j ... exclusive/
Michael Jackson's Lawyer Thomas Mesereau Claims 'Leaving Neverland' Controversy is 'Just a Blip' (Exclusive)
News
By TooFab Staff | May 31, 2019


"It will go up, and then go down, and then you'll forget about it."

The controversy surrounding documentary "Leaving Neverland" is "just a blip" according to Michael Jackson's former lawyer.

Thomas Mesereau, who successfully defended the late King of Pop against similar accusations in 2004, told TooFab exclusively that the damning HBO documentary will soon be forgotten about.

"I think his outstanding qualities will win out," he said on Wednesday night. "He was a great artist, a great person, honest, decent... I think in the end all the good qualities of Michael Jackson will prevail."

"This is just a temporary blip; it will go up, and then go down, and then you'll forget about it."

The celebrity attorney has represented many controversial figures throughout his career, including Bill Cosby, Mike Tyson and Suge Knight. But it was Jackson's not guilty verdict in his child molestation trial involving 13-year-old Gavin Arvizo that Mesereau is most famed for.

"People should just focus on his great qualities: his charitable endeavors, his humanitarianism, his great artistry, he was an exceptional human being and a very good human being, and all his good qualities are going to prevail," he added.

When asked about the fans who are demanding proof of his innocence before they listen to his music again, Mesereau replied: "Look at the jury verdict."

In June of 2005, 18 months after he was arraigned, Jackson was cleared of all charges, including four counts of molesting a minor, four counts of intoxicating a minor to molest him, one count of attempted child molestation, one count of conspiring to hold the boy and his family captive, and conspiring to commit extortion and child abduction.

Clouds have once again gathered above the superstar's legacy in the wake of the "Leaving Neverland" documentary, in which two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, allege they were sexually abused as children.

Jackson's family have denied the allegations, and are currently suing HBO over a 30-year-old non-disparagement clause.

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some

More andjustice4some Retweeted Leaving Neverland Facts
#RIP Mr. Jenkins. Thank you for being a true friend to the Jackson family, including Michael after LN.

Leaving Neverland Facts
@NeverlandFacts

Former MJJ music exec Clyde Jenkins: to Wade Robson: "you should be ashamed..I personally recall your Mom Joy calling MJJ Music with a sob story about needing money knowing that Michael Jackson loved her and her entire family and would do anything to help her."#LeavingNeverland

[soulmum]

Sarah
@Sarah43518785

#MJFam The college friend that Jordan Chandler told he was never abused, coming forward in September https://youtu.be/1AAMjd4dZ3k #IKnewLeavingNeverlandWasBS





Wade Robson Charity Exposed! What You Need To Know!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbwuxas72G4

[soulmum]

Rasheed
‏

@rasheedKOPV

The MJE vs. HBO 6/5/19

HBO's new decloration:

- Leaving Neverland and Live In Bucharest are unrelated projects, thus the terms between the agreements should be unrelated.

[soulmum]

https://variety.com/2019/music/news/doc ... 203234436/
Neverland’ Ethics Questioned as Michael Jackson Lawyers Speak at Documentaries Panel
By ROY TRAKIN



The controversy over HBO’s “Leaving Neverland” is part of a bigger debate that goes back a good century. Film scholars have been arguing about the reality, truth and objectivity of the documentary film since at least Robert Flaherty’s pioneering 1922 epic “Nanook of the North,” and probably all the way back to Thomas Edison’s “Sneeze” kinescope, according to International Documentary Association director Carrie Lozano.

Lozano was one of the panelists for “Truth Be Told? Documentary Films Today,” a discussion that brought together two rival schools as sponsors; the UCLA School of Law Ziffren Center and USC Annenberg School for Communications and Journalism combined forces to co-host the event Tuesday night on the UCLA campus.

Moderated by UCLA School of Law’s First Amendment expert Dale Cohen (pictured above, left), the panel also included powerhouse entertainment lawyers John Branca (above, center) and Howard Weitzman — both embroiled in the controversy over HBO’s “Leaving Neverland” in their roles representing the estate of Michael Jackson — along with veteran director Taylor Hackford (wife Helen Mirren was an interested observer) and USC Professor of Communications Christopher Smith.

Branca drew chuckles when he declared, “I’m an impartial observer whose point of view is not related to any particular documentary,” then launched into his own complaints about the controversial HBO documentary which included graphic testimony about underage sexual encounters with Jackson. “Testimony is presented as fact,” he explained. “No other side is presented. The director [Dan Reed] even said he had no interest in talking to anybody else.”

Weitzman echoed Branca’s argument. “The idea of offering fair and balanced views doesn’t play in the media business today,” he said. “The only true reality TV where the outcome is unknown is a sporting event.”

With the success of Oscar-winning music documentaries like “Searching for Sugar Man” and “Twenty Feet from Stardom,” it truly is the golden age of nonfiction film. With success, though, come legal difficulties. The estate of the late rapper Mac Miller just pulled the plug on a planned documentary. In dealing with deceased artists and their estates, one of the problems — or benefits, depending on your vantage point — is that defamation laws only apply to the living.

“The purpose of the First Amendment is supposedly getting at the truth, but the lack of defamation protection for an individual no longer living isn’t helpful in that regard,” states Branca. “If copyright protection is life plus 75 years, there’s no reason a defamation suit shouldn’t be life plus 20, 30 or even 40 years.”
Branca drew chuckles when he declared, “I’m an impartial observer whose point of view is not related to any particular documentary,” then launched into his own complaints about the controversial HBO documentary which included graphic testimony about underage sexual encounters with Jackson. “Testimony is presented as fact,” he explained. “No other side is presented. The director [Dan Reed] even said he had no interest in talking to anybody else.”

Weitzman echoed Branca’s argument. “The idea of offering fair and balanced views doesn’t play in the media business today,” he said. “The only true reality TV where the outcome is unknown is a sporting event.”

With the success of Oscar-winning music documentaries like “Searching for Sugar Man” and “Twenty Feet from Stardom,” it truly is the golden age of nonfiction film. With success, though, come legal difficulties. The estate of the late rapper Mac Miller just pulled the plug on a planned documentary. In dealing with deceased artists and their estates, one of the problems — or benefits, depending on your vantage point — is that defamation laws only apply to the living.

“The purpose of the First Amendment is supposedly getting at the truth, but the lack of defamation protection for an individual no longer living isn’t helpful in that regard,” states Branca. “If copyright protection is life plus 75 years, there’s no reason a defamation suit shouldn’t be life plus 20, 30 or even 40 years.”

The doc talk was hardly all downbeat. UCLA School of Law Dean Jennifer Mnookin called this era “documentary films’ cultural moment,” stating, “Their role has been expanding into an ever more central part of contemporary media culture on television, streaming services and even in theaters. The public’s appetite for these untold stories and the filmmakers’ perspective is stronger than ever. Documentaries can change the way we see the world, unpack how we can understand wrongful convictions, but they can also lead to misunderstandings by approaching different subjects in both constructive and problematic ways.”

Christopher Smith, a USC professor who specializes in the intersection of media, economics and entrepreneurship, attributes the current rise in documentaries to what he dubbed “the age of testimony,” pointing to Claude Lanzmann’s groundbreaking 1985 10-hour-plus Holocaust epic, “Shoah,” as a landmark in this area. The film, “driven not by archival footage, but anecdotes from survivors,” proves a clear forerunner to today’s #MeToo and #TimesUp confessionals, not to mention the two subjects — Wade Robson and James Safechuck — in “Leaving Neverland.”

Addressing the notion of objectivity in documentaries, Taylor Hackford (above, right), who has directed a documentary on Chuck Berry (“Hail! Hail! Rock ‘n’ Roll’”) and biopics on both Ray Charles and Muhammad Ali, says it’s impossible for a filmmaker not to have a specific point of view. Two of his favorite documentaries, both of which he programmed while working at KCET, are Emile De Antonio’s “Point of Order,” a 1964 film which traces the downfall of Senator Joe McCarthy’s Communist witch hunt of the ‘50s through CBS’ TV coverage of the congressional hearings of the time, along with D.A. Pennebaker’s 1967 cinema verité vision of Bob Dylan’s U.K. tour, “Don’t Look Back.”

“’Point of Order’ was testimony presented in such a way the audience was able to experience the emotion of the moment,” he said, pointing to Michael Moore’s partisan political docs as a modern-day example. “Pennebaker managed to show all sides of Dylan, the brilliant genius as well as the pompous prick.”
Jackson’s attorneys emphasized that there was nothing multilayered about “Neverland,” though. Branca suggested the media have been prejudiced against Michael Jackson since at least the mid-‘80s, and that it’s hard to combat the “fake news” in “Leaving Neverland” when journalists fail to take into account that both of the individuals are suing the estate for what they describe in the movie as having happened.

“I was a big fan of Elvis Presley,” Branca said, before pointing out that Presley began dating his wife-to-be, Priscilla, when she was 14. “John Lennon beat his first wife, but he wrote ‘Imagine,’ so we deify him. Now we’re about to hear stories about Martin Luther King, Jr. Does their personal life make it impossible to enjoy their artistry?

“It’s like what James Baldwin once wrote (about how) Michael Jackson will forever pay the price for being as successful as he was. There’s a large segment of the press that doesn’t care whether Michael is innocent or guilty because it’s not controversial enough. In the end, I really believe it’s a form of racism.”

[soulmum]

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/euro ... -in-france
Leaving Neverland documentary
Jackson fans sue singer's alleged victims in France


3 groups behind law suit say accusations against 'King of Pop' sully his memory, hurt his image
ORLEANS (France) • Three Michael Jackson fan groups are suing his alleged victims in France for "sullying his memory" by taking part in the Leaving Neverland documentary, the fans' lawyer has said.

The Michael Jackson Community - which claims to be the "official fan club forum" for the "King of Pop" - and the MJ Street and On The Line groups accuse Mr Wade Robson and Mr James Safechuck of "lynching" the star.

The case, which will be heard by a court in Orleans in northern France in July, follows reports that Jacksons' children were also considering taking legal action against the men, who say that the pop star had sexually abused them when they were children.

Lawyer Emmanuel Ludot, who previously successfully sued Jackson's doctor for causing distress to his fans by giving him the drugs that killed him, told Agence France-Presse last Friday that the groups "want to discredit the accusations of paedophilia" that have long dogged the star.

He said the "indignity of the extremely grave accusations" made by Mr Robson and Mr Safechuck in Leaving Neverland had sullied the memory of the singer, who died in 2009.

Jackson's image, as well as "the whole community of his fans" have been affected by the allegations, the lawyer said.

Leaving Neverland was first broadcast in the US on HBO earlier this month and has since broken streaming records in Britain.

But the film has outraged some of the late idol's fans, who have waged an often vicious social media campaign against his accusers.

A number of radio stations - from Australia to Canada - have stopped playing Jackson's music since the documentary was aired, and the creators of The Simpsons also shelved one of the animated series' classic episodes because it featured Jackson's voice.

French luxury brand Louis Vuitton dropped Jackson-themed clothing last Thursday from a collection it had shown during Paris Fashion Week in January, saying it found the "allegations in the documentary deeply troubling and disturbing".

Mr Virgil Abloh, creator of the pieces and the first black designer to lead a major Paris fashion house, was assailed on social media by Jackson fans for the decision.

"Shame on you for removing all items related to Michael Jackson," one fan wrote on Instagram, while another accused him of being a "traitor... on the white people side".

In 2014, French lawyer Ludot won nominal damages of €1 (S$1.50) from Jackson's personal doctor, Dr Conrad Murray, for the hurt he had caused to his fans for his part in the singer's death.

Dr Murray was sentenced in 2011 to four years in jail for manslaughter for giving Jackson what turned out to be a lethal dose of the anaesthetic drug Propofol to help him sleep.

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

[soulmum]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... e-zuIb2ONs
Truth Be Told Panel Charles Thomson

[soulmum]

This makes me both sad and angry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :???:

https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/leavin ... 203235967/

How ‘Leaving Neverland’ Upended TV’s Michael Jackson Anniversary Plans


More than a year ago, the producers at Big Fish Entertainment — the company behind A&E’s hit “Live P.D.” — started talking about ways to create a program timed to the 10th anniversary of Michael Jackson’s death. Surely interest would be high, given the King of Pop’s musical legacy and the circumstances of his untimely demise.

Big Fish optioned the 2012 book “Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson,” by Rolling Stone contributor Randall Sullivan, with an eye toward developing an unscripted series. The company, eager to expand into the scripted business, also found writers to develop a version of the book’s narrative as a limited series.

“We worked closely with Randall to identify material and footage and stories that people have never heard,” Big Fish president Dan Cesareo said. “People willing to go on record who hadn’t previously gone on record. We felt we had put together a really compelling narrative that would make a lot of sense for the market.”

Big Fish soon found a network partner, which Cesareo declined to name, and kicked development into high gear. But then came “Leaving Neverland.”

The HBO documentary, which first screened at the Sundance Festival in January, forced networks and producers to rethink their plans on how to observe the anniversary of Jackson’s death — or whether to do so at all.

Directed by Dan Reed, “Leaving Neverland” centers on two accusers, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, now in their 30s, who recount in graphic detail how they were sexually abused by Jackson starting at very young ages. The two-part, four-hour documentary aired in March. Since then, many radio stations and DJs have stopped playing Jackson’s music, and the debate continues over how (or if) to separate the art from the artist.

In the case of “Untouchable,” Cesareo said the impact of the HBO doc was immediate. The network that had been developing the unscripted project with Big Fish? “They suddenly cut bait and ran,” he said. “The project was essentially toxic. That’s the feeling I got. No one wanted to touch it.”

Ditto the scripted version. “When ‘Leaving Neverland’ dropped at Sundance, we could barely get a return phone call,” he added.

But that’s not the only Michael Jackson-related project, timed to the anniversary of his death, that was scrubbed after “Leaving Neverland” came out. According to one insider, producers Scooter Braun and Den of Thieves had put together a plan to re-create Jackson’s “This Is It” concert — the one the singer had been planning and about to launch in London, just before his 2009 death — as a major TV special.

The idea would be to bring back the original dancers and musicians who had been a part of “This Is It,” along with a rotating cast of A-list guest stars sitting in individually, per song, for Jackson. The project didn’t get beyond the early pitch stage, however, before “Leaving Neverland” changed the tenor of the conversation about Jackson in popular culture.

“They went radio silent shortly thereafter,” one source said.

Programmers rarely let a major anniversary go unnoticed without some opportunity to target audience nostalgia. This summer, countless specials and documentaries (including one by Big Fish) will recount the 50th anniversary of the 1969 Apollo Moon landing. ABC News recently ran a two-hour primetime special about Farrah Fawcett, who died on June 25, 2009 — the same day as Jackson.

But ABC News isn’t planning any similar type of special about the singer. NBC and CBS also don’t appear to have anything in the works. As a matter of fact, it appears the only new Jackson special scheduled anywhere is ReelzChannel’s “The Michael Jackson Story,” set to air on June 23.

“In this moment and time, people want to keep a little bit of a distance from this and see if anything else plays out,” said one network exec. “For the time being, it’s radioactive in today’s world. People are having a hard time separating the human from the human artist. This puts people in a place where they do not want to be associated for the time being with this brand.”

The Michael Jackson estate is also taking a quiet approach to the anniversary of the singer’s death, but it said that’s by design. “We have never encouraged ‘celebrations’ on Michael’s death anniversary and don’t do events or shows ourselves,” estate spokesperson Diana Baron wrote via email. “We suggest things to fans to honor his life — and this year we ask fans to pay tribute to his memory and philanthropic work by their performing an act of charity or kindness and posting it to their Instagram or Twitter accounts.

“When it comes to large celebrations, those are done around positive moments like his birthday,” she added.

But the estate had been planning on launching something in time for the anniversary: It and Columbia Live Stage were originally set to launch the Jackson-themed musical “Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough” in Chicago later this year. Its cancelation was blamed on a labor dispute, and so far plans continue for the musical’s premiere on Broadway in the summer of 2020. But nonetheless, the Jackson estate has been remarkably quiet in recent months, after its attempts to discredit “Leaving Neverland” didn’t curtail the film’s impact.

“‘Leaving Neverland’ is reconceptualizing [Jackson’s] life and his personal life but also his work,” said Dan Reed, the filmmaker behind the documentary. “Because of that, it may have an impact on the way that people mourn his passing. I don’t want to take a position where it’s wrong not to celebrate his life, that’s an individual choice. Obviously he was a dad, he was a son. But I think ‘Leaving Neverland’ blew a hole in Michael Jackson’s personal reputation. Of course that’s going to impact the anniversary of his death, which would be planned as a celebration of his life and his work.

“I don’t want to say to people don’t make a big deal about the anniversary of his death,” Reed added. “But let’s just confront the fact that as an entertainer he was amazing, but as a man there were facets to his life that were really unacceptable.”

Reed suggested an alternate way to mark the anniversary of Jackson’s death: To take a stand against the sexual exploitation of children, both in Hollywood and in other parts of society.

“I welcome the opportunity at the tenth anniversary for people to contemplate very seriously how prevalent child sexual abuse is and how easily children can fall prey to beloved, charismatic and much admired and respected figures in the community,” Reed said. ” It’s a horrible thing that happens all over the world, it’s not just famous people. We need to wake up to how easy it is for us to be lulled into a false sense of security. If that’s what we take away from ‘Leaving Neverland,’ then great.”

Reed said he has been heartened by the impact that “Leaving Neverland” has had in pop culture, and noted that the timing (post Time’s Up and #MeToo) helped it and another documentary series, Lifetime’s “Surviving R. Kelly,” in keeping the allegations of child abuse by those two entertainers in the news.

“Any kind of sexual abuse is a topic that people don’t want to talk about,” he said. “I think the Me Too movement and the R. Kelly documentary, they opened people’s minds to the fact that victims out there might be telling the truth. Sexual abuse is a crime that often has no witnesses and often has no material evidence to support it… I think [these things] opened people’s minds that they happen often.”

And because “Leaving Neverland” was so thorough in telling the horrifying stories of Jackson victims Robson and Safechuck, it doesn’t seem complete for any other production about Jackson to move forward without including those two or heavily recounting the doc’s findings. That’s also why, besides not wanting to touch this “radioactive” topic, producers might not want to try and top what Reed has just done. Whether producers or viewers will ever again want to watch a program that celebrates Jackson’s music remains to be seen — and is likely very much down the road.

“There was a [10th anniversary] special already, and it was called ‘Leaving Neverland’ on HBO,” said one reality producer. “It stole the conversation for a while. Right now, people are in contemplative mode. I think maybe for his 20th anniversary people will consider doing a [Jackson] music special. After the dust settles a little bit, people might be able to separate the music from the individual.”

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

https://www.scribd.com/document/4126948 ... pon-a-Star

[soulmum]

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... reputation
Should Michael Jackson have the right to protect his reputation?
BY ALAN DERSHOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 03/04/19 06:00 PM EST THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL



HBO would never have aired its lurid documentary about alleged crimes of Michael Jackson if the singer were still alive. Its counsel would have warned against using some arguably discredited witnesses to recycle accusations that have been rejected in the past. At the very least, the attorneys would have advised the network to present some balance by including caveats on past challenges to the credibility of the witnesses.

But because Jackson is dead, anyone is free to defame him. The current law generally requires that defamed individuals must be alive to sue for libel or slander. This is a gaping hole in the legal protection of reputation that allows all manner of lies, even intentionally false accusations made for financial gain or revenge, to be widely circulated about dead people. The moment that someone dies, his or her reputation is up for grabs. It can be savaged without any credible evidence, and without any recourse from the law by loved ones or the estate of the defamed deceased. This open season on dead celebrities encourages the exploitation of their memories for profit. It also encourages media to be unconcerned with seeking truth, especially when lies sell soap and nuanced truth is boring.

ADVERTISEMENT
This is not only about Jackson. It is about every American who cares about his or her reputation and legacy. While alive, you could fight back, either personally or through your attorneys. The minute you die, your reputation becomes fair game for every liar, con man, tabloid, or vengeful enemy, as well as for the unbalanced media portrayals. They can say anything they want about you without fear of a defamation suit. What they would not dare to say while you are alive, they can publish or air with impunity as soon as you die, or when you are deathly ill and they know you will not survive long enough to win a defamation suit.

This tactic of posthumous piling on does not promote truth. It incentivizes publishing or airing what sells, and salacious lies sell better than carefully vetted truth. I worry about this myself since I have been falsely accused of sexual misconduct by two women I never met. Because they accused me in court documents, I cannot sue them for defamation under the litigation privilege. However, if they were to make the accusations outside of court on television, in an interview, or in a memoir, I could and would sue them and disprove their made up stories in court. That is why they have refused to accuse me in public despite my repeated challenges to them to do so.

While alive, I can respond in the court of public opinion and emphasize their refusal to go on the open record with their accusations. I can move to have the court strike their allegations, and sanction their lawyers, as I have successfully done. But the moment I die, any perjurer can go on television and falsely accuse me without fear of a lawsuit. A network can make a film without presenting the results of an investigation by a former head of the FBI who said, “The totality of the evidence found during the investigation refutes the allegations.” Their lawyers, who have declined my invitation to accuse me in public, can say whatever they want about me.

There is something wrong with this picture. Your posthumous reputation is as important as your living reputation, perhaps even more so to family and loved ones, and to your legacy. Even if the law were changed to allow the estate of a deceased person to sue for defamation, the reality is that it would be difficult to win because the key witness, which is the defamed individual, could not take the stand. But at least it would be possible to disprove blatant lies with documentary evidence and other witnesses.

Would such a change chill free speech? All defamation laws do risk some degree of chill. That is why there are such high barriers to public figures suing for defamation. The plaintiff must show not only that the accusation is false, but that it was made with malice, the reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the accusation. But these barriers are not insuperable in egregious cases. The First Amendment needs breathing room, but it does not require encouraging deliberate lies, even about dead public figures. The Jackson case demonstrates the need for reform. The estate of a dead individual should be allowed to prove any case of malicious defamation.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School. His new book is “The Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump.” You can follow him on Twitter @AlanDersh.

[soulmum]

Can Science Prove Michael Jackson's Innocence? | Leaving Neverland

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY-ZuFc7ALw

[soulmum]

Justice for The Falsely Accused
@JuliaBerkowitz1

Replying to @JuliaBerkowitz1 @Zigmanfreud @danreed1000
Also Wade liked this 2016 post by Brian mentioning MJ.

[soulmum]

@PaulaFinThinks

Someone was doubting (in another thread) if K.Lipsey was a sound engineer and everything. Then @shlharris sent this picture from Wade Robson's Instagram. K Lipsey is there with the members of the orchestra. Posted March 2018.

[soulmum]

A wonderful read.

Judi Brisse
@JudiBrisse

Michael Jackson:A Living Legacy: Back to Neverland With Big Al Scanlan http://valmaiowens.blogspot.com/2011/02 ... anlan.html …

[soulmum]

DespicableDrew
@DespicableDrew

Imagine that. Wearing the t-shirt sporting the face of an innocent, persecuted man has now become the act of protest against the deceiving mass media and the legalized mud-machine against someone who never deserved this.
The world is going backwards.
-Meagan Good, this week
-Celion Dion’s son this month
-J.cole this month

[soulmum]

Leaving Neverland - Legit or S#!t? w/ Vince Russo, RazörFist, Stevie Richards, Bin Hamin & Jeff Lane

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... KgY12rThOk

[soulmum]

The Truth
@PurpleMoonwalk

Stephanie Safechuck: "The door was locked so I couldn't get in."
Actually, the locks were on the OUTSIDE of the theater and could be unlocked from the INSIDE. Just one of the many lies of this mockumentary.

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

Jess Bond
@mistreslilith76

Met David LaChapelle yesterday. I thanked him to have defended Michael from LN. He said ”He need it. He was an angel”

[soulmum]

'Vanity Fair' Awards Issue 2019:

The TV Documentaries With the Power to Change Culture
This year, Surviving R. Kelly, Fyre Fraud, Leaving Neverland, and The Inventor all rendered verdicts in the court of public opinion.

(Starts with R Kelly) then.......
Criminals and schemers have long been ripe subjects for documentaries. But the current moment seems particularly primed for a well-constructed true-crime documentary—or four. The frustrating political era, in which indictments and investigations result in few consequences, has dovetailed with the Time’s Up movement and its attention to those abused, and then silenced, by powerful people. There is a proven audience for judicial catharsis, even if that comes in the court of public opinion, so it is no surprise that this year’s swell of true-crime programming yielded record-breaking numbers, Internet firestorms, and measurable impact on the lives of both the victims and the accused.

The most controversial and consequential may be Dan Reed’s Leaving Neverland. The four-hour film centers on Wade Robson’s and James Safechuck’s claims of childhood sexual abuse by Michael Jackson, laying out a complicated alleged pattern of grooming and abuse in such graphic detail that trauma experts were stationed inside the lobby at the Sundance Film Festival premiere, in January. After Leaving Neverland aired on HBO in March, Jackson’s music was pulled from international radio stations and some sporting events. The Simpsons shelved a 1991 episode featuring the singer’s voice. Louis Vuitton removed its Michael Jackson-inspired clothing from the luxury brand’s fall-winter 2019 collection. A Jackson statue was removed from the National Football Museum in Britain. And in late February, the listing agents for Jackson’s Neverland Ranch estate slashed the asking price on the title property from $100 million to $31 million.

Reed did not set out to chip away at Jackson’s legacy. “That, for me, is a pointless mission,” the British filmmaker says. “And it doesn’t really do any good for anyone. The way we can do some good and also tell meaningful and significant stories is to go into this labyrinth of child sexual abuse.” The two-part series gives Safechuck, Robson, and their families the space to unspool the complicated web of alleged events that went on between the superstar, Safechuck and Robson, and their parents. Oprah Winfrey hosted a Leaving Neverland special, in which she told Reed that he was able to create the kind of nuanced portrait of child sexual abuse that she could not conjure in 25 seasons of her network show and 217 specials devoted to the opic.

Shortly after Leaving Neverland premiered, Reed’s production office was flooded with e-mails and letters. The documentary special, Reed says, has “led to people taking another look at relationships they or their children have had with significant adults, in some cases with very disturbing consequences.” Though Reed began work on the documentary before the #MeToo movement rose to national prominence, he’s grateful the documentary debuted in its wake: “It made it easier for us to say our default reaction should be to listen to people who take the difficult step of coming out and talking about their child sexual abuse. Up until now, the response has been to shout at people, try and sue them, or silence them with money or with shame or with the threat of prosecution. And that’s not the way you should do things.

In Leaving Neverland, Reed says, he had to “correct the narrative that Jackson’s highly paid legal team embedded deeply into the public consciousness. For 20 years at least, you’ve been hearing from Jackson and his supporters and his lawyers that these children are lying and their families are lying and they’re all looking for money. And I think the strategy—from people who have an interest in protecting their income from Jackson and his legacy, etc.—is, if you sow a little bit of doubt, that’s probably enough for people not to believe that he was a pedophile.”

Leaving Neverland, the third-most-watched documentary in HBO’s history, has had sizable aftershocks for Jackson’s lucrative estate. The late star’s family has launched a multi-pronged defense against Leaving Neverland’s claims—filing a $100 million lawsuit against HBO, doing televised interviews, and even releasing its own 30-minute documentary rebuttal on YouTube. In April, it was reported that Jackson’s children are preparing a lawsuit for fraud, emotional distress, slander, and misrepresentation against their father’s accusers.

(Continues about the Fyre festival)....

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...change-culture

[soulmum]

@jofraz80
joanne fraser

I’ve been given access to the new doc chasing the truth with @MattFiddesUK because I know a few fans have been a bit uncertain about it, and all I can say is it’s excellent! It covers the lies from LN and more, you will honestly not be disappointed.. I cried!

Matt Fiddes
@MattFiddesUK

Explosive Michael Jackson doc will 'ruin Leaving Neverland director's career'

[soulmum]

:???:

‘Leaving Neverland’ Director Dan Reed Talks Why There’s Support for Michael Jackson But Not Bill Cosby

Awards Daily’s Megan McLachlan speaks with director Dan Reed of HBO’s Leaving Neverland about why people are reluctant to believe Wade Robson and James Safechuck, the victims who didn’t want to appear on camera, and why celebrities like Bill Cosby don’t have the same support from fans as Michael Jackson.
As a documentary filmmaker, Dan Reed has uncovered uncomfortable truths about the Charlie Hebdo attacks, ISIS, and people who tried to cash in on 9/11. But the director didn’t know what he was getting into when he started work on Leaving Neverland, his two-part documentary about the alleged sexual abuse at the hands of Michael Jackson.

Since airing on HBO in the spring of 2019, the documentary has provoked a lot of conversation and even inspired many people to come forward with their own stories of sexual abuse. However, it’s also brought about Michael Jackson truthers who defend the King of Pop as innocent of all charges.

I had a chance to chat with Reed about why he decided to take on this project, how he handles death threats, and the directorial decision to focus on these two families.

Awards Daily: What made you decide to delve into this very controversial story? Why was this important to you?

Dan Reed: Leaving Neverland happened as a result of an opportunity rather than any decision of mine to go off on Michael Jackson. It was an opportunity to do what this documentary did, which was to take people on a journey right through two decades of two families’ encounter with a grooming pedophile—it’s really rare to get that opportunity. I don’t know if there are many documentaries that have done this—nevermind with a predator as famous as Jackson. My background as a documentary filmmaker didn’t include anything about music or show business, and I had made one documentary before that dealt with child sexual abuse with a vigilante in the United Kingdom [The Paedophile Hunter, from 2014]. What Leaving Neverland has in common with the rest of my work is that it’s about people surviving immense trauma and coming to terms with it. It gives people insight into their journey through the most terrible thing that can happen to them, how it takes them to a place where they can take stock of what happened and talk about it.

This film came about because I came across James [Safechuck] and Wade [Robson]. At the request of Channel 4 in the UK, I was looking very generally at the Michael Jackson controversy. I really thought this was something I wasn’t going to take much time on. And suddenly I noticed this mention in a forum of the lawsuit that James and Wade brought against the estate, and I delved into who they were and what they wanted and ended up meeting them and interviewing them, and everything changed.

AD: Were you aware of the passionate Michael Jackson fans? I interviewed your composer Chad Hobson for Awards Daily, too, and when I published the piece, I was immediately inundated with Michael Jackson fans harassing me. How have you dealt with the harassment? Were you concerned about the backlash?

DR: To be honest, the backlash doesn’t really exist if you’re not on Twitter or social media. It’s something that lives on the comment pages of media articles like the one you wrote about Chad, and it lives obviously on the pages of Twitter and Facebook, etc. I’m generally too busy to spend a long time on social media, so I wasn’t really aware of what that would feel like. Subsequently, I noticed that everything I tweeted, even if it was ‘Nice weather in London today’, was met with, ‘Lies! Lies! Lies’ and a torrent of abuse. I didn’t know that was going to happen. We did get a lot of direct emails to my company to the general email address and a lot of those were really nasty, but that kind of stopped, like someone switched off a faucet, as soon as the documentary was broadcast on HBO. Then we got all these amazing messages from people—a trickle compared to the flood of hatred that was coming to us—but a trickle of messages that really continues to this day, from people who found in the documentary a way to release themselves from years of silence about being sexually abused as a child.

AD: Did you receive any death threats at all?

DR: My work for many years has brought me into contact with terrorists and criminals and guerrilla armies and what have you, so there have been occasions where people have threatened to kill me and I take that very seriously. On Leaving Neverland, I’ve had dozens if not hundreds of emails which contained threats, but none of which I found credible. So I haven’t gone into hiding. I’ve taken precautions to protect me and my family, though I’m not going to mention what they are. There hasn’t been any manifestation of violence so far. We’re vigilient, because all it takes is one lunatic.


AD: Yeah. It’s scary out there. Wade Robson and James Safechuck have also suffered abuse. Even though support for abuse victims has grown in the #MeToo age, why do you think people don’t want to believe them? Do you think it has to do with them being men?

DR: If you take a deep breath and step back and ignore the shouting about Wade and James for a second, and just say—wait a minute—it’s not that common for people to come out and describe in huge detail an array of facts and really coherent evidence that is backed up by all the circumstantial evidence. It’s not that common for people to do that and not be telling the truth. This is a difficult thing for people to come out and say. Why aren’t they believed? Why are they attacked? I think the reason has to be partly because we’re saturated by the Jackson version or the version that Jackson lawyers have put out, which is it’s all about the money. They have painted Jackson as a martyr and victim of gold-digging. That’s a bizarre thing. If you think of other rich and famous people, I’m sure there are plenty of people trying to scam them, but not by pretending that they were sexually abused as children.

A deeper reason is yes, it’s harder for people to confront the taboo of male sexual abuse, with the victims being men. That’s a harder thing for people to get their head around. It’s something people don’t want to face, in particular when those males are children. It’s a really uncomfortable thing for people to think about, someone having sex with a little boy. To my mind, child sexual abuse, male or female, is absolutely, equally horrific. But for some reason, I think it is more difficult to get people’s heads around the male aspect of it. It’s something people would rather not think about.

Another factor is Jackson’s status and fame as an entertainer. His songs are like the soundtrack to happy moments in people’s lives and he was so famous. People just can’t grasp both the fact that he was this guy who wrote these songs that are enduring and woven into the fabric of our culture, and also that Michael the human being liked to have sex with little boys. Those two facts simply do not fit in the same narrative.

When we make people so famous and we give them an almost god-like status of someone really good in the world, it’s very hard then to reconcile what they do as human beings with that status. Leaving Neverland is partly about the impossibility of digesting the fact that someone who has that celebrity status bestowed upon them can also be human. Any person can be a pedophile. You’re not more or less likely to be a pedophile if you’re rich and famous. Yes, you can say Michael Jackson was a victim of his circumstances, but what we can say for sure is that Wade and James were victims of Michael Jackson and so were their families. He’s the perpetrator in this story. If everyone who had a hard time as a child had a license to rape a kid, I think our society would be in a bit of a mess.

AD: Were there any other accusers who came forward to you but didn’t want to be on camera?

DR: I met with Jason Francia, the son of Michael Jackson’s chambermaid. He was kind of casually molested by Jackson, he wasn’t drawn into the same kind of close, pseudo-romantic relationship as James and Wade were. He was molested while his mom was cleaning somewhere else in the house. He was paid off by Jackson. I sat and had dinner with Jason—and this is public knowledge, by the way, I’m not breaking any confidences—and he didn’t feel ready to do what Wade and James did, which is basically make themselves targets for these crazies out there. That’s probably a very big consideration for anyone else who wants to come forward. This isn’t people making casual threats, but people hacking your bank account, private details. I’ve had successful hacking attempts on me. These are people who are a real nuisance. You have to think really hard before taking that on.

AD: You focused on interviewing two families. Some documentaries include psychologists and less biased sources. What was the reasoning behind focusing on the families?

DR: That was a filmmaking choice, not a journalistic thing. I wanted people to really concentrate just on what James and Wade and their families were saying; I wanted to try to get them to explain everything that they had gone through. I wanted to get them to speak about and interpret their experience as much as possible. What was great about After Neverland [Oprah’s show] was that you had a psychotherapist who stood up and said a few things. I didn’t want to make my documentary into an educational program. Not to say I didn’t want it to be educational—I just didn’t want it to feel dry. I wanted people to be immersed in the two families’ experience.

I did quite a few interviews with former police investigators from the Santa Barbara sheriff’s department and the LAPD, people who investigated the Jackson case in ’93 and 2004/2005. They were great interviews and certainly shed a lot of light, and none of the investigators were in any doubt at all that Jackson was a pedophile. But these were people who’d already spoken in the press or who’d already been quoted before, and I felt that they were giving secondhand information. They had no direct knowledge of the things they were talking about. Being investigators, they were investigating secondhand information. They were talking to people who were there.

Members of the household staff] had glimpsed stuff, but a lot had been interviewed by the tabloid press and may have taken money for the interview. The Jackson camp always found ways to discredit the members of the Jackson household. I wanted to distance Leaving Neverland from all of the controversy that had gone before it. I didn’t want to be relying on people who were at best circumstantial witnesses—the maid who saw a child naked in the shower with Jackson, who she thought was Wade—I thought that that was less powerful than Wade himself who had been in the shower with Jackson.

Had Michael Jackson been alive, I would have of course sought to interview him, and had he given me one, I would have included it in the program. There’s no doubt about that. But sadly he’s dead—and I say sadly because I would have loved to have seen him brought to justice and taken to court. I included at some length Jackson’s protestations of innocence at the time of previous allegations, I included his lawyers’ rebuttals of allegations, in multiple places in the documentary. Also, when Wade came out with his charges in 2013, I included the reactions of fans, Michael’s former lawyers commenting on Wade’s new allegations—so the Jackson camp is well-represented in their rebuttals and denials.

Also, I want to say this—I’ve been doing forensic journalism for 30 years. What we’re talking bout here is acts that took place between two individuals behind closed doors. To my knowledge, no one else was present when Jackson was having sex with Wade or with James. There are no eye witnesses, no one with direct knowledge of the central facts of Leaving Neverland—the sexual molestation of these two children by Michael Jackson. To people who say, ‘Why didn’t you include members of the Jackson family?’ [as some kind of journalistic balance], it’s apples and oranges. They are not journalistically equivalent. Having someone give the equivalent of a character reference in court is not the same as someone saying, ‘I saw him shoot that guy.’

The elephant in the room is that Jackson spent so many nights in bed behind closed doors with little boys who were not his children. That’s something that nobody denies. He doesn’t seem to have hidden from anyone the fact that he spent nights with kids. That’s a fundamental fact that’s never addressed by the other side. That’s what baffles me. On one hand, you attack Wade and James for making these allegations, and on the other hand, you have no explanation for what Michael was actually doing. He managed to get away with it because Michael Jackson is a great entertainer, and people can’t get their head around the fact that he might have also been a man who was consistently cruel to children.

AD: That leads to my last question. I think about how other iconic figures like Bill Cosby have fallen from grace with sexual abuse allegations. But there’s not a huge group defending him like they are Michael Jackson. Why do you think MJ fans are so passionate about Michael Jackson compared to other figures like Bill Cosby?

DR: Jackson’s supernova fame transcends any other figure of the late 20th Century; compared to Cosby and R. Kelly, he’s on another level. Cosby never incorporated surviving the allegations of sexual abuse into his mythology. Jackson and his lawyers fight back against the children who made allegations against him—it became the story people embraced. Jackson found a way of incorporating it into his identity, and it became part of his victim story.

He masqueraded as someone who loved children and was innocent and child-like at heart, filled with pure love, which is cruelly ironic. Because he built that lie very consistently, he saw himself that way. It made it even harder for people to make that huge stretch back to maybe he’s the complete opposite. It’s the magnitude of his fame and his narrative that he’s a child at heart. He made such a play of being falsely accused and being a martyr. A lot of people’s hearts went out to him. Being a victim of child sexual abuse is the hardest thing to disclose. It’s completely standard for people not to disclose. If you put all that stuff together, it’s incredibly difficult for people to believe that Jackson was a pedophile.

https://www.awardsdaily.com/2019/06/...eed-interview/

[soulmum]

Deepi
@deepika1038

WOWWWW!! hard work never fails... Remember guys few days before korean fans brought to our notice that LN was about to air there and we all worte to that channel with the proofs of Ln is a lie... they have finally agreed to drop it!!!

[soulmum]

@MJHIStory
Source 3h3 hours agoKorea postpones broadcast of #LeavingNeverland and schedule events across the country celebrating Michael Jackson.

[soulmum]

SCM
@MJJRepository

Some tea time with Stephanie.
In Leaving Neverland Part 2, following excerpts about the Chandler allegations & settlement, Stephanie Safechuck describes MJ helping them get a new home—then implies it was gifted to them for testifying in 94.
Here's the truth about that home.



SS: We wanted to buy another house, and MJ gave us a loan at a very low percentage rate. My husband had already had a deposition. We were on Michael's camp. My son also for Michael...

FACT: MJ, via a formal TRUST (est. 1991) & attorneys offered a secured loan filed May 13, 1992.

MJ's TRUST provided the Safechucks w/ fixed LOAN for $305,000 to purchase their home at a low interest rate & duration. They purchased the house w/ this mortgage-loan on May 13, 1992 w/ $5k down.

This was 15 MONTHS before Chandler allegations & 23 MONTHS before Grand Jury.

The fixed rate loan was twice secured via Safechuck properties in case they defaulted on their payments. In September 1993, the trustees noted that the entire balance and interest was due, but the SAFECHUCKS requested to extend the loan's maturity date until into March 1994.

The agreement & binding deeds between MJ's trust and the Safechucks then remained without any noted changes or adjustments through 1996, with it still deeded to MJ's trust.

On June 7, 1997, John Branca resumed as deed trustee and then released the properties back to Safechucks.

The loan was offered to assist the Safechucks by MJ's Trust in spring '92. After the Safechucks requested more time to reimburse the loan (implying they weren't paying it back as promised) and MJ agreed to, years passed. It was reconveyed back to them in June 1997, 5 years later.

SS: After [the 1994 deposition / Chandler case] was all said and done is when Michael forgave the debt...the timing's right there.

Neither the start (05-1992) nor end (06-1997) of this loan nor the supposed forgiveness have any association w/ the Chandler case.

More deception.

[soulmum]

@MJonTheBrain

Now this is interesting, Harvey Levin of TMZ spoke to Stephanie Safechuck back in January 2005 about molestation allegations of James. She "wanted this whole thing to go away, never to be heard from again", also "relatives" denied the allegations to police detectives

[soulmum]

https://medium.com/@susansiders/michael ... 4f6fa6220a
Jun 22
Michael Jackson: Reading Past the Headline



Next week will mark the 10-year anniversary of Michael Jackson’s death. For the past decade, we have seen Jackson’s legacy flourish. The entertainer has topped Forbes’ Top Ten Dead Celebrity earners’ list for eight of nine years. Highlights of Jackson’s Estate in the past 10 years include the highest grossing music documentary of the time, two albums with previously unreleased tracks, two documentaries produced by Spike Lee focusing Jackson’s BAD and Off the Wall albums respectively, and a Cirque du Soleil Las Vegas residency show that underscores Jackson’s groundbreaking contributions to music, dance and humanitarianism.

In 2019, the artist’s legacy took a hard hit with the Leaving Neverland, a self-described documentary featuring two men who accused Jackson of child sexual assault in their pre-pubescent years. After premiering at Sundance, legitimate news site headlines screamed of Jackson’s guilt, claiming the film was “devastating”, “horrifying” and “disturbing”. Headlines shrieked of mental health counselors on hand for any audience member upset by the accusers’ claims, of Jackson supporters’ death threats, of a heavy police presence. A law enforcement officer at the film premiere stated,“tensions are higher for this movie than anything I’ve ever seen at Sundance before.”



Approximately a month later, following the airing of the film on HBO, Oprah Winfrey interviewed both of the accusers in an hour-long show. The audience, filled with at least 100 survivors of childhood sexual abuse, coupled with the media headlines seemingly sealed the veneer of legitimacy. Public calls to mute Michael Jackson were swift. Louis Vuitton pulled his Jackson-inspired collection from stores. The Simpsons removed a well-known episode that featured Jackson’s vocals. Jackson’s memorabilia items were removed from The Children’s Museum in Indianapolis. In Canada and Australia, radio stations refused to play Jackson’s songs. Yet, if media outlets had botherered to read beyond the headlines, a different picture would emerge of the film and the accusations themselves.

In a question and answer session immediately following the premiere of the film at Sundance, both men along with the director claimed there was no financial motive in the film for the accusers. However, the media did not report that both accusers sued the Jackson Estate for hundreds of millions of dollars and lost only a month before the premiere of the film. Both accusers were caught repeatedly lying in sworn declarations, including:

The first accuser claimed that, although Jackson died four years prior, he did not realize that an Estate of Michael Jackson existed. However, the accuser applied for a job with the Estate, and met with Estate executor, John Branca in 2011. Ultimately, the accuser did not get the job. Two years later, the accuser filed a lawsuit against the Jackson Estate, claiming that Jackson sexually assaulted him. Both of the accusers lost their lawsuits. As of February 2019, the first accuser owes the Estate of Michael Jackson over $70,000 in legal fees.

Prior to the lawsuit, the same accuser shopped a book about his claim that Jackson sexually abused him. No publisher was interested. The accuser lied under oath, stating that there was no communication between he and anyone else about the allegations, however emails were found that clearly stated he made his claims to his publicist and others. In addition, the accuser’s book claims were different than those he claimed in his lawsuit. The accuser clearly sought financial gain for the past eight years, attempting to shop a book and filing a lawsuit against the Estate of Michael Jackson for hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet every media outlet, including HBO and Oprah Winfrey failed to mention that prior to the film’s premieres, staggered globally, which lasted for over a month. Prior to the airing of the film on HBO, no media reported on the accuser’s lawsuit or shopping a book for financial gain.

Just before the film aired on HBO, the same accuser created a charity website. The accuser formed his charity under the umbrella of a larger charity, which allows the accuser not to have to file a 990 Form with the IRS. The accuser and his wife “can accept money from anyone — the filmmakers, HBO, etc. and never have to reveal it.” Despite the claims that the accusers were not paid for the film, only one media site reported about the accuser’s conveniently timed charity foundation.
It was only after the initial headlines and worldwide airing of the film, that Jackson historians and supporters were able to provide context through the media. Both accusers were caught in multiple lies differing between sworn declarations in their lawsuit, and what they claimed in the film. The first accusers’ mother claimed in both 1993 and 2016 that the entire family went on vacation to the Grand Canyon. In the film, the first accuser claimed the family left him behind at Neverland, while he family traveled to the Grand Canyon, and ultimately, he was sexually assaulted for the first time by Jackson.

In the film, the second accuser claimed he refused to testify for Jackson in his 2005 trial, of which he was acquitted of all charges. The accuser recalled in detail that once he refused to testify, Jackson became irate, and threatened him. However, this claim is false, as the Judge refused to allow evidence that he deemed as unreliable. The Judge only allowed a few disgruntled employees, and several young boys who all testified that Jackson never touched them, including the first accuser. The second accuser blatantly lied about being asked to testify.
The second accuser also claimed he was abused by Jackson from 1988 to 1992. He claimed that Jackson abused him at several different times and locations which were found to be incorrect. What should be noted is his claim of abuse in a train station at Neverland, that was not completed until 1994, two years after he claimed the abuse ended. (Note: both accusers’ main claim in the film was that Jackson abused them prior to puberty, and then “abandoned” them and replaced by another pre-pubescent boy.) This was repeatedly claimed over and over again in the film. Once the train station claim was debunked, director Dan Reed claimed that “sexual contact continued into his teens…” (between the accuser and Jackson). By 1994, the second accuser was 16 years old, and this destroys their foundational claim that once they hit puberty, Jackson abandoned them and moved on to another pre-pubescent boy.

Only then did select media outlets print headlines of discrepancies claimed by the accuser, undisputable proven by architectural drawings of the Neverland train station, approved in 1993, but not built until 1994. But it was too late. Nearly a month after the premiere of the film and had aired in most countries around the world, Jackson had already been found guilty by headline.



Even when the Estate of Michael Jackson sent a letter with all of above information, discrepancies and blatant lies that provided the background for the accusations made in the film, few media outlets reported on it. HBO refused to address those issues, as did Oprah Winfrey. Armed with all of this information, one has to wonder why only one media outlet dared to print a headline in Jackson’s defense prior to the airing of the film. This is nothing new to the Jackson Estate, family, historians and supporters. Time and time again, the media has deliberately reported inaccurately on Michael Jackson and the allegations of abuse made against him. Jackson, well aware of the reasoning behind it, remained dismayed throughout his adult life over the media’s coverage of him.

“Remember, the press is a business. Newspapers and magazines are in this business to make money — sometimes at the expense of accuracy, fairness and even the truth.” — Michael Jackson

In another post from Medium.com, author Tobias Rose brilliantly explains how the media uses algorithms to capture as much attention with headlines as possible on social media. However, “the problem with this is that the majority of people who see these posts on social media don’t actually click through to read the articles themselves. For many users, the headline itself becomes the story, even if it doesn’t resemble the original factual event.”

We live in an era where a misrepresented story by headline can result in the “cancelling” of historical figures. Whether the story covers Michael Jackson or the Central Park 5, reading past not just one, but multiple headlines gives us a global perspective on whether an allegation is true or not. Reading past the headline not only benefits Jackson’s legacy, but as an informed reader, it benefits your own as well.

[soulmum]

TSCM
@MJJRepository

MEGATHREAD: Every single "explanation" by guilters about James Safechuck's train station lie over the last 3 months and why their desperate attempts are even more embarrassing and problematic to their broken agenda.


OVERVIEW: James Safechuck describes graphic sexual abuse in 1988-89 in the upstairs room of the iconic Neverland train station. He even supplied photos of the station to Dan.

As confirmed repeatedly, the train station did not begin development until late-1993, completed in 1994.



GUILTER: There was a storage building off-site where train cars would be stored. "It's not hard to imagine that building contained a small upstairs space."

FACT This maintenance barn has no indication of an upstairs, just an exhaust vent. Only THE "train station" had upstairs.




GUILTER: Dan Reed's first explanation - "No doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse."

FACT: James swore in court all "abuse" ended in 92 & was already growing distant in '90; in LN says station abuse occurred during honeymoon phase (88-89).


More
GUILTER: Dan Reed's second explanation - "Train station was already complete before the 93 permit was approved, says Harrison Funk" (with link to podcast)

FACT: Harrison Funk responded almost immediately that the photo shoot he spoke of was "in JUNE 1994, definitely NOT BEFORE."



GUILTER: There are two books that mention a train station in 1990, one by Randall Sullivan and another by Bill Whitfield.

FACT: Neither of these authors had any direct knowledge of Neverland in the 90s and relied on broad assumptions for their books. Bill confirms this in tweet.



GUILTER: There were numerous train stations around Neverland as seen on the Neverland guest map, JS meant another one.

FACT: The other "stations" are gazebos and open shelters. Again there was only ONE train station with an enclosure & upstairs - it did not exist in 1988-1993.





GUILTER: There is a Getty Image dated 1990 that shows the fully constructed train station.

FACT: An error in the metadata on Getty Images caused ALL PHOTOS from the set of the 2003-04 Neverland raids to default to 1990. Those images have now been updated to read January 2004.


GUILTER: James was traumatized and it is a natural occurrence in CSA victims to misremember details.

FACT: James repeatedly describes the "relationship" w/ MJ as pleasant and like a couple, not traumatic ("I don't have any unpleasant memories...") He never claims bad memory.


GUILTER: The train station was constructed before the building permits were completed.

FACT: Verified aerial pic from Aug. 25, '93 confirms no early construction. The committee meeting to approve the concept did not occur until Aug. 6, 1993, signed in Sep. Grading permit in Oct.



GUILTER: Diane Dimond - "Train STOPS existed at the time. Think a 10-12 year old knows the difference between a stop and a "station"? Come on!

FACT: A toddler would know the difference between an outdoor train STOP and an 2-story STATION. James was 39 when he told this story



GUILTER: There were many buildings that James could had been referring to, including MJ's upstairs of his home where he had a mini trainset.

FACT: James was a regular at Neverland and very familiar with all of the properties. He mentions MJ's room/house as a separete location.



GUILTER: Dan Reed - "sexual contact between James and MJ continued until James Safechuck was in his teenage years."

FACT: James would had been 16 yrs. old when the train station was completed. This dismantles the entire LN narrative, Reed's own claims, and James' civil lawsuit.


GUILTER: Oprah - "When you're in the midst of trauma, you may not remember the exact time... Was it Thursday or Wednesday? This hotel or that hotel?"

FACT: This isn't discrepancy of 1 day or similar location. It is claim of abuse in upstairs of station 4-6 yrs before it existed.

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wi ... l-63893359

Michael Jackson's popularity endures, even after new scandal
ByJONATHAN LANDRUM JR., AP ENTERTAINMENT WRITER LOS ANGELES — Jun 23, 2019



The documentary "Leaving Neverland" presented a disturbing depiction of Michael Jackson as a child molester, but the initial wave of negative publicity hasn't greatly diminished the King of Pop's image or the enduring popularity of his music.

Many believe Jackson's musical legacy is still going strong as Tuesday's 10th anniversary of his death approaches. Backlash to the documentary that aired in March on HBO and Britain's Channel 4 prompted radio stations in Canada to stop playing his music and the producers of "The Simpsons" to remove an episode that featured Jackson's voice.

But that's been the most visible extent of the backlash.

There's been no rescinding honors like has happened to Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, or mass movements to stop playing Jackson's music, as R&B singer R. Kelly has faced.

Jackson's massively popular "Thriller" album and the theatrical version of its music video still reside in the Library of Congress' National Recording Registry. His music is still featured in commercials and is a part of a Cirque Du Soleil show in Las Vegas.

Museums in Detroit and Tennessee keep images and artifacts of Jackson on display, and his memorabilia continues to sell.

"He still commands prices compared to most any other celebrity," said Darren Julien, president and CEO of the Culver City, California-based Julien's Auctions. He said his auction house has sold around $15 million of the superstar singer's property including his white glove that went for $480,000 in 2009 and a jacket, which was recently bought for $75,000.

Julien said Russia, Asia, Middle East, Canada and America are some of the key markets where buyers are willing to spend money on Jackson's merchandise.
"He's the only celebrity where we would have lines of people to get in whenever we had stuff of his to auction," he continued. "There's only one person that compares to Marilyn Monroe in collectability, and that is Michael Jackson."

Billboard senior editor Gail Mitchell isn't surprised by support for Jackson, who she has met before. For a recent story, the veteran music journalist said she and a colleague interviewed about 30 music executives who believe the singer's legacy could withstand the "Leaving Neverland" controversy.

"Some saw the film, others didn't want to," she said. "Many said that (Jackson) is not here to defend himself the way R. Kelly is here. ... The jury is always probably going to be out. But all of the execs said his legacy will be fine."

Mitchell recently attended Janet Jackson's residency performance in Las Vegas where the singer played several of her brother's songs that had "people dancing and buzzin'" as the "crowd went wild" during classic songs from The Jackson 5, which she called "one of the highlights of show."

"There was an aura about him," Mitchell said of Jackson. "He had an energy in terms of his talent and the dancing, and I still think that aura still exists to a point. I know it's been tarnished, but I think overall that there is no denying what he brought to the table."

Jackson died at the age of 50 from an overdose of the anesthetic propofol on June 25, 2009. In an instant, Jackson's popularity surged after years of being tarnished by sexual abuse allegations and a 2005 child molestation trial, which ended with his acquittal. After Jackson's death, the criminal case nearly became an afterthought until "Leaving Neverland" was released.

The documentary focused on two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who denied Jackson abused them while the singer was still alive. Both have said having their own children forced them to face the truth.

Jackson acknowledged befriending numerous children, including some he invited into his bed, but denied he molested any of them.

His estate has also vigorously denied Robson and Safechuck's allegations, calling the documentary a retread of proven falsehoods from men seeking money. A lawsuit was filed against HBO.

Despite the documentary, Jackson's music streaming numbers continued to soar, according to Ian Drew, consumer editorial director at Billboard. He said Jackson's estate has been smart about keeping his music relevant, but it could be diminished over those being "creeped out" by allegations.

Jackson's nephew said his legacy will never be destroyed.

"No lie can destroy what was given to us as a blessing from God, and that's what my uncle was," said Sigmund "Siggy" Jackson, son of Jackson's eldest brother, Jackie Jackson. "You can never destroy his legacy with a petty lie. He will be here. And even after God calls us home, his legacy will live on and never be torn down."

Film producer Jodi Gomes agrees. She believes Jackson's legacy will live on from this generation to the next, no matter what.

Gomes said the family had been working on a documentary on The Jackson 5's 50th anniversary. The contract was ready to be signed with a network, but she said it backed out after "Leaving Neverland."

"The 50th anniversary was planned and the whole family was participating and it was a celebration of what started the whole entire Jackson brand. And now, that has gotten lost in the shuffle," said Gomes, who worked on the 2009 reality series "The Jacksons: A Family Dynasty" and the 1992 miniseries "The Jacksons: An American Dream."

Siggy Jackson said his uncle's legacy will continue to win despite the "haters," but understood the logic of some companies not affiliating themselves with anything Michael Jackson.

"That's standard business. You wait until the heat burns down, so you can see after the smoke goes down," he said. "I don't fault anyone from backing off. But as far as the family, it doesn't stop anything. The plans don't stop. My uncle's legacy will never go away. Our family will make sure of that."

[soulmum]

Keen Zhang
@mkgenie

Meeting with our old friends Diana Walczak and Tom Mesereau. Honored and grateful. We talked a lot about what had happened, we will continue to fight.

[soulmum]

http://www.damienshields.com/leaving-ne ... he-detail/
Leaving Neverland Exposed: The Devil is in the Detail
BY DAMIEN SHIELDS



‘You don’t know! You weren’t there!’ This is an argument commonly made by people on both sides of the debate regarding the allegations of child sex abuse that have plagued pop superstar Michael Jackson for 26 years and counting.
It’s an argument that would hold strong in most cases – especially historical cases of alleged child sex abuse, where physical evidence is almost impossible to come by. And it’s the argument that the director of the polarising new film Leaving Neverland has used when responding to those who say the allegations made against Jackson in his film are false. But when it comes to those allegations, not only does the ‘you don’t know, you weren’t there’ argument fail to hold strong, it can be shattered into a million pieces.

I watched Leaving Neverland when it aired. I didn’t want to, but as a journalist, a Jackson researcher and someone who intended to comment on the film, I felt I had to.

The film created mass hysteria on social media when it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January of 2019. From there, Leaving Neverland aired around the world, including on the two networks that co-funded the film’s production – HBO in the U.S. and Channel 4 in the U.K.

Prior to seeing it, I wrote an article titled ‘What the media refuses to tell you about Michael Jackson, Leaving Neverland & the allegations of child molestation’. In the article I noted that those who’d seen the film were using words like ‘powerful’ and ‘compelling’ to describe it. I was highly skeptical about whether the film could truly be ‘powerful’ or ‘compelling’. I felt this way for two reasons. Firstly, because I’ve conducted more than a decade of exhaustive research on Jackson’s life, and have never discovered evidence of crimes against children. And secondly, because I knew the accusers—Wade Robson and James Safechuck—had major credibility issues and a huge financial motive to lie. Both men have been suing Jackson’s Estate and companies for years—Robson since 2013 and Safechuck since 2014—each seeking millions upon millions of dollars. Their lawsuits have been thrown out of court twice so far. They’re currently on their third appeal.

Nonetheless, I watched Leaving Neverland like everyone else.

The storyline captivates you, beginning with an aspirational tale of how these two young boys came to meet and become friends with their idol – the biggest star on the planet. And then, 40 minutes into the four-hour film, the boys, who are now grown men, start discussing the alleged abuse. In detail. And I have to admit that yes, it is ‘compelling’ and it is ‘powerful’ – just like everyone says it is.

In my objective opinion, from the outside looking in, Robson and Safechuck come across as believable. Many of Jackson’s fans disagree, asserting their belief that it’s obvious that the two men are lying. But that’s because Jackson’s fans know these cases inside and out. They’ve studied the thousands of pages of publicly available court transcripts, depositions, legal motions, sworn declarations and more. No one wants to be a pedophile apologist – no matter how talented a singer and dancer the accused is. Because of this, many of Jackson’s most dedicated fans have done their due diligence in assuring that their support is not wasted on someone who can be proven to be a monster.

But to a viewer who hasn’t researched the details of the allegations, and who isn’t aware about the credibility issues and financial motives of Robson and Safechuck, it must seem like a slam dunk. If the allegations made in Leaving Neverland are the truth, then Jackson really is a monster.

But the allegations made in the film are not the truth. In fact, much of the film is the antithesis of the truth. Moreover, the credibility issues and financial motives of the two accusers were completely ignored in the film, as were the barrage of glaring inconsistencies and contradictions that destroy their entire narrative. The evidence that you’ll find when properly researching the allegations against Jackson is not incriminating – it’s exculpatory.

A number of the allegations levelled at Jackson in Leaving Neverland are flat-out lies. There is no other word for them. And despite a handful of tenacious researchers and journalists uncovering explosive new evidence which proves these claims are lies, the vast majority of mainstream media has danced around the issue or ignored it completely.

And while the dust seems to have settled in the months since its initial release, with the tenth anniversary of Jackson’s death upon us, you can bet that Leaving Neverland will rear its ugly head again as the world mourns Jackson and weighs up the allegations made against him. And when it does rear its ugly head, keep this article in mind.

Herein I will outline Leaving Neverland’s most significant lies, while highlighting a series of other crucial facts, witnesses, inconsistencies and contradictions that Dan Reed neglected to include in his film. And at this point I should warn you: this article is long. It’s almost 8,000 words and will take most people approximately an hour to read. But if you’ve already invested four hours into watching Leaving Neverland, the least you can do is spend another hour learning about how you’ve been lied to.

We’ll start with the biggest and most obvious lie of all – one which throws the entire narrative of Leaving Neverland into disarray and completely destroys the credibility of both director Reed and accuser Safechuck.

When James Safechcuck makes the ‘powerful’ and ‘compelling’ allegation that he was abused in the train station at Jackson’s Neverland ranch, he is lying.

‘You don’t know, you weren’t there,’ some will say in response to such a statement. And it’s true that I wasn’t there. But I do know. How? Because neither Jackson nor his accuser were there either. And how can I say this for certain? Because the train station Safechuck claims Jackson abused him in did not exist at the time.

In a sworn declaration made as part of his multi-million dollar lawsuit against Jackson’s Estate and companies, Safechuck explicitly states, under the penalty of perjury, that he was sexually abused by the King of Pop between 1988 and 1992. Never before 1988, and never again after 1992. In Leaving Neverland, Safechuck claims that during the early stages of this alleged abuse period he and Jackson had sex “every day” in an upstairs room at the train station. “It’s kind of like when you’re first dating somebody and you do a lot of it,” says Safechuck with a laugh in Leaving Neverland.

But recently published documents have blown Safechuck’s allegation of daily sex in the train station to smithereens. Permits granted by the Santa Barbara County prove that construction of the train station was not approved by the local authorities until September of 1993 – four years after Safechuck alleges he was abused “every day” in it.

In an embarrassing brain fade, director Dan Reed made the ridiculous insinuation via Twitter that Jackson could have built the train station years before he received the Santa Barbara County’s permission to do so, making Safechuck’s allegation of daily sex in the station possible.

So, to be absolutely certain that Jackson didn’t build the train station years before he received the county’s permission, British journalist and Jackson biographer Mike Smallcombe contacted Steven Starr, a photographer who took a series of aerial shots of Neverland via helicopter on August 25, 1993. These images prove beyond any doubt that the train station did not exist at the time Safechuck ‘powerfully’ and ‘compellingly’ claims in Leaving Neverland that he was abused in it. Smallcombe double-checked that August 25, 1993 was in fact the true and accurate date of the photographs in question. “That date is accurate,” confirmed Starr, adding: “I have a few of the original slides and that’s the date stamp.”

Furthermore, construction of the train station was not completed, and the building was not opened, until the middle of 1994 – half a decade after Safechuck claims he and Jackson had sex “every day” in it, and at least two years after Safechuck swears, under the penalty of perjury, that his abuse at the hands of Jackson had completely ended.

It must be accepted that Safechuck is lying when he says Jackson abused him in the train station. It simply cannot be true. And having confirmed that this key element of Safechuck’s story is an outright lie, how can we trust anything else he says in the film, or as part of his multi-million dollar lawsuit?

The answer is simple. We can’t.

Leaving Neverland’s director, Dan Reed, has come under extreme scrutiny from Jackson’s fans and a handful of journalists for seemingly failing to fact-check when making the film, and for allowing such a blatant lie to feature so prominently in it. Reed has since been forced to agree that there is no doubt regarding the construction dates of the train station.

But rather than graciously concede that he failed in his basic duties as a documentary filmmaker, Reed has attempted to turn on the journalists who have done their jobs properly. In a bizarre tweet to Smallcombe, who was instrumental in exposing Safechuck’s train station lies in the UK press, Reed brazenly asserted that while the train station construction dates could not be disputed, the date that people have wrong is the date that Jackson stopped abusing Safechuck. And despite Safechuck swearing under the penalty of perjury that Jackson stopped abusing him in 1992, Reed insists that Jackson did abuse him in the train station, essentially implying that the abuse occurred on an unspecified date at some point after the station opened in mid-1994.

And so, in order to rescue his discredited film, Reed’s only available defence is to accuse his own star witness of perjury, trapping Leaving Neverland in a sort of journalistic purgatory, whereby its director must beg his audience to both accept Safechuck has lied under oath and simultaneously invest in and believe everything he says.

Worse still for Reed, in his haste to apologise for the train station story, he apparently unwittingly upended the entire narrative of his film. The message of Leaving Neverland, unquestionably, is that Jackson preyed on young boys and then dumped them when they hit puberty, replacing them with younger models. In this sense, the film parroted Safechuck’s own sworn statements in his ongoing demands for money – the same sworn statements where he repeatedly testified under oath that Jackson never touched him after 1992.

By rewriting the story to now include Jackson molesting Safechuck in the train station, Reed and Safechuck destroy their own narrative arcs. For the entirety of 1994 (while the station was being built) and into 1995, Jackson resided between New York City, where he was recording his HIStory album, and Graceland in Memphis, Tennessee, where he lived with his wife, Lisa Marie Presley. Therefore, by the time Safechuck could have been on the ranch at the same time as both Jackson and his train station (mid-1995) Safechuck would have been 17 years old and six feet tall – physically larger than Jackson himself.

Since making his abuse allegations in 2014, Safechuck has consistently claimed that the alleged abuse ended in 1992, at the age of 14. Safechuck says that this is because beyond 1992 he had become too big and too old to satisfy Jackson’s alleged pedophilic interest in prepubescent boys. Safechuck even claims in legal documents, and in Leaving Neverland, that in 1992 another boy, Brett Barnes, replaced him, insinuating that Barnes went on to become the singer’s next victim after Jackson lost interest in Safechuck. But Barnes, who was not given the right of reply by director Dan Reed, took to social media to refute the insinuation.

“Not only do we have to deal with these lies, but we’ve also got to deal with people perpetuating these lies,” said Barnes via Twitter. “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.”

Barnes also engaged an attorney to demand that HBO remove his image and likeness from Leaving Neverland, and even threatened to sue them for allowing such a salacious suggestion to be included in the film.

But wait, there’s more!

While we are still on the subject of James Safechuck and his inability to tell the truth, let’s take a look at another of the highly contentious elements of his constantly changing story – when and how he claims to have realised he was allegedly abused, and how and why it affects both the narrative of Leaving Neverland and the validity of his multi-million dollar lawsuit against Jackson’s Estate and companies.

In his sworn declaration, Safechuck claims that in 2005 he told his mother, Stephanie Safechuck, that Jackson had abused him. This narrative is somewhat supported by a scene in the Leaving Neverland film where Stephanie claims that she ‘danced’ when she learned that Jackson had died on June 25, 2009. “I was so happy he died,” she says, adding that her thoughts were: “Thank god, he can’t hurt any more children.” However, in another document, Safechuck abandons the claim that he told his mother he was abused, instead stating that he only told her Jackson was “not a good person,” without providing any explanation or context. This is the version of events that Safechuck himself goes with in Leaving Neverland.

Since the film’s release, director Dan Reed has taken it upon himself to speak on behalf of Safechuck and Robson in media interviews to promote it.

In one interview, Reed explains how it is “incredibly obvious” to anyone who has seen Leaving Neverland that Safechuck did in fact tell his mother in 2005 that he was abused. “He told her ‘Michael abused me’ in 2005,” says Reed. “That’s clear in the film,” adds Reed, to anyone who “watched the film with both eyes and ears open.”

But I can tell you, after having sat through the four-hour film several times—with both eyes and ears open I might add—that Safechuck makes no such claim in it.

By his own admission, Reed knows next to nothing about Michael Jackson. And despite making a film about their subject matter, Reed clearly hasn’t properly studied the sworn declarations that form part of Robson and Safechuck’s lawsuits against Jackson’s Estate—he didn’t even mention the lawsuits in his film—and cannot talk about their claims without undermining or contradicting them.

In the very same declaration that Safechuck swears he told his mother about the alleged abuse in 2005, he contradicts himself by also swearing that it wasn’t until 2013—when he saw Wade Robson discussing his alleged abuse in a televised interview—that he first realised he was abused. Further contradiction arises when Safechuck claims that it wasn’t until he had the “help of a therapist” that he was “finally able to begin to recognise that he was a victim of childhood sexual abuse.”

That’s three versions of one story! In carefully written legal filings! Sworn under the penalty of perjury! Safechuck and his lawyers just cannot seem to get their story straight.

When appearing in Oprah Winfrey’s TV special After Neverland—in which Winfrey interviews Safechuck, Robson and Reed about the film and their stories—Safechuck goes with the notion that “it wasn’t until Wade came out” in 2013 that he realised he was abused. “I was really suffering, I couldn’t sleep at night,” says Safechuck, who explains that he had been overcome by feelings of anxiety in the period before Robson announced his multi-million dollar lawsuit against the Jackson Estate. “And then when I see Wade come out, you go ‘Okay, maybe there is a reason for this.’ And if there is a reason for this, now I can figure out what to do about it. But you don’t think it’s abuse.”

What isn’t mentioned in Leaving Neverland, in any of Safechuck’s legal filings, or in Winfrey’s After Neverland special is that on April 26, 2013—three weeks before Robson appeared on television to announce his allegations and lawsuit against the Jackson Estate—the Safechuck family business was sued for around $1 million for alleged failure to pay two of its shareholders any profits during a three-year period from May 2010 to May 2013.

On May 14, 2013, Safechuck’s father, James Snr., was served legal papers regarding the lawsuit. Safechuck’s mother, Stephanie, who appears in Leaving Neverland, is named in the papers as a co-conspirator. Two days later, on May 16, 2013, Robson gives his televised interview. Four days later, Safechuck, during a May 20, 2013 therapy session, claims that he now realises that Jackson abused him too. From there, Safechuck joins Robson’s lawsuit. To this day both men continue to seek millions upon millions of dollars from Jackson’s Estate.

Safechuck’s statements that he was “really suffering” and “couldn’t sleep at night” at the time Robson appeared on television could be attributed to the fact that his family was being asked to come up with almost $1 million in alleged unpaid dividends. At the very least, it was a convenient time to ‘realise’ he was abused. And Safechuck’s statement that he could “figure out what to do about it” can also be viewed through a different lens considering the timing of this revelation. While a lawsuit being filed against his family’s business is not proof that Safechuck made up the alleged abuse, it certainly has to be considered as a motive for not only him but also his family to lie, which we have already established is the case regarding the train station.

Since we are on the subject, let’s discuss Wade Robson’s even more bizarre and convoluted explanations as to how and when he ‘realised’ his alleged abuse.

“This is not a case of repressed memory,” announced Robson in his ‘coming out’ interview with Matt Lauer on The Today Show on May 16, 2013, adding that he “never forgot one moment” of what Jackson allegedly did to him. Robson goes on to claim that Jackson “performed sexual acts on me, and forced me to perform sexual acts on him” for seven years—from the age of 7 until he was 14—and that although he remembered every little detail of it, he was psychologically unable and unwilling to realise that he’d been abused.

Robson claims in Leaving Neverland that despite not realising that he himself was a victim, he “knew in his gut” that a then-13-year-old Jordan Chandler was being abused by Jackson. “I knew it was true,” claims Robson in the film. Chandler is the boy whose father infamously accused Jackson of molesting his son in 1993, filed a civil lawsuit against the singer, successful extorted $20 million from him, then refused to cooperate with authorities during their criminal investigation. Robson says that when the authorities approached him during the Chandler investigation in 1993, he couldn’t allow himself to “go there,” conceding that he understood sexual contact between an adult and a child was wrong, but didn’t want to discuss it. Then-11-year-old Robson convincingly denied knowledge about sexual contact between Jackson and any child—himself included—when the police interviewed him.

Robson also gave a powerful television interview at the time in which he again demonstrated his understanding that sexual contact between an adult and a child is wrong. “I think it’s sick,” said Robson of the allegations being made against Jackson, adding: “I know Michael well enough to know that he wouldn’t do anything like that. I know that for a fact.”

In addition to his television interview and his sworn testimony as part of the criminal investigation in 1993, Robson convincingly denied the abuse in private for more than two decades. Not a single individual—friend or foe—has come forward with claims that Robson confided in them that Jackson had abused him. To the contrary, countless people from Robson’s personal and professional life have claimed that Robson freely and openly defended Jackson in private conversations with them. According to Robson’s mother, Joy, he “laughed and said it was ridiculous” when she asked him directly if Jackson had ever abused him, adding: “He would look me in the eye time and time again and tell me that nothing ever happened.”

But Robson now alleges that Jackson forced him to lie in all of these situations, claiming the pop superstar threatened they’d “both go to jail for the rest of [their] lives” if anyone was to find out about their alleged sexual relationship.



Since filing his multi-million dollar lawsuit against Jackson’s Estate in 2013, Robson has maintained that he “didn’t realise” what he and Jackson were allegedly doing was wrong. Robson claims that it wasn’t until a therapy session in 2012 that he was finally able to ‘realise’ that he’d been abused. This is the same story Safechuck gives in one of his multiple ‘realisation’ narratives.

In Robson’s case, the notion that he didn’t ‘realise’ what he and Jackson were allegedly doing was wrong contradicts his claim that Jackson told him they’d “both go to jail for the rest of [their] lives” if anyone found out about it.

Moreover, Robson himself demonstrated that he knew—not only as a child in 1993, but as an adult ten years later in 2003—that such behaviour was wrong. When asked in a November 26, 2003 interview whether anything sexual had ever occurred between he and Jackson, then-21-year-old Robson adamantly stated: “I never had that experience and I hope that it never happened to anybody else.”

Eighteen months later, Robson took the stand as the first defence witness in Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial. Despite now claiming that he “never forgot one moment” of the abuse Jackson allegedly inflicted on him, Robson withstood a detailed line of questioning by Jackson’s defence attorney, Thomas Mersereau, and withering cross-examination by seasoned prosecutor Ron Zonen. Robson was asked numerous times, in numerous ways, by both the defence and the prosecution, whether any inappropriate physical contact had occurred between he and Jackson. Robson was steadfast in his response to each and every question, no matter how it was put to him, that nothing had occurred.

So it beggars belief that Robson—as a 22-year-old man, testifying under oath, in a court of law, as part of a criminal trial in which Michael Jackson stood accused of sexually abusing children—had not yet realised that the sexual activities he now alleges he and Jackson had engaged in, were wrong.

Another contradiction of Robson’s claim that he “never forgot one moment” of what Jackson allegedly did to him arises when analysing his story about the very first time he says he was abused.

Between late 2012 and early 2013, shortly after ‘realising’ he was abused and shortly before he filed his multi-million dollar lawsuit, Robson attempted to write a book. In return for the book, which would detail his alleged abuse, Robson wanted a “large amount of money,” according to Alan Nevins, the Los Angeles agent that Robson used to shop the book concept. In the manuscript for the proposed book, which Robson desperately tried to hide from Jackson’s Estate when suing them, it was discovered that Robson’s unpublished version of events was different from the version he detailed in his multi-million dollar lawsuit.

In the book, Robson claims that in January of 1990, he spent two nights at Neverland with his family, and that with their parents’ permission he and his sister, Chantal, slept in Jackson’s bedroom along with the pop superstar. It’s important to note that Jackson’s bedroom is enormous – it has two levels and is the size of a small house. Robson claims in the book manuscript that nothing “out of the ordinary” happened during those first two nights. Robson then goes on to claim that after those first two harmless nights, the entire Robson family went to the Grand Canyon, but without him, leaving then-7-year-old Wade all alone with Jackson at Neverland. It was then that Robson alleges that Jackson began abusing him. “The first night after my family had left, Michael began to fondle my penis over the top of my pajama pants,” says Robson in the proposed book.

The manuscript was pitched to Harper Collins, Pan Macmillan, Sidgwick & Jackson and a host of others, but no publisher was interested. When it became clear that Robson had failed to land the lucrative book deal he’d hoped for, he sued Jackson’s Estate for millions of dollars.

But when Robson was deposed as part of that lawsuit, the credibility of his claims—both those written in his book manuscript and those made in his lawsuit—began to fall to shreds.

When questioned about his book, portions of the manuscript were read to Robson. He was then asked to confirm whether what he had written about the first time he was allegedly abused was consistent with what he remembered. Shockingly, despite claiming in media interviews that he “never forgot one moment” of what Jackson allegedly did to him, Robson conceded in his sworn deposition that he actually could not remember. “Yeah, I don’t really remember,” Robson testified.

Yet in Leaving Neverland, Robson sits in front of the camera and tells a ‘powerful’ and ‘compelling’ story about a time period which he testified, under the penalty of perjury, that he does not remember. “I don’t really remember” and “I never forgot one moment” are two polarising positions to take when making an allegation as serious as child sex abuse – especially when the person you are accusing is dead and unable to defend himself.

Emails disclosed as part of Robson’s lawsuit also reveal that prior to suing Jackson’s Estate, Robson was communicating with his mother and asking her to fill in huge blanks in his memory.

Moreover, in sworn declarations as part of that lawsuit, and in direct contradiction of his book manuscript, Robson alleges that despite his sister being in the same room as them, Jackson began molesting him on the second night of that first weekend at Neverland – prior to the Robson family’s trip to the Grand Canyon.

Robson then backtracks on his own sworn testimony. In Leaving Neverland, Robson tells a version of events in which the first time Jackson allegedly abused him was the first night he spent alone with Jackson while his family toured the Grand Canyon.

This repeated change in events is problematic for a number of reasons.

For starters, only one version of the story, if any, can be true. That means that either way, in one or both versions of the story, Robson must be lying. But which version is a lie? The answer is that both versions are lies. And if we take Robson’s sworn statement at face value—that he ‘doesn’t really remember’ that first trip to Neverland—we have to dismiss his version of those alleged events altogether.

So how can we determine what really happened at Neverland during and after that first weekend? The sworn testimony of Robson’s mother gives us the answer.

When Robson’s mother, Joy, was questioned in connection with the Chandler case in 1993, she was asked whether her son had ever spent time alone with Jackson at Neverland. “My son has never been to the ranch without me up until this year,” she answered. This categorically contradicts the claim Robson makes in his book manuscript, in his multi-million dollar lawsuit, and in Leaving Neverland – that his family left him alone with Jackson for five days while they visited the Grand Canyon in January of 1990.

Robson himself testified in Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial, under the penalty of perjury, that the only time he had ever been at Neverland without his mother was on one occasion in 1993. So if Robson had never been left alone with Jackson at Neverland prior to 1993, how on earth could Jackson have had abused Robson for five consecutive days at Neverland in 1990? The answer is simple. He couldn’t have.

Robson’s mother corroborates this twice more, in two separate sworn statements given 23 years apart.

In 1993, she testified that her family had gone to the Grand Canyon for five days in January of 1990. “We went to the ranch for the first weekend, and then we left and went to the Grand Canyon, and we toured,” she explained, adding: “We came back to the ranch for the following weekend.” When asked to specify who had gone to the Grand Canyon for those five days between weekends, Robson’s mother said: “My family”. There was no mention of Wade skipping the family trip to stay at Neverland with Jackson.

In a separate deposition, given in 2016—three years after her son filed his multi-million dollar lawsuit against Jackson’s Estate—Joy Robson was asked again, very specifically, about who had gone to the Grand Canyon for those five days. “You and your kids and your husband and your parents all went on a tourist trip to the Grand Canyon?” she was asked. “Yes,” she responded, confirming that her “whole family,” including Wade, had visited the Grand Canyon in January of 1990.

Collectively, these pieces of evidence establish that the allegation made by Robson in his book draft, in his multi-million dollar lawsuit and in Leaving Neverland—that he was sexually abused for five consecutive days in January of 1990 at Jackson’s Neverland ranch—is simply impossible.

That makes Wade Robson a liar.

And I’m not the first person to call Robson a liar. In fact, the trial judge who assessed Robson’s multi-million-dollar lawsuit against Jackson’s Estate threw his entire case out of court after finding that he had lied so egregiously in his legal filings that no right-minded person could take anything he says seriously.

While several lies have been identified in his legal filings, the dismissal of Robson’s case centres around one particularly outrageous lie. In his sworn declaration, Robson states that he was unaware of the existence of The Estate of Michael Jackson until he filed his lawsuit against them in 2013.

The filing of Robson’s cash-grab lawsuit relied on the alleged ‘fact’ that Robson did not know Jackson had an Estate. If Robson had known, the statute of limitations would have prevented him from filing his lawsuit altogether, because he had waited too long after Jackson’s death to do so.

But Robson’s alleged lack of knowledge about the existence of Jackson’s Estate wasn’t a fact at all. It was a bold-faced lie. And he got busted for it. But how?

In 2011, Jackson’s Estate was preparing to create a Cirque du Soleil production based on the pop superstar’s music and dance. That same year, Robson tried to land the lucrative role as the director of the production.

In February of 2011, Robson was informed by his agent that he would need to get the Jackson Estate’s approval to be hired by Cirque. Robson then called Jackson’s Estate and arranged a face-to-face meeting with John Branca, one of the Estate’s two co-executors.

In May of 2011, Robson expressed that he had “always wanted to do this show, badly,” in an email to a Cirque executive. Begging for the job, Robson added: “I know I am meant to do this show. I am passionate to do this show. I want to make it amazing for me, for you, for Cirque and course, for Michael.”

Two months later, in July of 2011, Robson claimed in an interview that he had been hired to produce the show, saying: “I’m starting on a Cirque Du Soleil Michael Jackson show … it’s an opportunity for me to give back to his legacy … and to make sure that it’s done right and that it really represents his essence.”

But the following year it was decided by the Jackson Estate that Robson was not the best man for the job. Instead, they hired Jamie King to direct the Cirque show. Unsuccessful in his attempts to be hired, Robson began to claim that Jackson had molested him as a child. This lead to Robson’s failed attempt to obtain a “large” sum of money for a book deal, which then lead to him suing Jackson’s Estate for millions upon millions of dollars – all while claiming that he didn’t know the Estate existed.

When the judge discovered that Robson did in fact know that Jackson had an Estate—because Robson’s emails revealed so; and because Robson had met with the Estate in a bid to be hired by them—the judge threw Robson’s entire case out of court because no reasonable fact-finder could believe Robson’s sworn declaration.

We are more than 5,000 words into this article, and we haven’t even covered all of the known, provable lies told by Robson and Safechuck in their lawsuits and in Leaving Neverland. I’ll attempt to brush over a few more, before shifting my focus to Dan Reed and Oprah Winfrey.

One of the lies not yet mentioned was also discovered in Robson’s sworn declaration. In it, Robson made the claim that he was “unable to continue performing and directing in any manner or capacity whatsoever” due to the alleged abuse inflicted on him by Jackson. Robson demanded that Jackson’s Estate compensate him for loss of income. But his absurd claim can be easily disproved simply by reviewing a list of the performing arts projects Robson has been (and continues to be) involved in during the period he claims he was “unable” to work in this field “in any manner or capacity whatsoever”.

Robson also lies in Leaving Neverland when he claims to have been forced to testify in Jackson’s 2005 trial. Robson claims that he did not want to defend Jackson, but that once he received a subpoena he realised he had no choice and decided to go along with it. But there is one problem with this claim. According to private investigator Scott Ross, who interviewed Robson on behalf of Jackson’s legal team to determine his credibility as a defence witness, he did not receive a subpoena. “I would like to see the subpoena he never got,” said Ross in an interview following the release of Leaving Neverland. And how does Ross know Robson never received a subpoena? I asked him: “Because I am the only person who would have served him.”

Another lie told in Leaving Neverland comes from James Safechuck.

Safechuck tells a story about how Jackson allegedly called him and asked him to testify in the same 2005 trial that Robson testified in. But Safechuck says he refused. “I said no, and he got really angry at me,” claims Safechuck in the film, adding that Jackson “threatened me with his lawyers, and said that I had perjured myself years ago. And that he has the best lawyers in the world and that they were going to get me.”

These claims are problematic for two reasons.

Firstly, long before the trial had even begun, the judge in the case ruled that testimony regarding Safechuck would not be allowed. He was a ‘non-entity’, meaning that the prosecution could not reference him in their case against Jackson, thus Jackson would have no need for Safechuck’s testimony in his defence. But despite this provable fact, Safechuck delivers a ‘powerful’ and ‘compelling’ recollection of events that never happened – just like when he claims he was abused “every day” in a train station that did not exist.

Secondly, Safechuck’s claim that Jackson threatened that his lawyers would “get” him because he had “perjured” himself is ludicrous. Some quick context: During the Chandler investigation in 1993, Safechuck wrote a sworn declaration stating that Jackson had never abused him. It is this sworn declaration that Safechuck claims Jackson threatened him over. The reason the claim is so ludicrous is simple. For Jackson to accuse Safechuck of committing perjury, Jackson would literally have to say to Safechuck: ‘I abused you and you lied about it in your sworn declaration.’ But Jackson always vehemently insisted on his innocence. And Safechuck claims he did not realise he was abused until 2013.

Moreover, why on earth would Jackson send his lawyers to “get” Safechuck if Jackson had in fact abused him? Why would Jackson want to expose Safechuck as a ‘perjurer’ if doing so would require Jackson to admit, in court, that he had abused Safechuck? This bold-faced lie from Safechuck is one of the most nonsensical of all. Yet director Dan Reed included it in his film and HBO broadcast it for the whole world to see. No skepticism. No scrutiny. Just plain nonsense.

Another fictitious narrative that made headlines made during the mainstream media’s one-sided promotion of Leaving Neverland is that Jackson abused Robson and Safechuck “hundreds and hundreds of times” and that the abuse occurred “every single time” they were together.

This notion originates from a suggestion made by BBC reporter Victoria Derbyshire during an interview with Robson and Safechuck. “Do you know how many times he abused you?” she asked both men of their alleged abuse at the hands of Jackson. “It’s countless,” they responded. “So that is hundreds and hundreds of times,” suggested Derbyshire. Both Robson and Safechuck agreed that figure was accurate.

But Robson’s mother’s sworn testimony is that whilst the Robson family, including Wade, went to Neverland approximately 40-50 times over a 14 year period, Jackson was almost never there. Joy Robson estimates that Jackson was physically there, in the presence of the Robson family, including Wade, on only four occasions. Wade Robson’s former girlfriend of more than seven years (Jackson’s niece, Brandi Jackson) and her brother (Siggy Jackson) corroborated Joy Robson’s testimony, agreeing that Jackson was almost never at Neverland when they were.

Wait a second! Wade Robson was dating Michael Jackson’s niece? For more than seven years? Why wasn’t any of this in Leaving Neverland? Perhaps it’s because the circumstances surrounding their relationship raise additional questions about Robson’s credibility.

Robson met Brandi Jackson in 1990 on the set of a photoshoot for a footwear commercial they appeared in together with Michael Jackson. Eighteen months later the pair met again – this time on the set of Jackson’s 1991 “Black Or White” short film, in which they also appeared.

According to Brandi, Wade “developed a crush” on her during their brief encounters as kids, and asked Michael to set up a situation where they could see each other again. Jackson obliged. “My uncle invited Wade, his mom and his sister, as well as me and my brother, to the ranch,” Brandi recalls. “So we spent about five to seven days there, just getting to know each other. We got closer in this timeframe, and at the end of the trip he asked me very kindly if I would be his girlfriend. It was just a very sweet thing.”

Brandi insists that at all stages throughout her time with Wade, their relationship was ‘age-appropriate’ – starting out with nothing more than simple hand-holding and progressing naturally throughout their teenage years. Once the relationship reached adulthood, Brandi says, she lost her virginity to Wade. The relationship ultimately ended a year later, when Wade cheated on her with Britney Spears—who was dating Justin Timberlake at the time—and others.

What does all this have to do with Robson’s allegations that Jackson abused him for seven years? In the scheme of Leaving Neverland, which Dan Reed purports to be a documentary, it has a lot of relevance.

Firstly, the fact that Robson asked Jackson to set him up with his niece, and that Jackson obliged, completely contradicts narratives put forth in Leaving Neverland and elsewhere, that Robson was romantically in love with Jackson, and that Jackson discouraged Robson from having relationships with women.



And secondly, Brandi and Robson’s relationship was ongoing during and after the period in which Robson now alleges he was being abused by Jackson. Despite being able to offer important insights regarding Robson during that period; despite being able to expose several timeline discrepancies not addressed in the film; and despite being able to identify a number of other red flags with Robson’s constantly changing story, Brandi Jackson was not contacted by Dan Reed during the making of Leaving Neverland. Neither was her older brother, Siggy Jackson, who was also present for several Neverland trips with Wade and the Robson family, and who has since referred to them as “opportunists”.

“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,” said Howard Weitzman, attorney for the Jackson Estate.

Speaking of opportunists, let’s talk about Oprah Winfrey for a moment.

As mentioned earlier in this article, Winfrey aired her own TV special called After Neverland. Broadcast immediately after Leaving Neverland aired on HBO, After Neverland featured interviews with Robson, Safechuck and Reed, set in front of a live studio audience of people said to be survivors of child sexual abuse.

Oprah Winfrey has long been a advocate for victims of childhood sexual abuse, having produced 217 episodes of The Oprah Winfrey Show on that one subject alone. In the opening moments of After Neverland, Winfrey explains that she was so impressed with how Dan Reed presented the allegations of child sexual abuse against Jackson that she called him and said: “Dan, you were able to illustrate in these four hours what I tried to explain in 217 [hours].”

Winfrey acknowledged that “people all over the world are going to be in an uproar” about Leaving Neverland and her promotion of it, and that people will continue to question whether Robson and Safechuck are liars or not, but that it doesn’t matter to her because the theme of the film “transcends Michael Jackson.” Winfrey then stated that if viewers of Leaving Neverland become more aware about how child sexual abuse happens—even if Jackson is innocent—then “some good will have come of it.”

Winfrey is not wrong when she says that the theme of Leaving Neverland—child sex abuse—transcends Michael Jackson. Of course it does. But Leaving Neverland itself, jam-packed with provable lie after provable lie, does not transcend Jackson. It’s merely a blip on the map of Jackson’s legacy as the most beloved and biggest-selling musician in the history of popular music.

In early promotional interviews, director Reed told the story of how the idea for Leaving Neverland first came to be. Reed was having breakfast with Daniel Pearl, a commissioning editor at Channel 4. They were discussing the biggest and most controversial topics they could make a documentary about. Pearl suggested “the Michael Jackson controversy” might be a good topic.

But in Reed’s own words, he “didn’t know anything about the Michael Jackson story.” So Reed put a researcher on the job, who trawled Michael Jackson fan forums for a few weeks, and came back with some notes about Robson and Safechuck’s twice-failed lawsuits against Jackson’s Estate and companies. Reed then contacted their lawyers, and the rest is history.

Despite Leaving Neverland being born out of a conversation that centred around the notion of doing ‘the Michael Jackson story,’ Reed will tell anyone who’ll listen that his film is not about Michael Jackson. But it is. In fact, if Jackson’s name was not associated with Leaving Neverland, the film would not have been funded and co-produced by HBO and Channel 4.

Finally, while we are on the subject of Channel 4, I want to bring attention to the Factual Programme Guidelines section of Channel 4’s Producers Handbook – written to ensure that the network’s filmmakers are held to the highest possible journalistic standards.

The guidelines dictate that production teams should remain unbiased in their reporting, and that they should “review, challenge and [be] suitably skeptical of all evidence and contributors motives.” In the case of Leaving Neverland, this rule was completely thrown out the window.

As award-winning investigative reporter Charles Thomson so beautifully articulated when speaking out about the film’s journalistic failings, the glaring omission of the details surrounding Robson and Safechuck’s multi-million dollar lawsuit against Jackson’s Estate and companies is the equivalent of “interviewing a pharma lobbyist for a news story on health and not mentioning that they’re a pharma lobbyist.” Thomson added that “even the staunchest Jackson hater would have to admit that failing to mention both men’s massive, ongoing financial incentive to lie is dishonest and misleading.”

Jackson Estate attorney Howard Weitzman also pointed towards the mounting legal costs of Robson and Safechuck’s failed lawsuits as further potential motive for their decision to participate in the film. “The Estate spent years litigating with Robson and Safechuck, and had four different lawsuits by these two men dismissed with prejudice,” said Weitzman, adding that “Robson owes the Estate almost seventy thousand dollars in court costs, and Safechuck owes the Estate several thousand dollars as well.”

Another portion of Channel 4’s Producers Handbook specifies that “the truth must not be sacrificed for the sake of a more entertaining programme if this means cheating the viewer.” The guidelines then go on to reiterate that “it is never acceptable to represent something as having happened that did not.”

Yet, as thoroughly detailed in this article, the truth was sacrificed during the production of Leaving Neverland, and things—like Safechuck’s blatant lie that he was abused in a train station that didn’t exist—were represented to have happened when, in fact, they did not.

Channel 4 and government-approved broadcast regulator Ofcom are yet to answer my question as to how a film that so egregiously violates their Factual Programme Guidelines was allowed to go to air in the first place.

To see the entire article please click on the link.

[soulmum]

Interesting.

TSCM
@MJJRepository

MEGATHREAD: If you've ever felt that all of the "rave" reviews, media stories & general publicity surrounding Leaving Neverland was canned, contrived & orchestrated, here's why.
All of the PR & publicity has been spearheaded by the increasingly powerful Kew Media Distribution.
8:20 AM - 29 Jun


KMD and its 14 entities are behind the global distribution of Leaving Neverland and sale to all other territories.

They are responsible for the mass-distributed media press releases w/ preloaded buzz-words, starting on Jan. 17th & continuing behind-the-scenes through this week.

On Jan. 17th, KMD pushed out a press release to detail Leaving Neverland & how they had already secured international distribution rights beyond US/UK. Their original 7 paragraph presser soon splashed across many media waves around the globe (w/ keywords like "gut-wrenching.")



KMD's supplied summary of the film was plastered on the majority of media sites leading up to Sundance's premiere.
Sundance used a paraphrased version for their own site and "Special Events" announcement, along with the supplied Reed bio & more keywords ("powerful, disarming.")



"Gut-wrenching" became the de-facto term that every person & outlet decided to use when referring to Leaving Neverland—a term taken straight from the PR (not an independent thought or review).
- Verbatim quotes in more than 2,000 articles.
- Used to describe the debut trailer.



"Gut-wrenching" also became a favorite among the blue ticks and general commentators on Twitter and other social media outlets.
As a predisposition, by the time it premiered it had already been referred to for months by media as "gut-wrenching" thanks to the PR put out by KMD.



In many instances, news sites were directly claiming that "Leaving Neverland has been described as 'gut-wrenching'" but beyond the headlines, the actual source to this claim was the direct-from-producer press-release that they all linked to—sent direct from KDM / HBO / Channel 4.



Following its Sundance premiere and all of the buzz behind that (which included endless stories quoting verbatim from the synopsis), they sent out a much more detailed 11-page media kit. This document made its way to notable outlets, media networks and so-called influencers.



This media kit was formally packaged for distribution by Marguerite Gaudin, the sidekick to Dan Reed during filming who also operated a second camera and microphone (credited in the film as assistant producer).
Marguerite also supplied press photos to media sites like Buzz Feed.


The media kit included a 14-paragraph, 933 word press release that expanded on the original and added many new catch phrases and keywords for the media to disseminate.
"ripples of sexual abuse," "trauma," "fractured," "complicated feelings," "isolating," "painful," "harrowing."



The extended press release contained Sundance quotes from RS and Hollywood Reporter that regurgitated the same verbiage already pushed out by the original press releases. Those quotes were then re-published in 100s of stories, quoting from the fresh PR (also used on the poster).



Also included in the media kit was a 110 word short synopsis, 225 word long synopsis, 119 word E1 synopsis, 139 word E2 synopsis, 1300 word Q&A interview with Dan Reed, and embellished biography calling Reed's films an "exhaustive investigation with character-led storytelling..."



Blurbs and excerpts from the 11-page presser continued spreading across media networks at the promotional hands of Kew Media Group for weeks until the film eventually premiered in March 2019.
Reed's PR interview was included as content for stories featured on numerous sites.



Continued in next post

[soulmum]

On Mar. 4 (E2 premiere in U.S.) KDM pushed out another grandstanding & rehashed press release to add momentum. That one claimed "unprecedented global broadcaster interest" in buying rights to Leaving Neverland.
The "130 countries" + "highly successful" bits spread through media.


KDM has continued promoting itself and Leaving Neverland to stakeholders etc. including on the day of MJ's 10th anniversary in passing.
To investor groups, they define their solid relationship with HBO and describe LN as "the Sundance smash hit," taking full credit for the PR.



On June 25—the 10th anniversary of Michael Jackson's passing—Television Business International published KMD interview in a story: "Beyond 'Neverland'."
It starts with: "there’s little doubt about the most impactful documentary of the year [LN]...sold around the world by KDM."



In the 6/25 interview, the KDM president stated:
"A couple of other companies had shied away from LN because they were concerned about the risks...we saw there was a story there we had to get out into the market."
He adds they "basically sold out in every country in the world."



Which brings me back to the original extended press release concocted by Reed and Gaudin, which Kew Media Group mass-distributed as build-up for the premiere.
That press release naturally contains an immense amount of factual errors and falsehoods, even comparing to LN itself.



PR: The separate but parallel experiences of 2 young boys..befriended by MJ..entranced.
FACT: WR+JS shared same sets of lawyers since '14, met as adults w/ lawyers. WR amended complaint based on JS claims, vice versa. Nothing "separate" about it. It was JR/WR who 1st pursued MJ.



PR: Complicated feelings that led both men to confront their experiences after both had a young son of their own.
FACT: Their kids have no baring on their timeline at all. WR was broke and w/out work and blamed it on everything (including his son). JS worked a year w/ WR attys.



PR: In 1990, Joy followed up with Jackson, who invited the whole family to his home for the weekend.
FACT: Joy tried for 2 years to reach MJ by sending letters & tapes; MJ did not respond. In more desperation, she then contacted media outlets & sources to be put in touch w/ MJ.



PR: ...separately expressing his love for both boys, while slowly isolating them from their families.
FACT: SS & JR were almost always present. In unaired part of MJ's Hawaii tape, he says he loves entire family, wants to spend time w/ all. Tells WR on vid to spend time w/ mom.



PR: Their most salient memories during this time involved visits to NL...filled w/ games, rides, animals...
FACT: In 1988-1990 ("during this time") very few of the described structures, rides or attractions actually existed at Neverland (including the train station - 1994).


PR: Both Robson and Safechuck describe how what began as innocent sleepovers led to intimate contact.
FACT: Wade Robson actually claims that the graphic sexual abuse began the very first time they ever were over, on that first weekend. No pattern at all, no "grooming."



PR: Soon, as Safechuck recalls painfully, nearly every "special" place at Neverland was marked by a sexual encounter.
FACT: Safechuck is giggling and chuckling while describing these acts, also describing it as if it were a game. He also alleges abuse at non-existent places.



PR: In 1991, with Jackson's encouragement, Robson's mother moved her son and daughter to LA.
FACT: JR confirmed in media interviews from the 90s that the most MJ said about it was "follow your heart." All of the Robson's acknowledge that upon moving to LA, MJ was rarely around.



PR: Robson recalls believing Jackson when he told him they would both "go to jail for the rest of our lives" if anyone found out.
FACT: Wade would had been keenly aware this was not the case in 93-94 when interviewed at length by investigators, and especially in court at age 22!



PR: As both boys reached adolescence, they found they were no longer in the same "privileged" position.
FACT: JS had paid gigs & traveled w/ MJ well into late teen years. Became distant after going to college & adult priorities took over. WR rarely ever saw MJ as child OR adult.



PR: Safechuck and Robson were urged by Jackson to defend him.
FACT: They both very freely offered their support for MJ to the media and investigators, as did many others at the time including Feldman, Barnes, Culkin, Spence. WR explains being "excited" about defending him in 93.



PR: Safechuck, an aspiring film director and rock musician, also faced bouts of depression and addiction.
FACT: It had been a decade since JS had a role (Pepsi commercial); his interest in that weaned fully by 2000. He suffered common adult struggles that affect 400 million.



PR: As their infant sons grew, their emotional turmoil mounted...revealing how the ripples of sexual abuse can manifest themselves decades later.
FACT: This is a rehash of opening paragraph. The timing of their kids (JS has two) had no no bearing on WR's book+suit+JS recruit.



PR: Now, after years of therapy, both men have decided to speak out and tell their stories.
FACT: These men have spent 6 YEARS "speaking out" in court, media and lawyer tabloidism. WR went through many therapists before suddenly claiming abuse; he also refused prescribed meds.

[soulmum]

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1517811/lifestyle
Wanted dead or alive: Despite ‘Leaving Neverland,’ Michael Jackson’s star seems undiminished in the Middle East


“He’s been a part of the best moments of our lives,” Arabs remember a musical icon
DUBAI: This week marked 10 years since the death of Michael Jackson. As Saudi Arabia prepares to welcome “Thriller Live,” an international tribute show dedicated to the late King of Pop, which toured the UAE earlier this year, it seems Jackson’s stardom — at least in the Middle East — is not fading. Many fans can’t believe it has already been 10 years since the passing of this megastar; a man who’d spent pretty much his entire life in the spotlight, in all senses; a man who wrote and sang some of the finest pop songs ever, and who became the first (and so far the only) pop star to enter the Dance Hall of Fame.

His undeniable talent was otherworldly. As was Jackson himself. That was thanks in part to his odd mannerisms — his air of childhood innocence, his tremulous speaking voice — and in part the fact that his skin color and appearance changed so markedly throughout his life.

As a performer and musician, Jackson was idolized around the world. He became an enormous part of people’s lives — and arguably the most recognizable person in history, despite all the surgery.

He was also, it is alleged, a serial pedophile.

Those allegations date back. In 1993, Evan Chandler accused Jackson of sexually abusing his 13-year-old son Jordan. In January 1994, Jackson reportedly reached a financial settlement of $23 million with the Chandlers and in September that year the criminal investigation was closed.

In the early 2000s, similar allegations were made. This time, the case went to trial and Jackson was found not guilty in 2005. Former child actor Macaulay Culkin, star of the “Home Alone” films and a frequent visitor to Jackson’s Neverland ranch (along with several other young boys), testified in support of the pop singer at that trial. As did another of Jackson’s former child friends, Wade Robson.

Robson is one of two men featured in the documentary, “Leaving Neverland,” released earlier this year. Along with James Safechuck (who, when he was younger, also told investigators that he had not been sexually abused by Jackson), Robson now alleges that Jackson did sexually abuse him as a child, and provides graphic descriptions of the acts they engaged in.

The allegations made in the documentary have been rebuffed by Jackson’s estate, which is suing HBO (which screened the documentary in the US) for $100 million. Both Safechuck and Robson are currently appealing against judgments in their own lawsuits against Jackson, which were dismissed in 2017.

“Leaving Neverland” is perhaps the strongest blow yet to Jackson’s legacy. But it has also served as a rallying point for his supporters, who fervently refuse to believe their idol could have been guilty of child abuse.

Jackson has a huge fanbase in the Middle East. For many, he was the first superstar they heard on heavy rotation in the region, as radio only really took hold in the Gulf in the 1980s. As Saudi Arabian journalist and artist Rym Ghazal explained to Arab News: “I don’t think MJ knew just how much his music shaped a whole generation of Arabs — just how many fans he had here and just how devoted they remained throughout his ordeals. We might not have heard of The Beatles or Elvis Presley, but we sure knew Michael Jackson.”

Ghazal is, she admits, a huge fan. She even named one of her childhood pets MJ.

“His music and his songs remain timeless,” she says. “He truly put his heart into each song and they touched on universal issues that I could identify with. He sang for the world, for the environment and about healing and kindness at a time when no one even gave nature a second thought. He also sang about accepting others as they are and topics that hit a chord with the public. He was ahead of his time and an enigma.”

Regarding “Leaving Neverland,” she says she has “doubts about its validity” because of the element of “massive financial compensation sought” and because it is “one-sided.” But she also makes a point that many others have echoed: That art should be assessed separately to its maker.

“Regardless of whatever happened in Michael Jackson’s personal life, that doesn’t take away the powerful messages and the beautiful music he created,” she says.

Others also say that Jackson’s personal life should not affect appreciation of his music. Ahmed Haram, a student at the American University of Sharjah, counts Jackson among his “top artists, very talented,” and says the documentary’s allegations “just made me lose a little respect for him, that’s all.”

Dubai-based Saudi Arabian radio host Hassan Dennaoui (aka Big Hass) says he does not believe the allegations against Jackson, and suspects there may be a conspiracy behind them.

“MJ was a pioneer, a music genius, an entertainer at heart, with the most humble intentions to make people happy and just dance. In my opinion his legacy will prevail, even with all the ridiculous allegations that targeted him when he was still alive and recently with the lame excuse of a documentary,” he says. “The world is drenched in the will to cause harm regardless of consequences. Personal interests, money and bigger agendas are brought forward and prioritized over the reputation of artists such as MJ. My convictions about him have never changed: the artist and the human being he was show a fragile — sometimes misunderstood — individual who was put into stardom too early but succeeded.

“He was also planning to convert to Islam, which I am sure many parties in power wouldn’t want to happen, as they knew MJ’s positive influence,” he continues. “Or else they wouldn’t have tried to sabotage his reputation and discredit his entire career.”

Others suggest that Jackson’s own well-documented troubled childhood could lie at the root of the allegations against the star. “He was a talented musician who didn’t have a chance at a normal, healthy life,” says Emirati banker Mohammed Murashi. “I don’t know if the allegations against him are true, and if they are it’s inexcusable, but I’m certain the abuse he supposedly faced and unusual life left him with numerous issues, and could have contributed to his lack of social norms.”

Mawaddah, a young lady from Jeddah, says that “Leaving Neverland” has not affected her opinion of Jackson’s music, but that it has made her relationship with the singer more complicated.

“I am still a fan of his music. Before, I liked him as a person too. I thought he was a nice, very liberated guy. And then I watched the documentary,” she tells Arab News. “Right now, every time I go to my playlist on my phone or my computer, I just get that image in my head. I still like his music, but I just leave, most of the time.”

In Dubai, “Leaving Neverland” was shown at Cinema Akil. There were plenty opposed to the film being shown. Journalist William Mullally, who moderated a panel discussion that followed one of the screenings, tells Arab News there were “a lot of people who were very against it being shown in the first place, and a lot of people who felt it needed to be shown.” The cinema and Mullally himself received “hundreds of messages” from people saying that the film should not be screened. “It really did feel like the pressure was on in order to downplay any accusations.”

He continues: “At the discussion itself, it felt like a lot of the room was pro-Michael Jackson, and two of the four panelists were very skeptical of the allegations and pushed back very hard against anything the film had to say.”

The arguments in support of Jackson in the room that night, Mullally says, felt very much like “the kitchen-sink defense,” with audience members claiming that the documentary was suspect because it failed to mention that one of the accusers had dated Jackson’s niece when he was younger. Others said there just wasn’t enough proof presented for them to believe that Jackson was a pedophile.

“But when they were questioned on what exactly they would require in terms of proof, it got a bit hazy,” says Mullally. “It did seem like there was some kind of dissonance in their ability to talk about allegations in general, and the way that predators operate in general, and then apply that same logic to the Michael Jackson story.”
Mullally understands that impulse though, even if he doesn’t share it. “I grew up as a Michael Jackson fan myself. And for a long time I was skeptical of these allegations when they were coming out in the Nineties and the 2000s. I think it just hurts harder with Michael Jackson. He means so much to us. He’s been a part of the best moments of our lives: playing at our weddings, becoming closer to our family members, and discovering ourselves through music. And I think because of that — because he feels almost like a member of the family — people have a knee-jerk reaction to defend him as if he is a member of the family,” he says. “They don’t want to let Michael go.”

[soulmum]

https://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/4 ... h6.twitter

Jackson fans hit back at documentary in Hollywood protests



REUTERS) - Michael Jackson fans descended on Hollywood on Tuesday (June 25) not only to celebrate the tenth anniversary of his death but also to proclaim his innocence after the HBO documentary Leaving Neverland earlier this year accused the global superstar of child abuse.

A group of fans from all over the world joined together to march down Hollywood Boulevard protesting his innocence and ended their march a few metres past Jackson s star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Wearing T-shirts and carrying flyers that read Innocent , the fans congregated not at Jackson s star but in the courtyard outside Madame Tussauds after Hollywood Boulevard became partially restricted because of Wednesday night s Spider-Man: Far From Home premiere.

Keen Zhang, who is president of the Michael Jackson Chinese fan club and brought 50 fans over from China, told Reuters, "From the beginning of this year, everything was not well and Michael s image has been damaged but it s important for us to come here and show our love and support."

Another fan, Marty Theis, who hails from England via Germany, said, "I think with the documentary, at first we were all shocked and saddened and angered but it was like a launching pad, you know. You set fire on it and you re burned to incineration but you launch forward in love and there s been such an explosion of love as a result of all of this."

The fans put on dance performances of numerous hits like Thriller and Beat It , undeterred by the accusations.

"Michael, for me, came to renovate the god s message of love," said Katia Bellomo, who had flown in especially from Brazil. She added, "There s no other human being so gentle, so kind and has the love inside, truly. He loved people, he loved children, he loved animals, he loved nature. He is love himself."

Jackson died at his Los Angeles home after an overdose of the powerful anesthetic propofol, which he was using as a sleep aid. His doctor, Conrad Murray, was convicted at a 2011 trial of involuntary manslaughter.

[soulmum]

Alicia Ke_Reviews
@AliciaKeReviews

Here is a world FAMOUS footballer, not afraid to stand for truth. Not afraid of 'backlash' when it's clear Michael Jackson was being LNYCHED. So no more excuses, no fear of the mob.
Stand for something or fall for everything.

[soulmum]

Believe the victims of false accusers
@Hammertonhal

Kevin Lipsey who worked on a scene for Leaving Neverland as a sound guy says Robson said nothing but good to him about MJ, then stated to ACT like a victim when the cameras turned on.
Robson is a fraud.

[soulmum]

https://www.mjvibe.com/michael-jackson- ... in-france/

UPDATE 02/07/2019:

The court case will open this Thursday at Orleans at 9am.
Me Emmanuel Ludot who represents the 3 fan clubs (Michael Jackson Community, MJ Street & On the line) has stated that the 2 men sued for a symbolic €1 will not be present at the court nor will be represented and he is seeking a “conviction in principle” against the 2 men.

Michael Jackson fan clubs are set to sue two alleged child abuse victims of Michael Jackson in a French court this week over their claims in the recent HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland”.

Thursday’s hearing will take place at a court in the northern city of Orleans where the Michael Jackson Community, the MJ Street and On The Line groups will begin proceedings against the men they accuse of sullying the image of the late singer.

The French lawyer acting for the fan groups, Emmanuel Ludot, called the allegations “extremely serious” and likened them to “a genuine lynching” of Jackson, who died in 2009.

Under French law, sullying the image of a dead person is a criminal offence, unlike in Britain or America where libel and defamation laws do not offer this protection.

The fan clubs are seeking symbolic damages of one euro each.

[soulmum]

2000 Watts
@2000Watts3

Replying to @Michael80043569 @ddssy and 48 others
Wade was clearly hoping for a private settlement, as evident by the email he sent to his family. He has never reached out to Jason or Gavin, either. So much for victim advocacy.

[soulmum]

Statement from the Estate:

On Thursday, 4 July 2019, a court hearing is taking place in the Northern French city of Orleans where the Michael Jackson Community, the MJ Street and On The Line groups will commence proceedings against Wade Robson and James Safechuck, two men who sullied the image of the late singer Michael Jackson in the four- hour HBO documentary Leaving Neverland which aired in March.

The fan groups are taking action in a French court because of French defamation laws.

In the US and UK, libel protection does not extend after death but in France sullying the image of a deceased person is a criminal offense.

French attorney Emmanuel Ludot who is representing the fan groups in the case against Robson and Safechuck has called the allegations against Michael Jackson “extremely serious” and likened them to “a genuine lynching” of Jackson, who died on 25 June 2009.

The fan clubs are seeking symbolic damages of one Euro each.

According to John Branca, Co-Executor of the Estate of Michael Jackson, “The Estate is in full support of Mr. Ludot’s efforts on behalf of Michael and his beloved fans in France and across the globe that the truth shall ultimately prevail. We remain hopeful that a victory in France will soon fuel a movement In the United States to finally explore changes in the law to afford defamation protection for the deceased.”

Copyright © 2019 The MJ Online Team on Behalf Of The Estate of Michael Jackson, All rights reserved.
MJOnline The Official Online Team of The Michael Jackson Estate™

[soulmum]

Nazmun Talukdar
@NazmunTalukdar

@michaeljackson hits 7 billion views on YouTube and gain more 100k followers on Instagram now 3.3 millon followers.Despite the fake controversial movie #LeavingNeverland.Before LN,YT subscribers was 12+ million and now He's about to hit 14 million.

[soulmum]

https://9now.nine.com.au/today/michael- ... huicZa0d4o
Michael Jackson's bodyguard calls popstar's accusers liars
By TODAY|12 hours ago
Michael Jackson’s bodyguard has branded the men accusing the late popstar of abuse “liars”.

Appearing on Today, Bill Whitfield, who worked for Jackson from 2006 until his death in 2009, said the allegations made by Wade Robson and James Safechuck in the documentary Leaving Neverland were absolutely false.

“I normally do not watch Michael Jackson documentaries, certainly if they are from individuals that were prior to me or individuals who hadn't met him,” he explained.

“But when I heard the documentary [Leaving Neverland] involved a point in time in which Mr. Jackson was under my watch, I had to tune in.”

Jackson’s former bodyguard knew instantly Robson and Safechuck were “certainly lying”.

“I just immediately found, realised, these guys were certainly lying or certainly not being truthful about certain dates which they say they had seen Mr. Jackson,” Whitfield said.

When interviewer Tom Steinfort asked Whitfield to clarify if he believed the men were “liars”, he responded saying, “Absolutely”.

“I don't know what evidence they had,” he explained. “I watched a documentary like everybody else, I didn't see any evidence.

“I saw cut up pictures, one of the pictures certainly looked Photoshopped to me. It looked like they went through everything they needed to go through to make it believable.”

Allegations of abuse marred Jackson’s reputation while he was still alive, and have only mounted since his death and the release of Leaving Neverland. Nonetheless, Whitfield was adamant that Jackson’s legacy would not remain tainted.

“There will come a time the majority of people, I believe, will see this all as a farce and certainly a scheme to make some money,” he said.



Speaking about his time working for Jackson, Whitfield said that he did not personally see anything to make him believe any of the abuse allegations.

“I knew Mr Jackson personally, very well, and no, I don't believe any of those allegations are true,” he said. “Certainly, those [allegations] are things which I have heard about prior to going to work for him.

“At the time I was a single father myself and former law enforcement so I certainly paid attention, just to see if any of those things were true.

“Had I seen anything such as that, one: no, I would not have continued to work for him, and two: I certainly would have come forward with anything I had seen.”

This year marks a decade since Michael Jackson, then 50, was found dead in his Los Angeles mansion after overdosing on prescription drugs. Apparently stress was a contributor to his death, according to Whitfield.

“Being privy to some of the conversations he was having – I do feel that stress certainly played a major part,” he said.

In 2014, Whitfield himself published a book about his time working with Jackson, entitled Remember the Time: Protecting Michael Jackson in His Final Days.

“I think a lot of them [the public] knew who the King of Pop was, but I wanted to give a behind-the-scenes, what I witnessed of the man, of the person, of the father,” Whitfield said of his book.

Despite recent public uproar in reaction to the abuse allegations, which saw some outlets banning Jackson’s music, Whitfield said he believes the allegations are quickly losing their potency.

“I see more and more that those stories are starting to die down and people are starting to do their research and starting to see there is another side to these allegations or these boys' story,” he explained.

“I think it's been falling apart slowly but surely.”

[soulmum]

N1 intervju: John Ziegler o "Kralju popa"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... mdjGAQxv1g