Leaving Neverland

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 16 febbraio 2019, 11:10

Pez Jax‏ @Pezjax
It’s becoming very apparent that @HBO are asking all their ‘stars’ to speak out on Michael and Leaving Neverland to ‘promote it’ and it’s ‘shocking narrative.’ They should know, our voices will drown out who ever they ‘pay’ to promote the film of lies. We have nothing but facts!
10:37 PM - 15 Feb 2019






https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2019/2 ... -neverland
Immagine
“Leaving Neverland" Feels More Like an Opportunistic Hit-Piece Rather Than a Documentary [Review]

February 15, 2019 /Jordan Ruimy
Immagine
I can “review” HBO’s upcoming “Leaving Neverland” or just give an opinionated schema of Michael Jackson and his history of sexual abuse allegations towards underaged teenage boys. I’ll try to do both.

“Leaving Neverland” comes to us in rather problematic and outlandish circumstances. The fact that Michael Jackson, the antagonist of this documentary, has been dead for the better part of 10 years can seem unfair in that he has no way to defend himself. Secondly, and maybe less covered by the media, is the fact that one of the two accusers in the documentary, Wade Robson, a former choreographer whose allegations of abuse are at the center of this controversial new doc, has a shady past. Now, this shouldn’t be of any concern, especially with his alleging that he was sexually abused by Jackson, but Robson has a history of, err, shall we say, a desperate past. We’ll get back to that later.

For the better part of two decades I have intensely folllowed the Michael Jackson saga. My mind has changed a few times, from he’s innocent to he’s guilty to I just don’t know anymore, but it’s rather hard for me to take director Dan Reed’s “Leaving Neverland” at face value, let alone review it, because the two victims being interviewed here, Robson and James Safechuck, have had so many revised accounts of what happened; lies have been uttered by them, maybe purposely or maybe accidentally. Despite all that, memory is a funny thing, where even the most hardened of experiences can have crucial details feeling rather hazy decades later, let alone if you were a child when it happened.

Leaving Neverland is a talking-heads movie—there is no narration from Reed. It’s all about the sexually explicit story recounted by these two boys, Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck, who became friends with Jackson, a friendship which they claim eventually went beyond that, as lovers, masturbation buddies, fellators.

The film had its premiere at Sundance last month, where it screened to shocked reactions. And yet, despite its 240 minute running time, you do feel as if Reed is force-feeding us something he quickly assembled together in the editing room just for the sake of making the cut for the festival, where the film, unsurprisingly, created the kind of buzz that makes its March 3rd premiere on HBO now a must-see event.

The details in this film are gruesome and unabashedly raw.

Reed, with the assistance of Robson and Safechuck, paints Jackson as a serial predator. Robson says the pop star had a fetish for telling him to bend over and spread his butt cheeks while Jackson masturbated to the sight. There’s also Jackson’s insistence to have the boys suck and pull on his nipples while he offed himself. All this happening as Jackson created an elaborate system of “alarm bells” installed at the Neverland Ranch to alert him of any potential passer-byers that might walk in on him committing the sexual misdeeds.

The film is meant to shock. It has a no-holds barred account that will most likely have the most timid of minds running for the exits— no wonder paramedics were in attendance at the Sundance premiere in case what unfolded on the screen was too much to take. Yet nobody fainted, not even when when the topic of penetration with a 7-year-old boy came up in the film, a problem, which Robson claims, Jackson learned to live with until the boys grew older. Even more explicit is Robson recalling his first orgasm, when he was at such a young age that no ejaculation could occur.

What cannot be denied is that Robson had testified at Jackson’s 2005 trial (as an adult) that nothing sexual ever happened between them. Of course, victims of sexual abuse can deny it ever happening for fear of embarrassment or guilt, a common occurence when it comes to sexual abuse victimes, but Robson wasn’t forced to be a witness for the defense, he decided to do so on his own free will. He was cross-examined by sly legislators, and so, the fact that he now recants what he said in that public court back in 2005 could be deemed a potential case of perjury for lying under oath.

The problem with “Leaving Neverland” is, as mentioned, that two proven liars are the sources here, which makes the doc feel like a hit piece rather than any kind of artistic statement.

The allegations against Michael Jackson have already been scrutinized to no end. Remember the media frenzy that Martin Bashir’s 20/20 interview with a victim caused in the mid-’90s? It happened again the following decade, which resulted in Jackson’s home being raided by FBI officers, in two unannounced raids, but nothing incriminating being found. Jackson was acquitted of all charges in 2005 by a California jury. The FBI, likewise, “conducted a thorough investigation. Its 300-page file on the pop star, released under the Freedom of Information Act, found no evidence of wrongdoing.”

Michael Jackson was, and still is, a well-loved musician, who was also a terrible judge of character, and a naive fool. He spent the better part of his large extravagant life trusting some of the shadiest characters imaginable. He made extremely bad choices because he had lost touch with the way of life of the normal people and had no idea that his friendships with young people (by the way, it wasn’t only boys, there were lots of girls too, but none of their parents ever sued or blackmailed him) may be seen as sinister. I believe that he really didn’t get it.

It’s rather hard for me to sit here and type this considering my assumptions could very well turn out to be wrong, but in this case it’s not just the subjects who should be scrutinized, but the filmmaking itself, which is blandly told. I can count on more than two hands the amount of aerial shots Reed uses of Los Angeles, ditto the usage of archival material rather than the artistic, and the over-the-top 240 minute running time which could have easily been trimmed down to two hours.

Of note:

****Amidst the firestorm this doc is creating, the media refuses to acknowledge Robson and Safechuck’s shady background. After being denied a job by the Jackson estate to be head director of the singer’s Cirque du Soleil show, Robson apparently had a nervous breakdown, triggered, he once said, by an “obsessive quest for success.” His career, in his own words, began to “crumble.” In major debt he started shopping a book in 2013 that claimed he was sexually abused by Jackson, but no publisher picked it up. Safechuck entering this story only happened after Robson persuaded him to file a $1.5 billion dollar civil lawsuit/creditor’s claim, with Safechuck claiming he only realized he may have been abused when Robson filed his lawsuit. That lawsuit was dismissed by a probate court in 2017.

But, of course, none of that is in the movie. They aren’t even questioned about it.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 16 febbraio 2019, 13:43

LONDON PEACEFUL PROTEST - STOP “LEAVING NEVERLAND”

A peaceful protest against “Leaving Neverland” will take place by Channel 4’s headquarters in London, UK on March 6th.

Visit the event on Facebook for more information: https://www.facebook.com/events/2134073470142650
Immagine
Immagine

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 16 febbraio 2019, 13:56

Keeping the Media Close
Shortly after the news investigations of Mr. Weinstein’s alleged abuse were published, A. J. Benza, a former New York Daily News gossip columnist, received a two-word text from the producer: “Help me.” [...]

Mr. Benza, then between jobs, had a suggestion. “I could supply your P.R. girls with a lot of gossip — a lot of stories — and if people come at them with the ‘Harvey’s having an affair story,’ they can barter,” Mr. Benza recalled telling Mr. Weinstein. “He said, ‘A. J., it’s got to be good stories,’ and I said, ‘Don’t you worry about it.’”

Collecting a monthly retainer, Mr. Benza said, he reported items on Roger Clemens, Michael Jackson and others and sent them to Mr. Weinstein’s communications team, though he didn’t know whether they were used to trade away stories about the producer.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...omplicity.html





Cory Feldman showing support
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP0KHwIjN7c

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 16 febbraio 2019, 13:58

I just want everyone to know that this project officially started weeks ago. I have not stopped gathering names or info since then. I have some key people already onboard and have plenty more still to go after.
For those of you who have emailed or messaged me some names to be in this... a lot of those names were already contacted and have agreed to help out. :-)
Some I still have to reach out to though. So keep suggesting, I am always open to outside ideas.

However, make no mistake, I have a VERY CLEAR picture of what this needs to be and what it doesn't need to be.
I am also being secretive not because I don't want to keep all of you in the loop. It's because there are some big and powerful forces that don't want this or any pro Michael project ever to happen, so we have to keep certain things closer to the chest for now.
I truly appreciate all the donations, messages, and press I have received for this project so far.
And I will promise you one thing. This is going to be bigger and better than any of you expect.
Taj

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 16 febbraio 2019, 21:12

Keen Zhang‏ @mkgenie
#MichaelJackson Chinese fans gather in #Shanghai to protest against the fake documentary, #HBO and #Channel4 @tajjackson3
Immagine







Immagine

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 17 febbraio 2019, 10:31

Bryton James‏Verified account
Over our 15 year friendship, neither I or my family ever witnessed @michaeljackson conduct himself inappropriately with a minor, or anyone for that matter. & during the time I worked with Mr. Robson as a child, he never once mentioned any wrong doing...









Dr Boyce Watkins‏ @drboycewatkins1
The problem with the #MeToo movement is that it allows anyone to make any accusation against any person from any period in time without any proof or due process and then asks the public to act like the accusation is automatically true. This is not justice. This is a lynching.







Maureen Dowd‏ @maureendowd
MJ truthers are blowing up my mentions for pointing out the obvious: Michael Jackson sexually abused kids for years. Dan Reed, who directed the docu, is also awash in fan outrage. He told me MJ's victims became numb to this sort of thing long ago.


Ivy‏ @Ivys_
Replying to @maureendowd
I am disappointed you chose to speak on and side with a story told by two PROVEN fradulent men, rather than doing proper research of the official court and FBI documents before speaking out. 10+ years of research has told me that he's innocent. You should do yours,


Replying to @maureendowd

Those pesky facts getting in the way are again they Mo? How inconvenient for you.







TSCM‏ @MJJRepository
So according to this week's tabloids & guilter logic... MJ was a chemically castrated serial child molester who masterfully groomed his victims but also started molesting Wade from the 1st night on. He also took decade-long breaks in between.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 17 febbraio 2019, 10:44

From producer Jeff Wald to CEO HBO. 14th Feb 2019

Richard,

I have thought long and hard about getting into the discussion of the so called documentary you are doing about my late friend Michael Jackson.

Since the matter of his behavior has been judged in a court of law including the SWORN testimony of Wade Robson as to Michael’s innocence it amazes me you would slander the memory of a deceased person with no ability to fight back.

This has led to the fact that his friends, family, and business associates have taken on the public discussion as to his innocence.

I realize that the new owners of the former Time Warner/ HBO under AT&T Senior Executive Vice President J.Stankey have a mandate to increase Subscriptions to HBO with total disregard as to either the legacy of HBO as a destination for quality programming or your personal legacy as CEO.

I had what has turned out be a false hope that you would have drawn a line in the sand regarding what is pure trash under the banner that has meant so much.

I guess the following considering the politics of AT&T would be to rehash the Obama birther discussion: Hilary Clinton’s pedophile ring run from a Pizzeria; or the defense of “good people on both sides” in the white nationalist protests. There is a never ending supply of product along the same lines as this piece of shit you insist on running.

I may be the up front voice on this but you should know there are dozens of people in the creative community who feel like I do as well as literally thousands of his fans who are equally disappointed and angry at HBO.

You have zero legitimate reason to air this shit.

Jeff Wald

SOMMERS ENTERPRISES INC.

Jeff Wald (President & CEO)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e...KFaMOBW2LP/pub

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 17 febbraio 2019, 21:26

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf7eVryHPm4
Debunking Leaving Neverland: The Gutierrez Factor








Kelley Parker @IamKelleyParker
Hold on, what's this crap about Michael abusing his son and nephew Taj? And bubbles? Now this is getting out of hand, that shit never happen, people will say anything to get their hands on money. I am disgusted with the media, and those boys who are lying about everything.







Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson
Charles Thomson Retweeted @iamjniles

A fan armed with facts has more integrity than a ‘journalist’ who refuses to interrogate allegations.

The fact these people even call themselves journalists sickens me.

There are 14yo fans online with English as a third language who produce better journalism than these scabs.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 18 febbraio 2019, 10:00

Virginia Trioli‏@LaTrioli
Replying to @vampireluvas @tajjackson3

Oh my goodness! I’m just learning of the existence of a virulent, anti-sexual assault victim, anti-fact push of a particular group of Michael Jackson fans. I get the disappointment - I have also adored this man’s music. But I’ve got no time for sexual abuse cover-ups.

Beau-Jazzlyn‏ @scarlettroseV
Replying to @LaTrioli @vampireluvas @tajjackson3

Also wanna tell us why robsen and safechuck refused forensic examinations which wudve helped their case if the ludicrous disgusting claims theyre making were true? And why they chose to press for a civil suit and not a criminal one, robsen in particular.

Taj Jackson @tajjackson3
Taj Jackson Retweeted Virginia Trioli

You obviously have no time for the truth either. How typical. You are so matter of fact. You really seem proud of your ignorance.
A lot of us are ACTUAL victims and are wondering how two proven liar$ are being believed without question. But don’t let facts get in your way.








Samar @TheMJAP‏ @TheMJAP
Anyone making the claim that MJ was, in fact, guilty (he died a vindicated, innocent man) should be precluded from ever being allowed to sit on a jury in any court of law, ever.

There is no right to a "fair trial" when liars and perjurers are, now, believed without question.








Samar @TheMJAP‏ @TheMJAP
Samar @TheMJAP Retweeted Maureen Dowd
Michael Jackson was acquitted, exonerated and vindicated in a court of law and found Not Guilty 14 times. And that, following an investigation into his life that lasted over 10 years, aided by the FBI.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 18 febbraio 2019, 10:17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELybOHbfiH8
Proving Mj's innocence fact by fact

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 18 febbraio 2019, 21:27

RazörFist‏ @RAZ0RFIST
Odd. All the child stars that spent time at Neverland and saved their money seem to defend Michael Jackson.
Yet the ones who didn't - or whose careers are on the downturn and sue the Estate for millions - all suddenly decide they were diddled.
Hell of a thing.
Immagine

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 19 febbraio 2019, 8:27

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornw ... -Ywq4NpFSc
Michael Jackson Leaving Neverland documentary and why we shouldn't be free to destroy the reputations of the dead

Even without evidence we are free to say whatever we want about those who have passed away - and that isn't right
When anguished pop superstar Michael Jackson died some ten years ago there was hope in many quarters that he had found peace at last.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

You can read the rest of the article by following the link above.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 19 febbraio 2019, 12:19

Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson
Charles Thomson Retweeted Lucy Zilberkweit
Anybody who emerges from this cinema parroting or endorsing the allegations instead of questioning them is, very simply, not a journalist.








MJJLegion @MJJLegion
#MJFam: You may be thinking ‘my $5 won’t make a difference’.. but it WILL. This is not just about how much money is raised, it’s about showing the worldwide media just how MANY PEOPLE want to hear the truth. Donate whatever you can.
Make your voice heard:
http://gofundme.com/untitled-michael-ja ... ary-series …







Mark Jefferies @mirrorjeffers
Replying to @Sole13790543 @Channel4
No, I cannot talk in-depth about what is on screen because of embargoes but I would just say watch the film and look into the eyes of the people talking, listen to them speaking over four hours, and see if you still feel the same.

Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson
Charles Thomson Retweeted Mark Jefferies
Which version of the story are they telling when I look into their eyes? The 2005 version? The 2013 version? The 2015 version? Or the version in the TV show, which contradicts all the previous versions?
Just want to be clear on which version of their story is the credible one.





Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson
Replying to @TheMJAP @TherealNihal
Maybe ask him why he fails to even mention at any point in his four-hour TV show that both men have ongoing lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Jackson’s posthumous Estate. Seems quite a significant detail to omit.
12:15 AM - 19 Feb 2019






andjustice4some‏ @andjustice4some
Lesson learned today: #1 "journalists" believed the film because of "the look in their eyes", and #2 no journalist has read the lawsuit or even attempted to look at the other side of Robson's and Safechuck's claims.







Take this teenager from Canada who offered HOURS of unwavering graphic allegations against MJ on video, phone and in person. No less detailed or graphic than anything Robson/Safechuck now allege. He made it all up and admits it at end of investigation.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMAz1MBhG_U …

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 19 febbraio 2019, 21:22


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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 20 febbraio 2019, 8:59

Emmanuel Lewis‏ @TheReal_ELewis
Replying to @Hammertonhal @MjGuilty and 6 others
Let’s be 100% clear here I was never a victim. My big Bro Michael has been nothing but kind and a role model to me and my family. I suggest you pick a subject you really know because obviously you don’t know Michael and you don’t know me. Spread peace not false rumors. & Love
Immagine





https://www.eonline.com/news/1016294/wa ... -neverland
Watch the Chilling Trailer for Michael Jackson Documentary Leaving Neverland

Prepare yourselves for a new perspective of Neverland.

Less than a month after Leaving Neverland premiered at the 2019 Sundance Film Festival, HBO has released a brand-new trailer of the Michael Jackson documentary.

In the sneak peek released earlier today, choreographer Wade Robson and computer programmer James Safechuck are prepared to share their experiences of visiting Neverland Ranch.

"I was seven years old. Michael asked, 'Do you and the family want to come to Neverland?'" Wade recalled in the trailer. "The days were filled with magical childhood adventure experiences. Playing tag, watching movies, eating junk food: Anything you could ever want as a child."
But despite the amusement park rides, animals and other attractions, the two men will tell the story of how they were allegedly sexually abused by the King of Pop—a claim Michael's estate denounces.


"This is yet another lurid production in an outrageous and pathetic attempt to exploit and cash in on Michael Jackson," the estate said in a statement to E! News. "Wade Robson and James Safechuck have both testified under oath that Michael never did anything inappropriate toward them. Safechuck and Robson, the latter a self-proclaimed 'master of deception', filed lawsuits against Michael's Estate, asking for millions of dollars. Both lawsuits were dismissed."

The statement continued, "This so called 'documentary' is just another rehash of dated and discredited allegations. It's baffling why any credible filmmaker would involve himself with this project."

According to HBO, the documentary "crafts a portrait of sustained abuse, exploring the complicated feelings that led both men to confront their experiences after both had a young son of his own."

"He told me if they ever found out what we were doing, he and I would go to jail for the rest of our lives," Wade alleges in the trailer. "I want to be able to speak the truth as loud as I had to speak the lie for so long."

Leaving Neverland, directed by Dan Reed, premieres March 3 and 4 on HBO.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 20 febbraio 2019, 9:13

Replying to @CEThomson @benfraserlee
This is 2005 all over again. The media is a herd. No critical thinking, no research, no integrity. If he’s guilty, why are they so afraid of presenting all the relevant information?




Charles Thomson Retweeted The Guardian
Pathetic article by @benfraserlee. Zero balance.
No mention of accusers’ ongoing lawsuit for hundreds of millions of dollars. No mention of their totally inconsistent testimony & how their stories in the show directly contradict their lawsuit. No mention of shady ‘charity’ fund.






Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson
No mention of the fact that the director refuses to say whether any of the funders has paid money into Wade’s ‘charity fund’, which he has deliberately set up using a loophole which means it never has to publish its accounts.





Emily‏ @queensdrowse
It’s really fucking disgusting that wade robson taught me how to moonwalk and do the beat it dance routine, then like 2 years later he claimed mj molest*d him, WHY WOULD U TEACH A CHILD TO DANCE LIKE MICHAEL IF HE REALLY DID SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO U??

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 20 febbraio 2019, 9:43

Immagine







'He Was a Sexual Predator' Says Director of New Michael Jackson Doc

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43zn ... erland-hbo

“Porn and candy,” James Safechuck says with a sigh in the upcoming HBO documentary Leaving Neverland, recounting one of the countless sexual encounters he claims to have shared with Michael Jackson as a child. The four-hour film recounts his story as well as that of Wade Robson, another boy who says he was groomed to be Jackson’s secret child lover over a period of many years.


In each case, the film alleges, Jackson sought out children who mythologized him, slowly seducing their parents with vacations, houses, and money, while psychologically manipulating the boys into thinking they were liable accomplices in his sex crimes. The boys’ stage performances and sycophancy toward Jackson are endearing (what 80s child wouldn’t fall to pieces when gifted a “Thriller” jacket or “Smooth Criminal” hat?) which makes the graphic and detailed account of their sexual allegations against Jackson all the more horrifying to endure.
James Safechuck first met Jackson when they co-starred together in a 1988 Pepsi commercial. The two became inseparable, with Jackson often staying over at Safechuck’s home, bringing him along as a Mini Me performer on the Bad Tour, and, according to Safechuck, lavishing him with jewelry (including a diamond ring used in a mock wedding ceremony between the two). Safechuck alleges that Jackson supplied him with wine and the two would perform sexual acts on each other on a daily basis, both at Neverland Ranch and in hotel rooms on tour (where his mother was often booked in a separate room).





Around the same time, Jackson met five-year-old Australian Wade Robson after he won a lookalike dance contest. Similar to Safechuck, the Robson family claims that Jackson seduced them with a life of luxury while routinely engaging in sex with their son. When they were apart, Jackson called and faxed Robson every day, often staying on the phone for “six to seven hours at a time,” according to his mother.



The descriptive interviews with both Safechuck and Robson (now in their thirties) about the sex they claim to have had with Jackson leave little to the imagination. Phrases like “bloody underwear,” “squeezing his nipples while he ejaculates,” and “a grown man’s penis in my seven-year-old mouth” are difficult to sit through, but perhaps necessary when considering what these guys are up against in coming forward with these allegations.
The Jackson estate has been working hard to discredit HBO and the director and subjects of Leaving Neverland, releasing a ten page letter to the company citing numerous grievances (including calling Robson unreliable because his father suffered from mental health issues and took his own life).
Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed doesn’t feel that the Jackson estate has any legs to stand on in criticizing his film, and is optimistic that all of this will lead to greater conversation about sexual abusers in positions of power. I recently caught up with Reed to discuss the emotional, legal and cultural turmoil his film has wrought on society, and whether or not we should all stop listening to Jackson’s music.
VICE: There have been so many books, documentaries, and TV specialsfocusing on the psychology of Michael Jackson and the abuse he endured as a child impacting his behavior as an adult. Was it a conscious choice for you to not explore Jackson’s internal world at all in this film?
Dan Reed: Well it’s not a film about Michael Jackson. It’s about the Robsons and Safechucks and their encounters with Jackson. I never met Michael Jackson, I never interviewed him, I don’t know what it was in his history or his psychological makeup that led him to molest little boys, and I don’t want to speculate on that.



I don’t think that having a tragic childhood determines your behavior later in life. Not everyone who has a bad childhood or was sexually abused becomes a sex abuser. What I was fascinated about with this story is the picture [Robson and Safechuck] draw of the grooming sexual predator. And because that story involves Michael Jackson it will have an incredible reach. And that will bring to light some really important facts about how child sexual abuse does happen. It’s not how people imagine.
That’s why so many people on Twitter are asking: “Why did Robson stand up for Jackson in court? Why didn’t he just run to his mummy and say ‘Michael Jackson did these things to me’”? Well, because that’s not how sexual abuse works. And I think this film shows that in poignant detail. Abusers can make their victims fall in love with them. Like Wade says how he lived his entire life with this fantasy that Jackson’s relationship with him was a positive thing. But that was bullshit, and it was very difficult for him to admit that.
It seems like this is not so much a story about Jackson’s [alleged] abuse revelations, but more of a story about these two men contending with the abuse they endured as children.
Exactly. That’s where the film lands, when Wade and James reveal to their families the abuse they endured. To me, that’s where the emotional peak of the film is, even more than the horrible detail of the sexual transactions. It’s in the release of Wade finally telling his family and his wife the truth, which he’d lied about for so long.



Michael Jackson fandom breeds a particular kind of intensity. What has the backlash to the film been like from them?
So let me be clear about one thing: There are tens of millions of Michael Jackson fans out there in the world. People who love Michael’s music and have great memories of dancing to his music at their weddings or bar mitzvah or the last time they saw their mom. His music is interwoven into the fabric of people’s lives around the world. And a majority of MJ fans are just people who just really like his music.
But there is also this league of fans who are almost like a cult, and they say very nasty things [about the film] on social media. And their words echo the two-decade long rhetoric of the Jackson family and legal team, which is shaming the victims. It happens often in these cases. It’s what they do very aggressively and relentlessly, and I don’t think you can get away with that in 2019 like you could in the past.
The majority of Jackson fans are people who will be really shocked to hear this very compelling case of abuse by Jackson, as I was. When I first came into this I had no prejudice against Jackson, I had no fixed opinion about whether he was or wasn’t a pedophile, he could’ve been innocent. I believed he was a good guy, made good music, seemed nice to children, and I think most people were in that grey area. Sadly, it turns out he was a sexual predator, and I think a lot of people are going to rethink their view of him.



And I’m sure your next question is going to be: Should people stop listening to his music?
That is on my list of questions.
[Laughs] I wouldn’t say that there should be any hashtag to ban Michael Jackson like there is with R. Kelly. I think Jackson’s music is too woven into the fabric of American and British life, and others around the world, to just rip it out like that. Do you want your children’s party soundtrack to be MJ songs? I don’t know. I wouldn’t. But should it be banned? I don’t think so. It’s great music, he was a great artist and entertainer. He was also a pedophile.
Were those the real sequin glove and "Thriller" jacket that Robson was burning in the final credits of the film?
I wasn’t there when Wade burned those items, but the photographic evidence suggests those were the real deal, yeah.
Seems like those would be profoundly valuable items, which is particularly interesting since the Jackson estate is claiming Robson is telling his story for the money.
Sure, but I don’t think [the burning of memorabilia], in itself, validates his position. I think you have to look at the wider picture, which is that he and James weren’t paid and have no financial interest in the documentary, for a start.
They also criticize your film for not reaching out to anyone for a counterpoint to Robson and Safechuck’s story.
We included plenty of critics of Wade from Jackson’s fans, statements from Jackson while he was alive where he denied all child sexual abuse allegations, and statements from the lawyers during both investigations. I think we comprehensively represented the positions of Michael Jackson and his lawyers.



Right. There just weren’t any contemporary interviews done for the film.
Yeah, but the Jackson estate’s position, to my knowledge, hasn’t changed. They maintain that Jackson is innocent.
It seemed like it was important to you that the film include a lot of explicit detail about the [alleged] sexual acts between Jackson and these boys, and not just rely on the generic statements like “he sexually abused me.”
We had to establish that actual sexual activity was taking place. For so many years Jackson claimed that he shared a bed with children for completely innocent reasons. If we hadn’t had these very graphic, shocking descriptions of the sexual activity that took place people might just think that it was only hugs that were a bit intimate, or slightly inappropriate brushing of cheeks. We thought it was important to make clear that this was sex, not just affectionate touching.
Did you get the sense that any of Jackson’s handlers knew about or even helped facilitate aspects of this?
Well, just to be clear, I didn’t come across anything to suggest that anyone else participated in the sexual activity. If you’re asking: Were people who worked with Jackson complicit in this? That’s a question that must be asked, but it’s one I don’t have an answer to. Jackson’s life was closely managed almost 24 hours a day by his staff. Were they all completely oblivious to the sexual abuse taking place at Neverland and on tour? What did they think Jackson was doing with a boy in his bed every night?



Did you get the sense that Robson and Safechuck’s experiences were just a drop in the bucket?
I believe there were many other victims. We wanted to focus on James and Wade, and their families, who had very long relationships with Jackson. I’m sure there are others out there who will come out when the time is right for them. We’ll see.
How did Jackson’s death impact the viability of this film?
It may have been more difficult to make if he were alive today. People are still very much afraid of Jackson and his lawyers. As I went around speaking to people who were associated with the investigations, they were afraid of Jackson’s people’s ability to shutdown a lot of the victims. They employ unscrupulous PIs, and are very litigious. The power of his machine is very terrifying.
Beyond Jackson’s death, society’s handling of sexual abuse survivors is wildly different than in 1993 when the first accusations surfaced. Do you think the #MeToo movement had an impact on the reception of this film?
Oh yes, it’s incredible. And there’s a British angle to all this as well: There was a very famous, and very creepy children’s entertainer in the UK called Jimmy Savile who was knighted by the Queen, but it turned out that he was a violent, prolific child rapist with hundreds of victims. And it took a long time for that to be accepted. So by the time I made this film that case was already well known.



And then just before Sundance the R. Kelly documentary was broadcast. So we’ve been kind of blessed that there’s been this wave of believing victims of sexual abuse, instead of smearing them. I don’t think today Jackson would’ve gotten away with what he did in the 90s.
How are Robson and Safechuck doing? Are they getting away from everything while this film premieres?
Oh no. They’re stoked. The premiere at Sundance was a turning point in their lives. There was a standing ovation for them after the film, with people shouting “We believe you!” They had tears in their eyes. I think they were shocked because it was the first time they had that validation. They were so used to not being believed and being denigrated. This is a real moment for them.
Interview has been condensed for length and clarity.
Leaving Neverland part one premieres on HBO March 3, with the following installment released the next day. :???:






When news hit that the Danish mall had removed the #Michaeljackson vax figure, our dear Swedish friend and tribute artist Majki, decited to show up as a billiant protest. Luckily #MJ was reinstated, so the @moowalkersdk #mjfam got together and paid tribute.
https://twitter.com/MooWalkersDK
Immagine
Immagine

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 20 febbraio 2019, 21:17

http://www.damienshields.com/what-the-m ... o-tell-you
Immagine
WITH ALL THE MADNESS surrounding Leaving Neverland—the so-called ‘documentary’ in which two admitted serial liars portray deceased pop superstar Michael Jackson as an insatiable child molester—the media seems to have forgotten about the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof.

Let’s make one thing clear. If Michael Jackson were still alive, libel and defamation laws would mean that this film would almost certainly not exist. But because Jackson is dead, anyone can say anything they like about him. His family, his children and his Estate are powerless to act because the law says that defamation doesn’t apply to the dead. The truth, or lack thereof, is irrelevant.

Directed by UK filmmaker Dan Reed, Leaving Neverland has drawn all kinds of praise from those who have seen it. ‘Powerful. Shocking. Emotional. Compelling.’ These are some of the buzz words most frequently being used to describe the on-screen drama as Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck detail the sexual acts they claim they participated in, and were inflicted on them. ‘This will change the way you think about Michael Jackson’ is another commonly spouted line. When asked whether the film presents any proof or compelling evidence beyond the word of two admitted perjurers who’re currently asking Jackson’s estate to pay them hundreds of millions of dollars, the response is usually the same: ‘Just watch the film.’

If watching the film is what those who’ve seen it recommend the public do to determine whether the allegations therein are true or not (rather than approach the allegations with scepticism and assess them based on the evidence—or lack thereof—as journalists are supposed to do), then I suggest they watch the Hard Copy segment from the mid-90s in which reporter Diane Dimond looks into allegations of sexual abuse made against Jackson by a 15-year-old boy. To save you the trouble, I’ve embedded the video below. And please, do not continue reading this article until you have watched it.



To quote Dimond’s voiceover as she details the allegations made on an 11-minute video tape sent to Hard Copy by an acquaintance of the boy:


Looking straight into the camera and using no notes, this boy proceeded to tell us in graphic detail how he and another teen were allegedly molested by the superstar … I spoke with the boy for hours and he never wavered … [He] described, in detail, the people in Jackson’s entourage, the layout of the (Neverland) ranch, and even Jackson’s family home at Encino. Later he would draw us incredibly detailed maps of both Jackson homes. It was clear that either the boy was telling the truth, or he had been well coached.

Based on his unwavering testimony that Jackson molested him, Dimond launches an investigation to corroborate the boy’s claims. She meets with the boy and conducts hours more interviews with him. The boy maintains his story. Dimond then hands the boy over to law enforcement so he can provide a sworn statement. Police question him for six hours. The boy states on the record that Jackson had molested him and provides all the graphic details. The detectives who interviewed him say they believed him.

But it was all a giant con, exposed at the end of the segment. The boy had in fact been coached. He was lying. Every word of his powerful, shocking, emotional, compelling [insert additional buzz words here] testimony was a lie. Every. Single. Word. But we should believe Robson and Safechuck—who’re currently seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from Jackson’s estate after they insisted, repeatedly, voluntarily, for more than two decades, that nothing ever happened—because Dan Reed and those who’ve seen the film says so? Because they believe Robson and Safechuck? Because they find their testimony ‘powerful’? Let’s be smarter than that.

Most of the reports that have been published about HBO and Channel 4’s Leaving Neverland come from ‘journalists’, HBO clients and business partners, and Channel 4 staff who know next to nothing about Michael Jackson. Most of these ‘blue tick’ keyboard warriors have never covered Jackson before. This is their first foray. They have not studied Jackson’s fifty-year career as an entertainer, nor do they know or care about his philanthropic work, his efforts to fight against social injustice, to break down racial barriers, cure diseases, end inequality, and to raise awareness about a multitude of other important issues including—yes including—the abuse and mistreatment of children. And most importantly, they have not studied the allegations made against Jackson and cannot reference trial transcripts, court documents, taped calls, physical evidence, the FBI file, or any of the items crucial to understanding the cases.

I, however, have studied Jackson for more than a decade—mostly his creative process and artistic legacy, but also the allegations made against him—and there is more to the story than you’re being told by the mainstream media. Not only is there no proof that Jackson ever committed a crime, there is a wealth of exculpatory evidence that dismantles and discredits the allegations made against him.

In order to understand how and why Michael Jackson’s name became attached to the term ‘child molestation’, we must first understand the series of events that transpired prior to and during the first allegations levelled against him in 1993—allegations which were investigated by the Los Angeles Police Depart, Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services, and Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office, which found no incriminating evidence, and resulted in no charges being filed.

Michael Jackson always believed the truth would set him free. His mother, Katherine Jackson, somewhat prophetically disagreed. Upon being accused of child molestation, this is the interaction Jackson had with his mother, as she recalls it:


He was strong and he said: ‘Mother, don’t worry. It’s not the truth. They can’t do anything.’ But I told him: ‘You don’t know these wicked people. I know it’s not the truth, but they’ll tarnish your reputation.’ And then people will always remember him the way they said he was, not the way he really is.

Jackson is arguably the most successful entertainer in the history of show business. By the early 90s, the Michael Jackson machine was well-oiled and firing on all cylinders. As an artist, his talent was unparalleled. As a brand, his earning potential seemed infinite. And as a man, his generosity and philanthropic efforts were unmatched. Jackson’s success was on a scale the world has never seen before, and will likely never see again. With such enormous success comes an unfathomable amount of fame, power, and of course, money.

In 1992, Jackson launched the Dangerous world tour, performing night after night for crowds of up to 100,000. Cable television network HBO (who is scheduled to air Leaving Neverland in March) broadcast one of the spectacular tour dates, earning them their biggest pay-per-view audience in the network’s history. Less than a year later, in early 1993, Jackson gifted Oprah Winfrey her best-rated live interview ever, and did the same for the NFL’s Super Bowl when he performed a historic halftime show there.

By this time, Jackson’s image had taken a beating in the press for almost a decade. Ridiculous stories appeared in the tabloids on an almost daily basis. And not just in the tabloids. Jackson had to defend himself against a litany of outrageous lawsuits too, including but not limited to multiple false paternity claims and frivolous accusations of plagiarism. By attaching Jackson’s name, a story or allegation that would otherwise be considered laughable was often taken as the gospel.

Despite the constant tabloid attacks, Jackson’s music remained as popular around the world as ever. After doing Oprah and the Super Bowl in 1993, the singer was at the peak of powers. But that was about to change—drastically—when Evan Chandler, the father of a boy whose family had befriended Jackson a year earlier, demanded $20 million from the billionaire artist.

Jackson’s friendship with the Chandler family came about by chance. When his car broke down on Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles in May 1992, Jackson sought help from a nearby car rental company owned by a man named David Schwartz. Schwartz’s wife, June, was the mother of a then-12-year-old boy named Jordan Chandler. Jordan’s biological father (June’s ex-husband) is Evan Chandler.

When the King of Pop appeared at the rental company on that day in May 1992, a starstruck Schwartz offered him a free rental vehicle, but on one condition: Jackson would have to phone his stepson, Jordan, who was a huge fan of the singer. Jackson accepted, called Jordan a few of days later, and a friendship with the family was born. The family visited Jackson at his Neverland Valley Ranch, and Jackson spent time at their Los Angeles family home.

Twelve months later, in May 1993, Jordan’s biological father Evan Chandler, a Beverley Hills dentist, finally met Jackson for the first time. Upon meeting the star, Evan invited Jackson to visit at his home for a few days. Jackson, who was on a break from his world tour at the time, accepted the invitation.

In their very brief time together, it would seem Jackson had been on relatively good terms with Chandler. But when Jackson stopped returning his phone calls—while continuing a close friendship with his ex-wife and son—Evan became jealous. In secretly recorded phone conversations with Jordan’s stepfather, David Schwartz, Evan can be heard venting that Jackson had cut communications:


I had a good communication with Michael… We were friends. I liked him and I respected him… There was no reason why he had to stop calling me.

The evidence suggests that Chandler decided he would extort Jackson. Pay me $20 million, he demanded, or you’ll be accused of molesting my son. In those same secretly recorded phone conversations with Schwartz, Chandler can be heard detailing his plot to destroy Jackson (and his ex-wife June) for his own personal gain:


If I go through with this, I win big-time… I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of Jordan]…and Michael’s career will be over.



Evan Chandler had engaged the services of a Los Angeles lawyer named Barry K. Rothman. Chandler was Rothman’s dentist.

The evidence suggests that Chandler and his attorney conspired to give Jackson an ultimatum: pay up or you’ll be dragged through the mud and tried in the media. On the tapes, Chandler can be heard saying:


This attorney I found… This guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I’ve given him full authority to do that… I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find, and all he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can and humiliate as many people as he can. He’s nasty, he’s mean, he’s very smart, and he’s hungry for the publicity.

A private investigator hired by Jackson said that when he heard the tapes, it was clear Jackson was being extorted. The investigator immediately visited Evan Chandler’s son, Jordan Chandler, and asked him point blank whether Jackson had ever molested him:


Has Michael ever touched you? Have you ever seen him naked in bed?

The answer to all the questions:


No.

Jordan insisted that nothing inappropriate had ever happened between he and Jackson. He also claimed that his father was making these claims in an attempt to get money from Jackson.

When asked during the secretly recorded phone conversations whether he thought that extorting Jackson by claiming he molested Jordan could have a negative affect on his son, Chandler answered:


That’s irrelevant to me… The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don’t get what I want.

To cut a long story short, Jackson refused to pay and Chandler carried out his plan. As a result—exactly as Evan had threatened—the entire world’s media reported that Michael Jackson had been accused of child molestation.

The allegations triggered two multi-million dollar investigations by prosecutors and police departments in two Californian jurisdictions. Surprise raids of Jackson’s private residence were conducted and Jackson’s naked body was photographed by law enforcement in an attempt to confirm a description of the singer’s genitalia. Close to two-hundred witnesses including 30 children who had spent time with Jackson were interviewed, but no evidence was discovered. Not one but two grand juries refused to indict Jackson because no corroboration could be made.

But in the end, Evan Chandler’s plot to destroy Michael Jackson by alleging he had molested his son was successful. On January 25, 1994, after months of Jackson insisting he wanted to fight for his innocence in court, an out-of-court settlement—in which Jackson admitted no guilt—was reached. An undisclosed sum believed to be the $20 million that Evan Chandler wanted in the first place was paid. Of that, $15 million was paid into a trust account for Jordan. Evan himself is reported to have received in the vicinity of $2 million.

As Jackson’s defence attorney, Thomas Mesereau, said:


Why work when you can sue Michael Jackson?

And that is why Jackson’s name has forever since been synonymous with the term ‘child molestation’.

Now, twenty-five years later, we find ourselves dealing with a film in which two admitted serial liars—who staunchly defended Jackson for more than two decades (including under oath in a criminal investigation and trial) before posthumously filing unsuccessful cash-grab lawsuits in which they asked Jackson’s estate to pay them hundreds of millions of dollars—sit in front of a camera for four hours detailing graphic crimes that cannot be proven to have actually occurred.

It should also be noted that after an exhaustive 18-month investigation, Los Angeles District Attorney, Gil Garcetti, admitted that the LAPD had not uncovered anything incriminating against Jackson. In a statement, he said:


Michael Jackson is presumed to be innocent as any citizen in this room is if they are not convicted with a crime. We are not charging Michael Jackson with a crime.

Click here for everything you need to know about the 1993-1994 allegations and settlement.

Two years after making the first allegations, extortionist extraordinaire Evan Chandler filed another lawsuit against Jackson in which he upped the anti, asking for a whopping $60 million. This time, Chandler was trying a new angle. Chandler alleged that Jackson had breached the gag order included in their previous settlement by singing that he had been falsely accused. The specific lyrics in question, from Jackson’s song “This Time Around,” are:


Somebody’s out, somebody’s out to use me. They really want to use me. And then falsely accuse me.



These lyrics, Chandler said, were targeted at him and were a violation of the gag order which prevented Jackson from speaking about the case. On top of $60 million, Evan Chandler wanted a recording deal so he could release his own album, called ‘EVANstory’, in response to Jackson’s HIStory. Yes, this actually happened! This is the first accuser of Michael Jackson. The case was thrown out of court.

In 2003, a decade after the Chandler scandal, Jackson was accused of child molestation for a second time. These allegations came after the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services had cleared Jackson of any wrongdoing in their own independent investigation—conducted after one of Gavin Arvizo’s school teachers reported Jackson to DCFS following the airing of the Living With Michael Jackson documentary. Gavin and the Arvizo family defended Jackson in interviews with the department, saying that nothing inappropriate had ever occurred. Then, like Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck, they changed their story. The Arvizo case, believe it or not, is just as crazy, if not crazier than the Chandler one.

A brief history of the Arvizo family:

In 1998, eight-year-old Gavin Arvizo shoplifted items from a J.C. Penney department store. Gavin was caught by security, who had followed him to the parking lot to confront him and his father, David Arvizo. Gavin’s mother, Janet Arvizo, arrived at the scene minutes later. A struggle ensued and they were all arrested.

A year later, in 1999, the Arvizos filed a civil lawsuit against J.C. Penney for battery, false imprisonment and infliction of emotional distress. In 2000, the Arvizos amended their complaint, adding new allegations of sexual assault. Janet Arvizo was now claiming that a security guard fondled her breasts, squeezed her nipples approximately twenty times, punched her, and molested her vaginal area. In 2001, J.C. Penney settled the case. The department store ultimately paid Janet Arvizo more than $152,000.

Arvizo then failed to report the $152,000 J.C. Penney settlement (and her $30,000 bank balance) while collecting welfare payments totalling more than $18,000 between 2001 and 2003. As a result she was charged with five counts of welfare fraud and perjury. She ultimately plead “no contest” and copped a fine and community service.

Janet and the Arvizos also have a history of alleged-grifting. Several high-profile celebrities including comedian Chris Tucker testified in the 2005 Jackson trial that the Arvizos had swindled, or attempted to swindle them. There was also evidence of fraudulent fundraising by the Arvizo family.

Comedian George Lopez testified that he had given the Arvizo family money when Gavin was fighting cancer, but came to believe that Gavin’s father was more interested in money than helping his son. Lopez cut ties with the family after the father became more demanding. Lopez also said that the father had accused him of stealing $300 from Gavin’s wallet. When the father asked what he was supposed to tell his son, Lopez testified that he responded:


Tell him his father’s an extortionist.

And that is the family who—after being approached by authorities and insisting nothing inappropriate had happened—changed their story and accused Michael Jackson of the same thing that netted the Chandlers $20 million ten years earlier, and that netted them $152,000 from J.C. Penney only two years prior.

And that’s not even getting into the details of the Jackson trial itself.

On top of child molestation, the Arvizos alleged that they were held captive at Neverland against their will for a period of time. The problem with this allegation was that during their alleged captivity it was proven that they had been gallivanting all over Los Angeles, taking shopping trips on Jackson’s dime, meeting with Child Protective Services (to confirm Jackson hadn’t molested Gavin), attending a child support court hearing, and attending a separate meeting with a lawyer. The meeting with the lawyer was to find out if they could stop their image and likeness being used by the media after they appeared in the Living With Michael Jackson documentary. During their meeting with the lawyer they never reported that they were allegedly being kidnapped and held against their will at Neverland, nor did they mention child molestation.

Another crazy allegation made by the Arvizo in the Jackson trial was that Jackson had hatched a plan to get rid of the family in a hot air balloon. I won’t even bother to elaborate on that.

When it came to the allegations of child sex abuse themselves, Gavin Arvizo’s initial timeline of when Jackson was alleged to have molested him had to be changed when the prosecution discovered a video tape that was filmed after the abuse was alleged to have begun. On the tape the Arvizo family are seen and heard voluntarily praising Jackson while criticising Martin Bashir—the maker of Living With Michael Jackson documentary—for allegedly staging and manipulating scenes in his film to make out the relationship between Jackson and Gavin was inappropriate.

The footage was coincidentally shot the same day Child Protective Services visited the Arvizo family to investigate suspicions of inappropriate behaviour by Jackson. The Arvizos vehemently denied anything inappropriate had happened and voluntarily praised Jackson once more. Once the tape was discovered, the Arvizos changed their story, saying that only after the documentary aired, after they were filmed praising Jackson, and after they vouched for Jackson with Child Protective Services did Jackson begin molesting Gavin.

That’s right. With the entire world’s media hell-bent on finding dirt on him, and with the authorities actively investigating him, only then did Jackson decide to begin molesting Gavin. That’s the actual allegation which they went to court and (unsuccessfully) argued.

In the end, the sheer ridiculousness of the allegations made against Jackson, the complete lack of credibility of his accusers and impossible timeline left jurors no choice other than to find Jackson not guilty on each and every one of the 14 counts filed against him.

Of finding Jackson not guilty, juror Paulina Coccoz said:


It was pretty obvious that there was no molestation done… It was pretty obvious that there were ulterior motives on behalf of the family. And the mother, she orchestrated the whole thing… There wasn’t a shred of evidence.

Click here for everything you need to know about the 2003-2005 allegations and trial.

I’m not revealing anything that hasn’t been revealed before. This evidence and much more has been in the public domain for years. The problem is, however, that the media hasn’t delivered it to you. Many members of the media—in their ignorance of anything that may vindicate Jackson and prevent them from continuing their assault on his character for clicks and cash—may not even be aware that such evidence exists. But the evidence does exist, and a lot of it is exculpatory. It is therefore irresponsible, negligent and indefensible for ‘journalists’ to not at least balance their reporting by mentioning it.

As Michael Jackson proclaimed in his song “Tabloid Junkie”:


Just because you read it in a magazine or see it on a TV screen don’t make it factual.



In early March 2019, HBO (in the United States) and Channel 4 (in the United Kingdom) will air Leaving Neverland. The film, which debuted at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2019, has sparked outrage among Jackson’s fans, family, and estate. In a ten-page letter sent to Richard Plepler (CEO of HBO) earlier this month, the attorney for the Estate of Michael Jackson, Howard Weitzman, called Leaving Neverland:


An admittedly one-sided, sensationalist program.

According to the Factual Programme Guidelines section of Channel 4’s Producers Handbook, which is designed to hold filmmakers accountable to the highest possible standard of journalism:


It is important that production teams do not adopt a ‘groupthink’ approach to a story and that they review, challenge and are suitably sceptical of all evidence and contributors motives.

When discussing his time with dancer and choreographer Robson in an interview with the LA Times, director Reed admitted that he was not sceptical of his interviewee:


For three days, we just talked. When I started interviewing him, I couldn’t take for granted that he was telling the truth. I wasn’t skeptical, and sort of gave him the benefit of the doubt, but his story had to make sense, because there was no way I was going to risk my reputation on something that was flawed or not quite true.

How did Reed come to the conclusion that Robson was telling the truth? I’ll allow him to tell you:


[…] if people are not telling you the truth, then they don’t have a mental picture of what it is they’re actually talking about, because they’re lying. You can feel there isn’t a mental object they’re describing … If I asked him questions, his mind was referencing a real thing and not a made-up thing. His account was extremely credible. Certainly by the end of the third day, I had no doubt he was telling the truth.

That’s right. Reed deemed Robson’s story ‘extremely credible’ not because he had investigated, fact-checked and corroborated it, but because he felt Wade (who refers to himself as a ‘master of deception’ in an unpublished book draft he failed to get a deal for in 2012 – prior to filing his multi-million dollar lawsuit against the Jackson estate) was visualising a ‘mental picture’ when he told his story.

What Reed fails to mention is that visualising a mental image of things that have not happened is Wade Robson’s personal technique for getting ‘anything’ he wants. He calls it ‘trickery for your mind’. Wade explains:


Be detailed about it […] Visualise it. It’s sort of like trickery for your mind. [If] there was a job I wanted – say I wanted to be in a music video – I’d think of things almost as if they were a memory. I would picture myself on the set, walking to a trailer, walking to the catering tables […] Just to place myself in the situation. You make it a reality in your mind […] Every time I’ve done that, I’ve always got anything that I wanted.

Regarding the pair’s motives, which the Factual Programme Guidelines section of Channel 4’s Producers Handbook also stipulates should be questioned, investigative journalist Charles Thomson points to the film’s glaring omission of the details surrounding Robson and Safechuck’s legal pursuit of hundreds of millions of dollars from Jackson’s estate:


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. It’s like interviewing a pharma lobbyist for a news story on health and not mentioning that they’re a pharma lobbyist.

Jackson estate attorney Weitzman also pointed out that the mounting legal costs incurred as a result of their failed litigation against the Jackson estate could be a potential motive for Robson and Safechuck’s 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. Today, 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 reads:


The truth must not be sacrificed for the sake of a more entertaining programme if this means cheating the viewer. It is never acceptable to represent something as having happened that did not.

In his letter to HBO, Weitzman points out that Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed and his team avoided contacting or interviewing anyone who could dispel the allegations made by the two men in the film:


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.

The journalists, reporters, critics and other members of the media who are reviewing and reporting on Leaving Neverland may very well believe that Michael Jackson is guilty of child molestation based on the stories told by Safechuck and Robson in the film. That might be their opinion, which they’re entitled to. But according to the dictionary, an opinion is:


A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
So what is an opinion really worth if the holder of it has no factual foundation or knowledge to have formed it? If you want factual information, click here for everything you need to know about Wade Robson’s allegations.

When the Leaving Neverland film goes public, outrage is almost guaranteed to reach levels that have yet to be seen. And unless the team at the Estate of Michael Jackson has been secretly working 24 hours a day, seven days a week on a rebuttal documentary to give the public an alternate narrative founded in facts to consider (there is no indication that they have been) Jackson’s image and likeness could well be destroyed for good.

The Jackson estate recently announced that a Michael Jackson-themed Broadway musical was going into production and would debut in 2020. Exciting news for Jackson fans. However I would not be surprised if following the airing of Leaving Neverland, with no aggressive counter from Jackson’s estate, it gets cancelled. Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas currently hosts the Jackson estate’s joint venture with Cirque du Soleil, an epic theatrical production called MJONE. Ironically, this is the same production that Wade Robson begged and pleaded to direct in 2011. If the blowback from Leaving Neverland is strong enough, we may see the discontinuation of that show too.

Interesting note: In 2011, Wade Robson met with Jackson estate co-executor John Branca about directing the Cirque du Soleil show. Wade thought he had the job, and even spoke about it in an interview. However, Branca and Cirque ultimately picked someone else. Then, despite having met face-to-face with Branca two years earlier, Robson claimed in his multi-million dollar lawsuit that he had no knowledge of the existence of the Jackson estate until filing suit in 2013. Because of the statute of limitations, Robson needed to tell this particular lie to justify why he hadn’t filed suit earlier.

Then there is Sony Music, who controls all official Michael Jackson music and video releases. In December 2017 the company renewed its recording contract with the Jackson estate. When it comes time to do so again, we may see them pass.

Or, this could all blow over. After all, Jackson overcame the 1993 scandal and went on to sell tens of millions of albums, win awards, and perform to millions of fans around the world on tour. In 2005 Jackson endured a four-month criminal trial and completely biased media onslaught. After he was found not guilty, the singer went into hiding and then resurfaced in 2009 to sell 800,000 concert tickets in the space of a few hours. When Wade Robson announced his allegations against Jackson in an interview on national television in 2013, it felt like doomsday all over again. The following year, in 2014, Sony released Xscape. The album, comprised of eight unreleased songs, topped the charts all around the world, and even had a smash hit single: “Love Never Felt So Good”.

But things are different today. As I said to a friend just yesterday: I feel like the climate right now is perfect to sink the Titanic. There’s the #MeToo movement—and so there should be! There’s Surviving R. Kelly. There’s the downfall of Harvey Weinstein. But the mentality seems to be ‘let’s get them all,’ rather than to look into them all and determine which accusations are actually credible. It seems that, from the media’s perspective (remember, Michael Jackson was tried in a court of law and was found not guilty—only the media has convicted him) the bigger the head on the chopping block the better. All the media cares about is clicks, because clicks equals cash. And now they’re hiding behind the guise of legitimate causes and movements to assassinate the biggest star the world has ever known. It’s not journalism. It’s a witch hunt.

If you want to view Michael Jackson as a pedophile, you will. It’s easy to do. He has admitted to allowing children to sleep in his bedroom (which itself is the same size as a small two-storey house) and has been accused of child molestation on multiple occasions. He’s not the guy next door, was undeniably eccentric, and most certainly didn’t live a conventional life. But to anyone who has bothered to look into the allegations against him—and I mean really look into them—there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that the pop icon has been a victim of extortion and of copycat false claims for the past twenty-five years. Yet despite the Los Angeles Police Department stating that Jackson should be presumed to be innocent, despite the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services twice investigating and clearing Jackson of wrongdoing, despite the FBI conducting a ten-year investigation into the singer in which no evidence of wrongdoing was found (click here to read the FBI’s 300-page file on Jackson, released under the Freedom of Information Act), and despite the cash-grab lawsuits of Jackson’s posthumous accusers being tossed out of court, the court of public opinion may be what defines this entire saga, and Jackson’s legacy.

As Michael’s mother Katherine Jackson warned her superstar son, the truth may not matter. Her prophetic words, once again:


People will always remember him the way they said he was, not the way he really is.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 21 febbraio 2019, 9:49

https://thevioletreality.com/leavingnev ... ba55e1a01b
LeavingNeverland isn’t a documentary. It’s a work of fiction.
In an era of flat-earthers, scripted reality shows, consumption overload and “fake news”, wherein lies the truth about the King of Pop?
Certainly not in Leaving Neverland.
Immagine
American Jesus : Hold Me, Carry Me Boldly, by David LaChappelle

3 decades ago, Michael Jackson reached the apex of fame, when the success of Thriller turned Michael Jackson into the most famous man who ever lived. It’s no coincidence that it was during this time-frame that Michael penned a song entitled The Price of Fame, in which he lamented:

I want a face no one can recognize, in disguise
Someone called out my name
They thought of taking pictures, autographs, then they grab
My joy has turned to pain

You see, the real price of fame is the commodification of your very existence. This is the real Faustian pact, brought into the modern musical era first by Robert Johnson, but exemplified by the ultimate rags-to-riches story of the young talented black boy from the poorest ghetto of the United States.

Rags-to-riches might be the feel-good story, yet it isn’t the great American Dream. The end-game of industry is, of course, a structure in which you can continually amass wealth, clicks, views, attention, or whatever your heart desires by doing as little as possible. It should be clear by now that attention, and not work, is what drives the current inhabitant of the White House, to give but one example.

It is ironic to address this when it comes to Michael Jackson. If James Brown was “the hardest working man in show-business”, then Michael Jackson and Prince Rogers Nelson, both born in the mid-west in the Summer of 1958, were both his star students, not just musically but also within their tireless work-ethics. But look around the people who, in the words of Prince are “willing to do the work”, and you’re sure to find significantly more people figuring out ways to capitalise on it. Some of these relationships can be mutually beneficial, or at least begin that way. If we consider Michael Jackson’s relationship with MTV in the age of the music video, it is nigh-impossible to say who benefited more. But this was a direct relationship. Artists require promotional mediums, and promotional mediums require artists. It is not complex mathematics.
So where does the water turn to poison? The answer lies succinctly within the chorus of Michael’s 1995 song Tabloid Junkie.

Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don’t make it factual

If you aren’t a Michael Jackson fan, the cry of “Fake News!” is probably something you associate with the Presidency of Donald J Trump. The great irony of it is similar to The Streisand Effect, whereby attempting to censor or remove information only serves to publicise it more. In regards to Donald Trump, his suggestion that something is “Fake News” almost always means that it’s actually far more truthful than he will ever concede it to be.

Yet, it’s Michael Jackson fans, who for 30 years have lived with Fake News as a literal concept. Noted American journalist James Baldwin was perhaps the first to address this in 1985, when he stated:

“The Michael Jackson cacophony is fascinating in that it is not about Jackson at all. He will not swiftly be forgiven for having turned so many tables.”

What Baldwin may not have foreseen was that that cacophony would become a billion dollar industry. An industry that lives and breathes independently, and as Baldwin noted, actually doesn’t need, require, or correlate to Michael Jackson the human being nor Michael Jackson the creator of art.

It is interesting to try and figure out when we are expected to take this cacophony seriously and when we are not. Neither scenario, apparently, requires any evidence at all, yet some wish to be taken factually without feeling the need to present any actual facts. In the past week alone, as of the writing of this article, there have been tabloid reports stating that “Michael Jackson and LaToya Jackson are the same person”, “Michael Jackson was chemically castrated”, “Michael Jackson is secretly still alive”. None are “new” stories, yet they, and others, pop up regularly like a bizarre merry-go-round, satiating the lowest common denominator of readers and continually generating advertising revenue. People who wouldn’t normally get a second of print or screen time, like Conrad Murray, the disgraced doctor who literally killed his patient through incompetence, get rolled out to try and give credence to all manner of inane theories with not a single ounce of journalistic integrity to be found.

Multiply these stories by a thousand, think of the most preposterous variables you can imagine, and there is a significant chance that such a story has been written somewhere about Michael Jackson by an organisation that probably considers itself to be credible, sometime in the last 30-odd years. Like vultures, this industry fed on Michael’s very existence. Every sighting, every appearance was an opportunity to further construct their narrative that Michael Jackson was “a weird guy”. And every strengthening of that narrative meant more stories could be constructed, with every story giving the public another opportunity to suspend their disbelief. The existence of this cacophony wasn’t lost on Michael.

“Why not just tell people I’m an alien from Mars. Tell them I eat live chickens and do a voodoo dance at midnight. They’ll believe anything you say, because you’re a reporter.” — Michael Jackson
Baldwin’s quote regarding the cacophony not being about Michael at all was further proven by Michael’s death in 2009. The hysterical need to create stories about him did not slow down at all — it simply briefly changed tack into stories that referenced his death (in many cases haphazardly) before settling back into it’s former form. You see, they found it much easier when research and facts were not needed.

It is under these circumstances that two men, with the same lawyer, attempted to file monetary lawsuits against The Michael Jackson Estate. An Estate that has earned quite literally billions of dollars since Michael’s passing. It is worth clarifying at this juncture that Michael Jackson has topped the Forbes List of “highest earning dead celebrities” almost every year since his passing. Consider that that’s a list that also includes the likes of Elvis Presley, John Lennon, and Bob Marley, and you ought not to be surprised at the numerous attempts people have made to extract some of those many billions for themselves.
Still, “extorting Michael Jackson for millions of dollars” isn’t exactly a new business model attempt. Let’s not forget that attempts were made during his life, and they only served to expose the accusers as liars with fictional stories back then. It would hardly be a stretch to imagine that those extortionists probably wished they didn’t have to deal with the inconvenient fact that Michael was alive and able to successfully defend himself.

Here we find Wade Robson. Despite being given more opportunities than your average person, not least a record deal, a pathway to make his name, and even the opportunity to make his own short film at Neverland in 2007 (a film where he thanked Michael Jackson in the credits for allowing him to film on “his sacred land”), Wade found that his career dried up. His big directing gig didn’t work out, and he simultaneously begged the Michael Jackson Estate for work directing the “MJ ONE” Cirque de Soleil show whilst also talking on camera to TMZ stating he was working on the project. He was never offered work on the project. They didn’t consider him qualified enough for the job.

Wade has a breakdown. He has a wife and a kid and no income. He could get a normal job, but in the words of legendary lawyer Thomas Mesereau, why work when you can sue Michael Jackson? After all — people sued Michael in the past alleging things who’d never even met Michael, and their cases were heard — so why shouldn’t those who knew him get a slice?

Still, we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Before filing the suit, Wade writes a book, gets an agent and tries to shop it around. Because it’s the product, attention and getting the sale here that’s important to Wade, which should give reasonable people pause, if it weren’t for the fact we’re talking about Michael Jackson. Wade’s stories are wildly inconsistent, contradict themselves repeatedly and defy logic. At one point he claims that he repressed the memories. At another point, he always remembered them but “didn’t realise” what happened was wrong. Despite the fact that he testified — under oath and severe cross examination — at one of the biggest trials in history. He claims that Michael manipulated him into resenting and avoiding women, but neglects to mention that Michael set him up with his own niece Brandi Jackson, who dated him for 7 years but split up with him after he cheated on her. The court asked Wade for emails between him and his family — he redacts almost all of them under “attorney-client privilege”, despite the fact that his family are not attorneys. He lied under oath, failed to produce documents and attachments when required, and offered no explanation for his erratic behaviour or changing stories. What’s even worse is that doctored, forged evidence was also submitted, as detailed here.
Immagine
Moving on to James Safechuck. The key part of the story is that James only files his lawsuit after finding out about Wade’s suit, and very conveniently uses the same law firm — a law firm known for public mud-slinging.

Here’s where things get interesting. Safechuck, of course, needs a story. Let’s rewind to the 1990’s. An author named Victor Gutierrez publishes a fictional book entitled Michael Jackson Was My Lover. The issue here is that Victor is a known pro-pedophilia member of a group called NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) — a group which seeks to normalise sex between adults and minors. Gutierrez and his NAMBLA cohorts see an opportunity to try and make the most famous artist of all time their “poster boy” for what they believe. He reports that at a NAMBLA conference, the attendees saw Michael as being “one of them”, and hoped his accusations would lead to “social acceptance”. The issue here, of course, is that the accusations were false. Michael sued Gutierrez, won, and Gutierrez fled the country to avoid paying damages.

What does this have to do with James Safechuck? Quite a bit, and most notably that his “testimony” mimicked large parts of the Gutierrez book. The fictional, pro-pedophilia propaganda by Victor Gutierrez in parts reads exactly like Safechuck’s testimony.

Now, unfortunately for Robson and Safechuck, the law is more stringent than the requirements of the media, tabloid or otherwise, and both of their cases were rightfully thrown out of court. That option has failed to pay the dividends they’d hoped, but extracting money from an Estate isn’t the only way to make money. In fact, there are ways that can rely solely on the aforementioned “Michael Jackson Cacophony”, a place where, as we’ve noted, facts and truth aren’t needed.
Immagine
Fast forward to 2018, when we’re in the midst of the #MeToo movement. Whilst it is certainly true that the movement has empowered victims of sexual assault to tell their stories and hold those responsible to account, there is always a downside to lowering the barrier in this way. In this particular environment, creating a safe environment for victims also creates a perfect environment for liars. Public sentiment requires less proof than ever before.

We’ve already established that truth, facts and logic appear to be fictional constructs to reporters writing about Michael Jackson, therefore it logically follows that he’d be the prime target for opportunistic shysters, and even more so in this climate. Is it a coincidence that this “documentary” pops up in the midst of #MeToo? Is it a coincidence that it pops up on the 10th anniversary of his death, a time that nobody will fail to acknowledge in streams, programming, events, coverage and even Broadway musicals? Of course not — it is a deceptive and wicked attempt at hijacking the narrative for personal gain, and when that is the original goal, they needed to strike now — at the right moment, like a hunter. The irony of director Dan Reed making his name from a documentary called “The Paedophile Hunter” is not lost. Perhaps a more accurate name for this film would be “The Witchhunt”, as much like the infamous events of the 17th century, it relies on an attempt to falsify moral outrage, mass hysteria, and convincing the public to believe something with no evidence. Perhaps even more apt is to consider the distortion of intent when it comes to black men. Over 60 years since the murder of Emmett Till, #BlackLivesMatter has shown us that not much has changed when it comes to falsifying the intent of black men. Till and Jackson were both killed by the hands of another, and both were the victims of a false outrage, based on lies and propagated by white privilege.
It is incredibly telling that this documentary attempts to construct a narrative simply based on the threadbare, inconsistent stories of two men seeking money. It is more telling that they falsify their credibility by stating that Wade and Jimmy were not acquainted before the film premiere, when court documents have proven this to be false. Since a real documentary would endeavour to tell multiple sides of a story in the interests of integrity, this film isn’t worthy of that term. Instead, we must call it what it is — a work of fiction, preying on emotions, in order to support financially motivated legal claims.

It would not be difficult to address the other side of the coin. There are literally dozens — perhaps hundreds — of children who Michael Jackson gracefully opened his home to. Many around the same time as Wade and Jimmy. If the publicity around this film is achieving anything, it’s a spectacular backfire, since more people come forward to state Michael’s innocence on an almost daily basis. Kelley Parker. Talun Zeitoun. Corey Feldman. Macaulay Culkin. Eddie and Frank Cascio. Emmanuel Lewis. Nathan Cavaleri. Lala Romero. Jonathan Spence. Bryton James. Why is this important? Because the film utilises two stories in order to infer behavioural patterns to try and gain credibility despite a lack of evidence. Yet, had they asked any of the above names to be interviewed, the film would quickly fall apart.
Immagine
Perhaps most telling are the words of Brett Barnes, who tweeted the following when Wade first made his allegations:

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

Again, when the news came out about this film:

“So people are getting their facts from a movie now? I wonder how they feel about the documentary showing the great alien invasion of ’96. I think it was called Independence Day.”

and

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

In the meantime, Wade Robson conveniently sets up a foundation, and solicits for donations. It’s a 501 c3 foundation, meaning that it’s private and federally tax exempt. Under this type of structure, Robson is not required to file a Form 990 — the form that provides the public with financial information about a nonprofit organization, and often the only public source of that information. So whilst the director and producers of this movie claim that no direct financial compensation was paid to Robson, we can’t know if a financial donation was made to the foundation. Even if we don’t look at that suspiciously, it doesn’t matter. Fame and attention are what matters in this climate, more than ever, and once you have those, the money will almost always follow, one way or another.
Immagine
The people who stand to gain from this documentary claim to have facts. They will manipulate your emotions into believing that they can provide receipts and evidence, however they have failed to do so on any occasion.
Here, however, are some actual, indisputable facts:
•Michael Jackson was exonerated by a criminal trial that found him not guilty on all counts.
•Michael Jackson was exonerated by a lengthy FBI investigation that picked over every aspect of his life with a fine-tooth comb, and found no evidence.
•Michael Jackson was the victim of numerous extortion attempts during his life — including both time-frames where accusations were made against him.
•Both Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck filed lawsuits where the end-game was to try and claim huge sums of damages.
•The lack of laws protecting defamation of the deceased means that you can use “artistic license” to engage in what would otherwise be considered slander, libel and defamation. If you — the reader of this article — were to pass away tomorrow, I or anyone else would be fully protected under the law to make a “documentary” accusing you of heinous crimes. Why would I, or anyone else do such a thing? Imagine now that you are one of the most famous, successful and wealthy people that ever lived. As you can now understand — the motive is clear, and Wade’s self-characterisation as a “Master of Deception” could not be more telling.

As usual, Michael Jackson himself had the true understanding of how the world operates. One can now easily imagine the following words to his 1995 song, “Money” being sung by Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck to Dan Reed, HBO and Channel 4.

“If you show me the cash
Then I will take it
If you tell me to cry
Then I will fake it
If you give me a hand
Then I will shake it”

They’d do anything for money.
Immagine



My name is Casey Rain and I am an award-winning musician, documentarian and writer from the United Kingdom. I have guest-lectured at Universities around the world, including the University of Minnesota, on the music business, documentary production, and the life and career of Prince Rogers Nelson, as well as releasing several records on international major labels with the critically-acclaimed British Asian band Swami. You can follow me on Twitter

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 21 febbraio 2019, 11:36

Bruce Aguilar @yensid98

There is a mountain of FACTS that provide ZERO EVIDENCE of any wrongdoing by MJ.

It’s why 2 grad juries didn’t indict.

It’s why the FBI dropped its 10 year search.

It’s why MJ was found NOT GUILTY on all 14 counts in the 2005 trial.






Immagine






Jeff Wald to Richard Pepler

Richard,

I have thought long and hard about getting into the discussion of the so called documentary you are doing about my late friend Michael Jackson.

Since the matter of his behavior has been judged in a court of law including the

SWORN testimony of Wade Robson as to Michael’s innocence it amazes me you would slander the memory of a deceased person with no ability to fight back.

This has led to the fact that his friends, family, and business associates have taken on the public discussion as to his innocence.

I realize that the new owners of the former Time Warner/ HBO under AT&T Senior Executive Vice President J.Stankey have a mandate to increase Subscriptions to

HBO with total disregard as to either the legacy of HBO as a destination for quality programming or your personal legacy as CEO.

I had what has turned out be a false hope that you would have drawn a line in the sand regarding what is pure trash under the banner that has meant so much.

I guess the following considering the politics of AT&T would be to rehash the Obama birther discussion: Hilary Clinton’s pedophile ring run from a Pizzeria; or the defense of “good people on both sides” in the white nationalist protests. There is a never ending supply of product along the same lines as this piece of shit you insist on running.

I may be the up front voice on this but you should know there are dozens of people in the creative community who feel like I on do as well as literally thousands of his fans who are equally disappointed and angry at HBO.

You have zero legitimate reason to air this shit.

Jeff Wald
SOMMERS ENTERPRISES INC.
Jeff Wald (President & CEO)






Cassie EO #JusticeForMJ‏ @CassandrellaEh
Didn't Wade send himself a link to the MJFacts website at the same time he was asking his mom all of those questions via email? Or did I imagine that? Haven't seen it stated anywhere lately. If true, then it's not farfetched to believe he used them as a source of his stories.
Immagine





https://michaeljacksonvindication2.word ... rt-1-of-3/

April 8th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Adrian McManus (Cross Examination) and Phillip LeMarque (Direct & Cross Examination), Part 1 of 3

December 18, 2012


tags: Adrian McManus

by sanemjfan
.

Adrian McManus’s cross examination continued today, and Mesereau continued to grill her about her knowledge of the lawsuit that she and four other Neverland employees filed against Jackson on December 2nd, 1994. For example, in her lawsuit she included the fact that she was a potential material witness against Jackson in both his criminal and civil trial, and Mesereau asked McManus if her goal in stating this in the lawsuit was to insinuate that she would change her testimony into something negative against Jackson unless she was paid, but McManus wasn’t “familiar” with that language in the lawsuit. She also wasn’t “familiar” with the total amount of money she wanted from Jackson, and she even stated that a simple apology from Jackson would have sufficed!

14 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)



15 BY MR. MESEREAU:



16 Q. Ms. McManus, your — excuse me.



17 Ms. McManus, your deposition in the Chandler



18 lawsuit was on December 7th, 1993, right?



19 A. Correct.



20 Q. And the Complaint you filed against Michael



21 Jackson, along with Ralph Chacon, was December 2nd,



22 1994, a year later, approximately a year later,



23 right?



24 A. I believe so.



25 Q. Okay. Would it refresh your recollection



26 just to take a look at the Complaint?



27 A. Sure.



28 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor? 5398



1 THE COURT: Yes.



2 THE WITNESS: Okay. Yeah.



3 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.



4 Q. Now, in that lawsuit, you were suing Mr.



5 Jackson for a number of different claims, and one of



6 the claims talked about you having appeared at a



7 deposition taken by Larry Feldman, and the claim



8 said that you were a potential material witness



9 against Jackson in both the civil suit and a



10 criminal investigation, right?



11 A. I believe so.



12 Q. And what that really meant was, by filing



13 that Complaint with that language, you were



14 essentially threatening Mr. Jackson that you would



15 change your testimony unless you were paid, right?



16 A. I’m not familiar with a lot of attorney



17 language, so I really don’t know how to answer that.



18 Q. How much money do you recall you were



19 seeking from Mr. Jackson in that lawsuit?



20 A. That’s another question I cannot answer.



21 That was dealing with my attorney.



22 Q. Well, you were in court when he argued to



23 the Santa Maria jury for millions of dollars, right?



24 A. I don’t even know if I was there at that



25 time. I could have been. I don’t remember.



26 Q. You certainly must have discussed with your



27 attorney during that six-month trial how much money



28 you were trying to get for yourself from Mr. 5399



1 Jackson, right?



2 A. Honestly, I don’t believe anybody knew how



3 much money anybody would be getting out of a trial.



4 Q. But how much did you want?



5 A. I really didn’t want anything. I just



6 wanted justice for what I had gone through.



7 Q. You didn’t want millions of dollars in that



8 lawsuit?



9 A. I wanted justice. I didn’t — whatever — I



10 wanted justice.



11 Q. But your idea of justice was millions of



12 bucks, right?



13 A. Well, that’s not what I call justice.



14 Q. You file a lawsuit, you go through



15 approximately eight days of depositions, all sorts



16 of paperwork, and you’re in trial for six months.



17 You wanted millions, right?



18 A. Honestly, a simple “Sorry for what we did to



19 you” would have been great for me.



20 Q. Did you ever write a letter to Mr. Jackson



21 saying, “Mr. Jackson, I don’t want to sue you. Just



22 tell me you’re sorry”?



23 A. No, I did not.



24 Q. Ever call Mr. Jackson and say, “Mr. Jackson,



25 I don’t really want to sue you. Just say you’re



26 sorry”?



27 A. I didn’t have a number to contact Mr.



28 Jackson. 5400

Next, Mesereau questioned McManus about whether her statements to police about seeing misconduct by Jackson were said to gain leverage against Jackson in her lawsuit, and if her statements to tabloids were also meant to pressure Jackson into settling out of court:


1 Q. Okay. When did you first go to the police



2 to tell them you had seen anything improper about



3 Mr. Jackson?



4 A. I can’t recall the date. I don’t remember.



5 Q. It was after your deposition in the Chandler



6 case, correct?



7 A. It might have been.



8 Q. Do you know approximately when you first



9 talked to anyone from the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s



10 Department about your claim that you’d seen Mr.



11 Jackson do anything improper?



12 A. You know, it might have been when I talked



13 to my attorney, Mr. Ring. It might have been



14 sometime then, that I can recall.



15 Q. And when you did that, you thought going to



16 the sheriffs would put pressure on Mr. Jackson to



17 pay money in your civil case, right?



18 A. No, I did not.



19 Q. Did you go to the sheriffs with your



20 attorney?



21 A. I don’t believe so.



22 Q. But certainly you went to an attorney before



23 anyone from law enforcement, right?



24 A. Actually, I recall going to law enforcement



25 to com — to complain about the death threat that I



26 got from James Van Norman and strange circumstances



27 that were going on at Neverland Valley Ranch.



28 Q. But that was also to bolster your claim for 5401



1 millions of dollars, right?



2 A. That was before I even contacted an



3 attorney.



4 Q. But by doing that, you were setting the



5 stage for a lawsuit for millions of dollars against



6 Mr. Jackson, correct?



7 A. No, I was not.



8 Q. You went to tabloids, a lawyer, and the



9 sheriffs, all to get millions of bucks, right?



10 A. You’re wrong.



11 MR. ZONEN: Objection; compound.



12 THE COURT: The answer was, “You’re wrong.”



13 Overruled. Next question.

McManus was next questioned about exculpatory statements that she made about Jackson to several coworkers of hers, which she denied during yet another convenient case of amnesia:


14 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know Leslie Gomez?



15 A. No, I don’t.



16 Q. Do you know she was the manager of



17 McFrugal’s?



18 A. I think I know her as Beaver. That’s the



19 name I think I’m thinking of.



20 Q. You told her you had never seen Michael



21 Jackson act inappropriately with children, right?



22 A. I’ve never talked to her about Michael



23 Jackson.



24 Q. You told Leslie Gomez that, “The suit by



25 that kid,” meaning Mr. Chandler, “was a bunch of



26 bull,” right?



27 A. I’ve never told — I’ve never talked to her



28 about anything to do with lawsuits or anything with 5402



1 Mr. Jackson.



2 Q. And do you know someone named Ludi Trujillo?



3 A. Yes, I do.



4 Q. Ludi Trujillo is your former boss at



5 Gottschalk’s, right?



6 A. No, she was not.



7 Q. Who is she?



8 A. She’s a girl that worked at Gottschalk’s.



9 Just a lady.



10 Q. She didn’t have any position above you?



11 A. No, she did not.



12 Q. Okay. You talked to her about the Chandler



13 lawsuit, didn’t you?



14 A. No, I did not.



15 Q. She asked you specifically if Mr. Jackson



16 ever molested children, and you told her, “Of course



17 Michael did not,” right?



18 A. No, I did not.



19 Q. You told her Michael Jackson was a great



20 boss, didn’t you?



21 A. No, I did not.



22 Q. Do you know someone named Jamie Vail?



23 A. No, I don’t.



24 Q. Didn’t Jamie Vail live across the street



25 from you?



26 A. Where was this? I don’t know the name.



27 Q. Okay. Do you remember telling someone named



28 Jamie Vail that you loved Michael Jackson, you love 5403



1 working at the ranch, and you never believed any of



2 the charges against him?



3 A. I don’t even know that person.



4 Q. Okay. Do you know who Gayle Goforth is?



5 A. Yes, I do.



6 Q. And who is Gayle Goforth?



7 A. She was a supervisor that worked at



8 Neverland Valley Ranch.



9 Q. Do you remember Gayle asked you if there was



10 anything to rumors about inappropriate conduct by



11 Mr. Jackson?

12 A. She never — we never talked about that, no.



13 Q. In the autumn of 1993, you told her there



14 was no truth to those rumors about Mr. Jackson



15 acting inappropriately, right?



16 A. No, I did not.
Next, McManus denied plotting with other Neverland employees to sell stories to the tabloids, other than the stories they sold at the advice of their attorney Michael Ring after their lawsuit was filed.


17 Q. Now, you and Ralph Chacon and Kassim Abdool



18 started meeting secretly at Neverland to talk about



19 your lawsuit, didn’t you?



20 A. No, we did not.



21 Q. You and Ralph Chacon and Kassim Abdool began



22 to meet at Neverland to discuss the possibility of



23 selling stories to the media, right?



24 A. No, we did not.



25 Q. Did you ever discuss selling a story to the



26 media with Ralph Chacon?



27 A. No, I did not.



28 Q. When you were working at Neverland, did you 5404



1 ever learn that Ralph Chacon was thinking of selling



2 any story about Michael Jackson to the media?



3 A. No.



4 Q. When did you first hear anything about Ralph



5 Chacon’s willingness to go to the media with



6 information about Michael Jackson?



7 A. The only time that we all sold a story was



8 when we were already in our lawsuit with Mr.



9 Jackson, which was with Mr. Ring, our attorney.



10 Q. Now, at some point, you learned that Blanca



11 Francia had sold a story to Hard Copy, correct?



12 A. Yes.



13 Q. She sold her information before you sold



14 yours, right?



15 A. I don’t recall when Bianca — Blanca sold



16 the story.



17 Q. Do you know someone named Charli Michaels?



18 A. Yes, I do.



19 Q. Who is Charli Michaels?



20 A. She was a security guard for Neverland



21 Valley Ranch.



22 Q. Did you ever hear information that Charli



23 Michaels was trying to sell a story about Michael



24 Jackson to the media?



25 A. No, I did not.



26 Q. To date, have you ever heard anything about



27 that?



28 A. No. 5405



1 Q. Ever have a discussion with Charli Michaels



2 about the possibility of making money from



3 information you’d learned at Neverland?



4 A. No. I only recall talking to Charli about



5 her having sexual harassment with people at the



6 ranch.



7 Q. Okay. So you and she never said anything



8 about the possibility of making a buck from the



9 media, correct?



10 A. No. No.



11 Q. Okay. Now, when you were at Neverland, you



12 learned that security guards at the Encino home of



13 the Jacksons on Havenhurst had sold stories for



14 approximately $100,000, right?



15 A. No, I never heard that.



16 Q. You knew they had sold stories about Michael



17 Jackson, didn’t you?



18 A. No.



19 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as asked and



20 answered.



21 THE COURT: Sustained.



22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know someone named



23 Francine Orosco?



24 A. Yes, I do.



25 Q. And who is Francine Orosco?



26 A. She was a maid for Neverland Valley Ranch.



27 Q. And at some point, she was a personal friend



28 of yours, was she not? 5406



1 A. We became friends, yes.



2 Q. Now, you knew that she became a witness



3 against your claims in the lawsuit, right?



4 A. Yes, I believe so.



5 Q. She said you were never sexually harassed by



6 anybody, right?



7 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as hearsay.



8 THE COURT: Sustained.



9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Didn’t you repeatedly tell



10 Francine Orosco that Michael Jackson was innocent of



11 any charge of molestation?



12 A. No, I did not.



13 Q. Do you remember telling Francine Orosco that



14 you were going to get big-time money in your lawsuit



15 against Michael Jackson?



16 A. No, I did not.



17 Q. And you tried to convince her to say that



18 she had seen acts of sexual harassment involving



19 you, right?



20 A. No, I did not.

Francine Orosco Contreras testified against McManus for the defense on May 9th, 2005, and she thoroughly annihilated McManus’s credibility! She also defended Jackson in 1993; here is an excerpt of an interview of hers that was transcribed in Ian Halperin’s book “Unmasked”, on pages 71-72, in which she refuted Blanca Francia:


Meanwhile, two other former Neverland housekeepers came forward to discredit Francia’s allegations, telling CNN that the stories were made up.

“I think it’s ridiculous,” declared Shanda Lujan, who worked at Neverland for almost a year. “I mean, there’s no way that Michael could that. Michael’s just not that type of person.”

Francin Orosco worked for Jackson for two years and also said Jackson was incapable of the kind of behavior he was being accused of. “I think it’s pure lies. I think it’s just pure lies. It’s disgusting what they – what they could accuse somebody of for, and I think it’s just all for money. Michael could never do something like that. Never, ever.”

Both Orosco and Lujan claimed that Francia had actually been fired because of a bad attitude and was obsessed with the pop superstar.

“You could tell a lot that she had a little crush on him. And very jealous of the other housekeepers and didn’t want no one close to Michael. There was…there’s a lot of jealousy there,” said Orosco.

“He was great with kids,” added Lujan. “I mean, you know, if…I think he would be a very good father. I mean, he’s just wonderful with them.” The former maids said their ranch chores involved entering Jackson’s room at times, but that they had never seen anything suspicious.

Most notable about their statements was that at the time of their interviews, each of the two women were no longer on Jackson’s payroll and were not paid for their interviews, and therefore had no incentive to lie.

During her employment at Neverland, McManus stole lots of items from Neverland (such as posters, watches, clocks, sunglasses, etc.), in addition to Jackson’s sketch of Elvis Presley (which was sold to a tabloid). The jury ruled that all of those items had been stolen by McManus, although she continued to deny it:


21 Q. While you worked at Neverland, Francine



22 Orosco visited you at home, did she not?



23 A. Maybe one time.



24 Q. And you showed her a room in your house



25 filled with watches, posters, clocks, sunglasses,



26 T-shirts and other items you had taken from



27 Neverland, correct?



28 A. No. 5407



1 Q. You showed her laundry baskets filled with



2 Michael Jackson’s clothes that you had taken from



3 Neverland, right?



4 A. No, I did not.



5 Q. Do you remember one time at Neverland when a



6 box of black felt hats came for Mr. Jackson?



7 A. I can’t recall that.



8 Q. Do you remember that box of hats had Michael



9 Jackson’s name printed on the inside of the rim of



10 the hats?



11 A. I know he had hats, but I don’t recall the



12 hats being sent there.



13 Q. Do you remember taking a hat and saying you



14 were going to bring it home?



15 A. No.



16 Q. Now, you used to take food home from the



17 theater, did you not?



18 A. Food, like what are you talking about?



19 Dinners?



20 Q. Candy?



21 A. No.



22 Q. Never took bags of candy home?



23 A. There was a time when — you say “take,”



24 you’re saying like — you’re saying I’m just going



25 to take it, that is not correct.



26 There was a time when Gayle Goforth, a



27 supervisor, went down to the theater and took a lot



28 of the candy from there, because it was expired. 5408



1 She brought it back to the maids, the maids’ room,



2 and she let all the maids take candy that was



3 expired. She also gave it to security. That was



4 the only time.



5 Q. So you never stole any candy from Michael



6 Jackson?



7 A. No, I did not.



8 Q. Do you remember around Christmastime when



9 you worked at Neverland, Mr. Jackson used to



10 purchase toys for needy children?



11 A. I believe he did.



12 Q. And they tended to be fairly expensive toys,



13 did they not?



14 A. I really don’t know.



15 Q. You took some of those toys home, did you



16 not?



17 A. No, I did not. That was Janelle Wahl.



18 Q. Pardon me?



19 A. That was Janelle Wahl that would take that.



20 Q. You never took any Super Soaker guns home?



21 A. No, sir.



22 Q. Now, these are the kinds of things the jury



23 found that you had actually done, correct?



24 A. I don’t believe so.



25 Q. Well, they found that you had stolen from



26 Mr. Jackson, correct?



27 A. I believe it was what they thought I had



28 stolen was that sketch that I found in the trash. 5409



1 Q. And you’re saying you didn’t steal that



2 either, right?

3 A. I didn’t. I found it in the trash.



4 Q. That’s the sketch of Elvis?



5 A. Yes.



6 Q. You complained at Neverland that you should



7 be paid more, right?



8 A. I don’t believe I did.



9 Q. Never said that to anybody?



10 A. I don’t recall saying that.



11 Q. Okay. And you say you left voluntarily,



12 correct?



13 A. I left after the harassment and the death



14 threats, yes.



15 Q. And then you filed a claim for disability



16 with EDD, right?



17 A. No.



18 MR. ZONEN: Objection; asked and answered.



19 THE COURT: Sustained.



20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Ralph Chacon stopped



21 working at Neverland the same day you stopped,



22 right?



23 A. I don’t believe so.



24 Q. Kassim Abdool stopped working there the same



25 day you stopped, didn’t he?



26 A. I don’t believe so.



27 Q. All — excuse me.
Jackson wasn’t the only person that she sued after leaving Neverland! Several other employees of Jackson were sued, including Bill Bray, one of Jackson’s closest bodyguards, and another employee named Jerome Johnson, who subsequently joined the Neverland Five lawsuit against Jackson, until he and his wife were found to have sent an extortion letter to Jackson demanding $3 million dollars! (Read this post for more information out Jerome Johnson’s attempted extortion of Jackson.)


28 Now, you sued someone named Bill Bray, 5410



1 correct?



2 A. Yes.



3 Q. And who is Bill Bray?



4 A. He was the — how would you say it? Maybe



5 the top man for the Office of Special Services.



6 Q. You sued Betty Bailey, right?



7 A. Yes.



8 Q. And who was Betty Bailey?



9 A. She was maybe like his right hand.



10 Q. And you sued Mr. Jackson’s personal security



11 people, right?



12 A. Yes, I did.



13 Q. You sued Jimmy Van Norman, right?



14 A. Yes, I did.



15 Q. Marcus Johnson, right?



16 A. Yes. Yes.



17 Q. Tony Coleman?



18 A. Yes.



19 Q. And Jerome J.J. Johnson, right?



20 A. Yes.



21 Q. And at some point you approached Mr. Johnson



22 about testifying for you, right?



23 A. No, I did not.



24 Q. Someone on your behalf did, right?



25 A. All I know is that I believe that, from what



26 I understand, he jumped onto our side and decided to



27 tell the truth about what was going on.



28 Q. And when you say he “decided to tell the 5411



1 truth,” you dropped your suit against him, right?



2 A. I believe we did.



3 Q. And the jury didn’t believe him either,



4 right?



5 MR. ZONEN: Objection.



6 THE COURT: Sustained.



7 MR. ZONEN: He never testified. Assumes



8 facts not in evidence that he testified.



9 THE COURT: I sustained your objection.



10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember when Mr.



11 Johnson got in trouble for sending an extortion



12 letter to Mr. Jackson asking for three million



13 dollars?



14 A. I did learn of that through the later part



15 of my deposition, which I knew nothing about.



16 Q. At the point where you learned about Mr.



17 Johnson’s $3 million extortion letter to Mr.



18 Jackson, were you working with him on your lawsuit?



19 A. No.



20 Q. You stole commemorative Pepsi cans from



21 Neverland, did you not?



22 A. No, I did not.



23 Q. You were accused of that, right?



24 A. No, I was not.



25 Q. Do you know someone name Peter Burt?



26 A. No, I do not.



27 Q. Never heard the name?



28 A. I’ve heard of the name, but I do not know 5412



1 him.



2 Q. Okay. You do know Sandie Domz, do you not?



3 A. Yes, I do.



4 Q. Who is Sandie Domz?



5 A. She was an office administrator, a secretary



6 for Neverland Valley Ranch.



7 Q. You and the other plaintiffs in that lawsuit



8 decided that she would go to the show Hard Copy to



9 try and sell a story, correct?



10 A. Not that I ever recall.



11 Q. Are you saying that didn’t happen, or you



12 just don’t remember?



13 A. That did not happen.



14 Q. So you never got together and said, “We’ll



15 split money that we could get from Hard Copy”?



16 A. No, I did not.



17 MR. SANGER: Inside Edition.



18 (Off-the-record discussion held at counsel



19 table.)

Well, we now know how Victor Gutierrez was able to get some of the information that he used in his book “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”! And that’s because McManus admitted in this excerpt that she met with him and gave him information about Jackson. The fact that she was one of his sources should tell you all you need to know about the quality of the “research” in his book!


20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How much in total did Mr.



21 Ring collect on your behalf from tabloids or media?



22 A. From what I recall from my deposition, which



23 there were stubs in my deposition, that showed, I’m



24 thinking, maybe 32,000.



25 Q. Okay. Did any of that go to you?



26 A. 1,000.



27 Q. Now, you spent days being interviewed by a



28 book author named Mr. Gutierrez, right? 5413



1 A. Days being interviewed?



2 Q. Yes.



3 A. No.



4 Q. Were you interviewed by a book author named



5 Mr. Gutierrez?



6 A. I never was interviewed, but I did meet with



7 him.



8 Q. And approximately when did you meet with



9 him?



10 A. You know, I cannot recall the date.



11 Q. Well, you certainly had a discussion with



12 him about the fact that he was writing a book,



13 didn’t you?



14 A. No, I did not.



15 Q. So when you met with him, you didn’t know he



16 was writing a book?



17 A. No, when I met with him, he was going to try



18 to help us in our lawsuit.



19 Q. Did you ever learn he was writing a book



20 about Mr. Jackson?



21 A. I never — I don’t recall him saying that he



22 was writing a book. I don’t remember that.



23 Q. Did you give him information about Mr.



24 Jackson?



25 A. Um, later I did.

McManus was then forced to admit to the jury that she was dishonest during her direct testimony when she was impeached with her deposition transcript from 1993. In this excerpt, you’ll see her admit that she didn’t tell police about any alleged misconduct by Jackson during her first interview with them, she always saw Wade Robeson with his parents at Neverland, Brett Barnes’ mother would give her his clothes for her to wash, and that she insinuated that Jackson and June Chandler were having a romantic relationship by stating that she saw her in his bedroom, but excluding the fact that she was there to bring Jordan his clothes!


26 Q. When you first talked to the Santa Barbara



27 Sheriffs, you didn’t tell them about inappropriate



28 behavior you’d seen by Mr. Jackson, correct? 5414



1 A. Probably not.



2 Q. You waited to say that in your lawsuit,



3 correct?



4 A. I don’t recall.



5 Q. Going back to your deposition in the



6 Chandler suit – okay? —



7 A. Uh-huh.



8 Q. — you were asked if you’d ever seen Wade



9 Robeson at the ranch without one of his parents, and



10 you said, “No,” right?



11 A. I don’t — I have not gone over that, so I



12 do not recall what I’ve said or —



13 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to just



14 take a look at the page?



15 A. Yeah.



16 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?



17 THE COURT: Yes.



18 THE WITNESS: Okay.



19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to



20 look at that page?



21 A. Yes.



22 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what



23 you said under oath in that deposition?



24 A. Yes.



25 Q. And on that issue, what did you say?



26 A. “No.”



27 Q. You said you had never seen Wade Robeson at



28 the ranch without one of his parents, right? 5415

1 A. Correct.



2 Q. You were asked if you had ever seen Brett



3 Barnes’ clothes in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom, right?



4 A. If it’s there. Like I said, I have not gone



5 over that.



6 Q. And your response was sometimes his mother



7 would give you his clothes to wash, right?



8 A. Yeah, probably.



9 Q. Is that what you remember saying?



10 A. Like I said, I have not gone over that in



11 probably ten years.



12 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to just



13 take a look at that page?



14 A. Sure.



15 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?



16 THE COURT: Yes.



17 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to



18 look at that page?



19 A. Yes, I did.



20 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what



21 you said?



22 A. Yes.



23 Q. And you said that his mother would give you



24 his clothes, correct?



25 A. Correct.



26 Q. You didn’t see his clothes in Mr. Jackson’s



27 bedroom, right?



28 A. Um – 5416



1 Q. Excuse me, at that point in time, you said



2 you didn’t see his clothes in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom,



3 his mother would give you his clothes, correct?



4 A. Correct.



5 Q. You also said you’d never seen any of the



6 Culkin boys’ clothes in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom,



7 right?



8 A. If it’s there, that’s probably what I said



9 at that time.



10 Q. Let me just go back a little bit. You said



11 that you saw Macaulay Culkin and his brother at



12 Neverland, right?



13 A. I probably did.



14 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to look



15 at that page?



16 A. Sure.



17 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. May I approach?



18 THE COURT: Yes.



19 THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay.



20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to



21 look at that page?



22 A. Yes, I did.



23 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what



24 you said on that topic?



25 A. Yes.



26 Q. You said that you had never seen the Culkin



27 boys’ clothes in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom, right?



28 A. Yes. 5417



1 Q. You also told Mr. Feldman that you had never



2 come to Mr. Jackson’s room in the morning and seen



3 anything that indicated somebody may have slept on



4 his floor, right?



5 A. I don’t recall. Sorry.



6 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to look



7 at that page?



8 A. Sure.



9 MR. MESEREAU: May I, Your Honor?



10 THE COURT: Yes.



11 THE WITNESS: Okay.



12 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.



13 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.



14 MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to look



15 at that?



16 A. Yes.



17 Q. Does that refresh your recollection about



18 what you said?



19 A. Yes.



20 Q. And what did you say?



21 A. “No.”



22 Q. Do you remember testifying that Mr. Jackson



23 had never given you money?



24 A. I don’t recall that. I don’t —



25 Q. Did Mr. Jackson give you money from time to



26 time?



27 A. No. There was just one time.



28 Q. Okay. And that was when you told the jury 5418



1 that you got 300 bucks to lie in a deposition?



2 A. That —



3 MR. ZONEN: Objection; misstates the



4 testimony of the witness.



5 MR. MESEREAU: Let me rephrase that.



6 Q. Did you tell the jury that Mr. Jackson gave



7 you $300 to lie in a deposition?



8 MR. ZONEN: Objection; misstatement of



9 evidence.



10 THE COURT: Overruled.



11 You may answer.



12 THE WITNESS: What I said was the $300 was



13 given to me after Mr. Jackson had read the



14 transcripts of Jordie Chandler.



15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. And you interpreted



16 that as a token of his appreciation?



17 A. Yes, for covering up for him.



18 Q. Okay. 300 bucks?



19 A. Yes.



20 Q. Okay. Do you remember being asked if you’d



21 ever seen a woman in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom?



22 A. I can’t recall that.



23 Q. You said you had seen June Chandler in his



24 bedroom, right?



25 A. I believe to bring in Jordie’s clothes.



26 Q. Well, let me just go step by step. You



27 testified under oath in the deposition that you had



28 seen June Chandler in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom, right? 5419



1 A. To bring in his clothes, yes.



2 Q. You said you had never seen Mr. Jackson and



3 June Chandler in any romantic relationship, right?



4 A. Correct.



5 Q. You weren’t aware of her sleeping with Mr.



6 Jackson, right?



7 A. No.



8 Q. But you saw her in his room?



9 A. To bring in the clothes, yes.



10 Q. Well, you didn’t say “to bring in the



11 clothes” in the deposition, right?



12 A. I don’t know what’s in the deposition.



13 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to look



14 at that page?



15 A. Sure.



16 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as irrelevant and



17 hearsay.



18 MR. MESEREAU: I think the prosecution



19 raised the issue of what was happening in that



20 bedroom.



21 THE COURT: I’ll allow you to refresh her



22 recollection.



23 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?



24 THE COURT: Yes.



25 THE WITNESS: Okay.



26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to



27 look at that page of your deposition?



28 A. Yes, I did. 5420



1 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what



2 you said about June Chandler being in Mr. Jackson’s



3 room?



4 A. Yes.



5 Q. You said you had seen June Chandler in his



6 room, right?



7 A. Yes.



8 Q. You didn’t explain it in terms of her coming



9 there for clothes, or with clothes, right?



10 A. I guess not, no.



11 Q. You testified that you had seen Jordie



12 Chandler and Michael Jackson together outside on a



13 Jet Ski in the water, right?



14 A. I probably did.



15 Q. Do you remember that?



16 A. Slightly.



17 Q. You indicated you had seen Mr. Jackson in



18 water balloon fights and squirt gun fights, right?



19 A. I believe so.



20 Q. And you saw that once in a while, didn’t



21 you, while you worked there?



22 A. Yes.



23 Q. He would do that with kids all the time,



24 wouldn’t he?



25 A. Yeah, sometimes.



26 Q. Was it your impression that Mr. Jackson



27 liked water balloon fights?



28 MR. ZONEN: I’ll object as speculative. 5421



1 THE COURT: Sustained.



2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You said you had never



3 seen Mr. Jackson hold hands with anyone at the



4 ranch, right?

5 A. I don’t recall that.



6 Q. Could I refresh your recollection —



7 A. Sure.



8 Q. — by showing you the page?



9 A. Sure.



10 MR. MESEREAU: May I, Your Honor?



11 THE COURT: Yes.



12 THE WITNESS: Okay.



13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to



14 look at that page?



15 A. Yes, I did.



16 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what



17 you said?



18 A. Yes.



19 Q. You said you’d never seen Michael Jackson



20 hold hands with anybody at the ranch, right?



21 A. Correct.

Here is more about how McManus and her cohorts attempted to (and eventually did) sell stories about Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley to numerous tabloids and TV shows, including Inside Edition, as well as many other stories about Jackson:


22 Q. Okay. Now, there was approximately a



23 one-year period between this deposition and the



24 actual filing of your lawsuit against Mr. Jackson,



25 right?



26 A. Are you talking about Jordie Chandler?



27 Q. Well, approximately a one-year period



28 between your deposition in the Chandler case and the 5422



1 filing of your lawsuit, correct?



2 A. I believe so.



3 Q. Now, the Chandler deposition was in



4 December, and the next December you filed your



5 lawsuit, right?



6 A. I know the Chandler one was probably



7 December 7th of — oh, gosh, I don’t know if it was



8 ‘93 or ‘94. I don’t — I’m not — I don’t know the



9 dates.



10 Q. Okay. We talked about a little earlier that



11 December 7th, 1993, is the deposition in the



12 Chandler case.



13 A. Okay.



14 Q. And your lawsuit is December 2nd, 1994?



15 A. Okay.



16 Q. Okay?



17 A. Yes.



18 Q. Now, how long after the Feldman deposition



19 in the Chandler case did you to go a lawyer to talk



20 about suing?



21 A. I don’t know how long after it was. I



22 just — I know I left Neverland in the end of July



23 of ‘94. It might have been — I don’t even want to



24 guess because I’m not real — I’m not sure.



25 Q. You must have had a lot of meetings with Mr.



26 Ring before you actually finalized the lawsuit,



27 right?



28 A. I believe so. 5423



1 Q. And do you know roughly when that started?



2 A. You know, in my head, I don’t know why I



3 keep thinking 1995, but I don’t know.



4 Q. For how many months do you think you and



5 Ralph Chacon and Kassim Abdool met with Mr. Ring



6 before the action was filed?



7 A. I really can’t answer that, because I really



8 don’t know.



9 Q. Approximately when did you stop working at



10 Neverland?



11 A. The exact date — my last day, I believe,



12 was July the 31st of ‘94.



13 Q. Do you recall participating in an Inside



14 Edition show?



15 A. I believe so.



16 Q. And when did you participate in a show about



17 Mr. Jackson for Inside Edition?



18 A. I believe that had to do when we contacted



19 Gary Morgan. That was all around the same time, so



20 our lawsuit had already been going on.



21 Q. Do you remember meeting with representatives



22 of Inside Edition?



23 A. I remember — I remember those — the people



24 from Inside Edition showing up at our attorney’s



25 office, so I guess, yeah.



26 Q. Did you meet with them with your lawyer?



27 A. Yes.



28 Q. And was Ralph Chacon in that meeting? 5424



1 A. You know what, I really can’t recall.



2 Q. Was Kassim Abdool in that meeting?



3 A. I don’t want to say yes, because I can’t



4 recall.



5 Q. But the subject was Mr. Jackson, right?



6 A. Yes, it was.



7 Q. Do you remember trying to sell information



8 about Mr. Jackson’s relationship with Ms. Presley?



9 A. There could have been something of that.



10 Possibly, yes.



11 Q. You say, “Possibly, yes”?



12 A. Yeah.



13 Q. Well, I mean, you were actually trying to



14 get money from tabloids in return for your giving



15 them personal information about Mr. Jackson’s



16 relationship with Miss Presley, right?



17 A. We were trying to get money to help with our



18 lawsuit to fight Mr. Jackson.



19 Q. Do you recall ever going to anyone in the



20 media and telling them you had inside information on



21 Mr. Jackson’s relationship with Miss Presley?



22 A. I don’t recall that.



23 Q. Okay. Do you recall ever giving information



24 to anyone in the media involving Miss Presley and



25 Mr. Jackson?



26 A. I believe we probably did with Gary Morgan.



27 Q. And he was your media broker, wasn’t he?



28 A. I believe so. 5425



1 Q. He was the one that you were using and Ralph



2 Chacon was using to find media outlets to sell



3 information to, right?



4 A. I believe so.



5 Q. Okay. And you met him through Attorney



6 Ring; is that correct?



7 A. Yes.



8 Q. Okay. Did you ever see any tabloids that



9 quoted you about Mr. Jackson?



10 A. I — I could have.



11 Q. You’re not sure?



12 A. I’m not real, real sure.



13 Q. Did you ever see any tabloids that quoted



14 you about Mr. Jackson’s relationship with Miss



15 Presley?



16 A. I could have. It’s been a long time. I



17 kind of can’t remember.



18 Q. Do you remember Star magazine asking you to



19 sign a contract whereby you would give them



20 information about Mr. Jackson and his relationship



21 with his wife, Lisa Marie Presley?



22 A. I remember something to do with Gary Morgan



23 and something with Star, but I don’t remember



24 everything that was discussed with that.



25 Q. Might it refresh your recollection if I just



26 show you that document?



27 A. Sure.



28 MR. MESEREAU: May I, Your Honor? 5426



1 THE COURT: Yes.



2 THE WITNESS: Okay.



3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to



4 look at that document?



5 A. Yes.



6 Q. Does it appear to be a contract with Star



7 magazine?



8 A. Yes.



9 Q. And you signed that, correct?



10 A. Yes.



11 Q. Okay. And among other things, you agreed to



12 provide information about Mr. Jackson’s relationship



13 with Lisa Marie Presley, right?



14 A. I believe so.



15 Q. And Ralph Chacon signed that, did he not?



16 A. I believe so.



17 Q. Now, you’ve heard the name Splash, correct?



18 A. Correct.



19 Q. And who was Splash?



20 A. I really — all I know about Splash is that



21 it was linked up with Gary Morgan, so I don’t know a



22 lot of this tabloid stuff. I don’t know.



23 Q. Well, Splash was an agency, was it not, that



24 was retained by you to find media sources, right?



25 A. If it was retained, it would have been with



26 Michael Ring, my attorney.



27 Q. Okay. You signed an agreement with Splash



28 News and Picture Agency, right? 5427



1 A. I believe so.



2 Q. And was your involvement with Splash always



3 through Mr. Ring?



4 A. Yes.



5 Q. Did you ever deal with Splash directly?



6 A. No, I did not.



7 Q. How long were you working with Splash?



8 A. I have no idea. I don’t know the dates.

9 Q. At some point — at some point did your



10 relationship with Splash end?



11 A. I’m sure it did.



12 Q. Okay. Do you know approximately when?



13 A. No, I do not.



14 Q. Were you giving information to any tabloids



15 or media sources during your trial?



16 A. Only through Splash.



17 Q. And that went on during the trial, right?



18 A. Probably sometime during the trial, yes.



19 Q. Do you recall trying to sell what you called



20 “Mr. Jackson’s sex secrets”? Do you remember that?



21 A. I know something was written about that, but



22 I know sometimes tabloids write other stuff that



23 they like to put in, so I don’t know.



24 Q. You were quoted in an issue of Star magazine



25 titled “Five of His Closest Servants Tell All.



26 Kinky Sex Secrets of Michael and Lisa Marie’s



27 Bedroom,” right?



28 A. I don’t believe I said that. 5428



1 Q. Have you seen that article before?



2 A. I did during my deposition.



3 Q. Was that the first time you’d ever seen this



4 article?



5 A. Yes.



6 Q. You are quoted in the article, correct?



7 A. I don’t know. I could be. I don’t know.



8 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just



9 show you —



10 A. Sure, you can.



11 MR. MESEREAU: May I, Your Honor?



12 THE COURT: Yes.



13 THE WITNESS: Kind of hard to see that.



14 Okay.



15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to



16 look at that article?



17 A. Yes.



18 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about you



19 being quoted in that article?



20 A. Yes.



21 Q. You were going to tabloids and saying that



22 you were the only person with a key to Mr. Jackson’s



23 bedroom and you had information to sell, right?



24 A. Um, as I’ve said, I know we did interview —



25 the interview with Gary Morgan. But a lot of the



26 times with those tabloids, those tabloids write



27 other stuff and put it in there, and it makes it



28 look like I said it, when I didn’t say it. So I 5429



1 don’t know how to answer that.



2 Q. Well, did he have authorization from you to



3 quote you with various tabloids?



4 A. You know what, that’s where I don’t know.



5 He was dealing with Michael Ring, so I really don’t



6 know. I kind of got stuck in the middle.



7 Q. Well, at some point you must have known that



8 your quotes were appearing in tabloids regarding Mr.



9 Jackson, true?



10 MR. ZONEN: Assumes facts not in evidence



11 that there were quotes.



12 THE COURT: Sustained.



13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: During the time you were



14 represented by Attorney Ring, did you learn from



15 time to time that your name and various quotes about



16 Mr. Jackson were appearing in the media?



17 A. Just through the Gary Morgan deal. That’s



18 all I recall.



19 Q. What I’m trying to find out is this: Did



20 you sort of leave it to other people to sort of



21 quote you when they wanted in the media?



22 A. Actually, sometimes you have no control over



23 what people quote you in the media.



24 Q. But you’re not saying you had nothing to do



25 with these quotes, are you?



26 A. I can’t answer that, because I don’t know



27 what was quoted.



28 Q. Okay. You never learned? 5430



1 A. No. Huh-uh.
Victor Gutierrez just couldn’t keep his nose out of Jackson’s business, as he was able to weasel his way into the trial and speak with McManus and the other plaintiffs during their civil trial.


2 Q. During your trial with Mr. Jackson, were you



3 speaking to various newscasters?



4 A. Only Gary Morgan is all that I recall, and



5 when we met with Victor Gutierrez, and that was it.



6 Q. Would he arrange meetings for you?



7 A. Victor Gutierrez?



8 Q. No, Mr. Morgan.



9 A. I believe he might have, through Mr. Ring.



10 Q. Was it — let me rephrase that.



11 Was it typical during your relationship with



12 Mr. Morgan that he would fax a story to you to have



13 you review it, and ask you to see if you wanted any



14 changes, and then you would fax it back?



15 A. What I recall is viewing one — I don’t know



16 what you call it, I don’t know if it was a



17 transcript, and that’s the only thing I remember



18 seeing.



19 Q. Did the group used to meet with Mr. Morgan?



20 A. The only time we all met was with Mr. Ring



21 at his office.



22 Q. And you had a number of meetings with Mr.



23 Ring, Mr. Morgan, and the group that was suing



24 Michael Jackson, true?



25 A. Maybe two meetings that I can recall.



26 Q. And Ralph Chacon was at those meetings,



27 right?



28 A. He might have been at one. I don’t know if 5431



1 he was at all of them.



2 Q. When did you last talk to Ralph Chacon?



3 A. It’s been a while. I don’t know, maybe — I



4 really can’t — it’s been a while.



5 Q. When did you last talk to Kassim Abdool?



6 A. Actually, the last time I spoke with Kassim



7 was during our verdict, when we lost, and I have not



8 seen him since.



9 Q. How about Melanie Bagnall?



10 A. I see her off and on.



11 Q. Do you recall your being quoted in any



12 Australian newspapers about Mr. Jackson’s private



13 life?



14 A. No.



15 Q. Was it your understanding that Mr. Morgan



16 was going to try and use your quotes in foreign



17 newspapers about Mr. Jackson?



18 A. I have no idea.



19 Q. How many television shows do you think you



20 appeared on where you purported to give private



21 information about Michael Jackson?



22 A. The only thing that I can recall that I



23 appeared on was maybe with Inside — I think it was



24 Inside Edition. There wasn’t an interview with me,



25 but I think they captured me walking, maybe, with —



26 I don’t know if it was Kassim.



27 Q. Do you recall meeting with any



28 representative of the media while you worked at 5432



1 Neverland?



2 A. No.



3 Q. And you’re telling the jury that you never



4 had any discussion with any employee while you



5 worked at Neverland about what you could make by



6 selling a story?



7 A. The only thing I recall when I worked at



8 Neverland was one of the maids, Francine Orosco, had



9 contacted the media. I don’t know if it was — it



10 was one of the tabloids and they had offered her



11 $2,000, and she was going to come out and talk, but



12 they wanted her picture. And she was considering



13 doing that. That’s the only thing I ever remember



14 with that.



15 Q. Finally, when did you last talk to anyone



16 representing any media outlet about Mr. Jackson?



17 A. I have not interviewed with anybody about



18 Mr. Jackson.



19 Q. I don’t mean an interview. I mean when have



20 you last spoken with anyone who purported to



21 represent the media?



22 A. I haven’t really been talking to anybody



23 about anything in the — with the media.



24 Q. Has anyone called you from the media?



25 A. I did get a call from somebody from London



26 at my job, and they wanted to interview, and I told



27 them no.



28 Q. When was that? 5433



1 A. Maybe about — within the last week.



2 Q. And you didn’t interview because there is a



3 court order in this case that you’re not allowed to



4 do that if you’re a witness, right?



5 A. That’s correct.



6 Q. Did you agree with them that on a future



7 date you may speak to them?



8 A. I told them that I was not interested in



9 doing any interviews, that I was under a gag order.



10 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions at this



11 time.

12 THE COURT: Redirect?

Under redirect examination, Zonen questioned McManus about the quotes that she gave to the tabloids about the “kinky sex life” of Jackson and Lisa Marie, and she admitted that they were false statements.


14 REDIRECT EXAMINATION



15 BY MR. ZONEN:



16 Q. Mr. Mesereau asked you some questions about



17 an article that was in a tabloid that quotes you as



18 saying that you have all kinds of information about



19 kinky sex secrets between Michael Jackson and Lisa



20 Marie Presley. He showed you that article and asked



21 you if it refreshed your recollection as to whether



22 there was, in fact, such an article, and you said



23 yes, it refreshed your recollection as to that



24 article.



25 About the quotations in the article, are



26 they accurate?



27 A. No, they are not.



28 Q. Did you ever give information about kinky 5434



1 sex secrets between Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie



2 Presley to any publication, any media, or any



3 reporter?



4 A. No, never.



5 Q. Do you, in fact, have information of kinky



6 sex secrets between Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie



7 Presley?



8 A. No, I do not.



9 Q. Have you ever seen Michael Jackson with Lisa



10 Marie Presley?



11 A. How do you mean, “seen”?



12 Q. Was she at the ranch during the period of



13 time that you were there?



14 A. Yes, she was.



15 Q. Were they married during that time?



16 A. No.



17 Q. Were they visiting one another?



18 A. I believe so.



19 Q. Do you have any information at all that Lisa



20 Marie Presley ever stayed with Michael Jackson in



21 his room?



22 A. No.



23 Q. Did you ever see any woman stay with Michael



24 Jackson in his room in the four years you worked for



25 him?



26 A. No, I did not.



Next, McManus contradicted her deposition testimony and stated that she did indeed see Jackson holding hands with someone at Neverland, and that person was Brett Barnes, and that she saw evidence of young boys sleeping in Jackson’s bedroom. This was an obvious attempt to paint Jackson as a pervert who had an attraction to young boys:


27 Q. You stated in the deposition that you had



28 never seen Michael Jackson hold hands with anyone. 5435



1 Is that a correct statement?



2 A. No.



3 Q. Have you seen him holding hands with people?



4 A. Yes.



5 Q. Who?



6 A. Brett Barnes. The children that were at the



7 ranch.



8 Q. You told Mr. Feldman during the deposition



9 that you had never come into Mr. Jackson’s room and



10 seen evidence that somebody had slept on the floor.



11 Was that, in fact, a correct statement?



12 A. That’s correct.



13 Q. In fact, during the time that you had worked



14 there, you had never seen any evidence that someone



15 had slept on the floor?



16 A. Correct.



17 Q. You told Mr. Mesereau about June Chandler



18 unpacking clothing in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom. Did



19 that, in fact, happen?



20 A. Yes, it did.



21 Q. Explain that to us, please.



22 A. June Chandler had gone into Mr. Jackson’s



23 room and brought in suitcases of Jordie Chandler’s



24 clothes, since he was staying with Mr. Jackson in



25 his bedroom.



26 Q. I guess that begs the question, Miss



27 Chandler obviously knew that her son was sleeping in



28 that room, correct? 5436



1 A. Yes.



2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for



3 speculation.



4 THE COURT: Argumentative; sustained.



5 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did she do this on more than



6 one occasion?



7 A. I believe so.



8 Q. Was there a dresser or a drawer set up for



9 Jordie’s clothing?



10 A. No. The clothes would just get put anywhere



11 in the room.



12 Q. Were there any — was there any occasion



13 that you saw June Chandler in Michael Jackson’s room



14 when she was not attending to her child’s clothing?



15 A. Not that I can recall.



16 Q. You testified in the deposition that you had



17 not seen Wade Robeson on the property without a



18 parent. Was that a correct statement?



19 A. I’m sorry, you lost me.



20 Q. Had you ever seen Wade Robeson at Neverland



21 without a parent?



22 A. No.



23 Q. Who was the parent that was always there?



24 A. His mother.



25 Q. And you never met the father?



26 A. No.



27 Q. Your initial conversations with the



28 sheriff’s office, were they at a time that you were 5437



1 still employed at Neverland Ranch?



2 A. Yes.



3 Q. You testified in the deposition that Brett



4 Barnes’ mother would bring you his clothes to wash.



5 Was that, in fact, true?



6 A. At times that was true.



7 Q. Was that always the manner in which you



8 washed his clothes?



9 A. No.



10 Q. In what other ways would you be washing his



11 clothes?



12 A. If they were left in Mr. Jackson’s room, I



13 would take them and wash them along with Mr.



14 Jackson’s clothes.

Here are more of McManus’s outrageous claims of seeing Jackson in bed with boys:


15 Q. You have testified in the Chandler



16 deposition that you never saw Jordie and Michael



17 Jackson in his bedroom together. Was that a correct



18 statement?



19 A. No, it was not.



20 Q. Had you seen the two of them together in the



21 bedroom?



22 A. Yes.



23 Q. On more than one occasion?



24 A. Yes.



25 Q. Had you ever seen them in bed together?



26 A. Not in bed, no.



27 Q. You testified that you never saw Brett



28 Barnes sleep in the bedroom with Michael Jackson. 5438



1 You testified to that in the deposition, the



2 Chandler deposition. Was that a correct statement?



3 A. No, it was not.



4 Q. Had you, in fact, seen Brett Barnes sleep in



5 a bedroom with Michael Jackson?



6 A. He was staying with Mr. Jackson.



7 Q. Did you ever actually see either Michael



8 Jackson or Brett Barnes in bed in Michael Jackson’s



9 room?



10 A. One morning I might have seen them in bed,



11 yes.



12 Q. Do you have a recollection of that?



13 A. Yes.



14 Q. What did you see?



15 A. I brought breakfast and they were sitting in



16 the bed.



17 Q. Both of them together?



18 A. Yes.



19 Q. Do you recall how they were dressed?



20 A. I don’t recall.



21 Q. Were they in the bed, under the covers,



22 or —



23 A. Yes.



24 Q. They were in the bed under the covers?



25 A. Yes.



26 Q. You testified that you never saw Jordie



27 Chandler either get ready for bed or get up in the



28 morning. Were either of those statements true? 5439



1 A. Yes.



2 Q. Both of them?



3 A. Yes.

Here is some more pre-emptive karma! McManus testified that she had been bitten by Bubbles the Chimp; maybe Bubbles had a sixth sense in determining which Neverland employees would stab Jackson in the back, because he also bit Blanca Francia, not once but twice! (The second bite was probably because he knew that she would extort $2.4 million dollars from Jackson!)


4 Q. You testified that you never saw a chimp in



5 his bedroom. Was that statement true?



6 A. No.



7 Q. In fact, you’d been bitten by a chimp in his



8 bedroom; is that true?



9 A. Yes.



10 Q. Did you used to clean up after the monkeys?



11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Did you ever have to change their diapers?



13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.



14 THE COURT: Overruled.



15 You may answer.



16 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.



17 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you ever have to clean up



18 monkey droppings on the floors?



19 A. Not on the floor. Just on the walls.



20 Q. On the walls?



21 A. Sometimes monkeys get wild.



22 Q. You actually have to clean up their —



23 A. Yes.



24 Q. — mess on the walls?



25 A. Yes.

Here is an excerpt from Blanca Francia’s testimony on April 5th, 2005 where she stated that she was also bit by Bubbles!


6 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: You remembered the monkey

7 Bubbles — excuse me, the chimp, the chimpanzee; is

8 that right?

9 A. Bubbles, yes.

10 Q. Was Bubbles at more than one location?

11 A. I don‟t remember that. I think I remember

12 that other little monkey. I think it was a

13 different one. But I remember Bubbles at

14 Havenhurst. And then he was taken to some kind of

15 farm or trainer.

16 Q. Did Bubbles get a little too big?

17 A. Yeah.

18 Q. Did Bubbles get rambunctious, wild?

19 A. Wild.

20 Q. Did Bubbles ever bite you?

21 A. Yeah.

22 Q. On more than one occasion?

23 A. Twice.





Zonen attempted to end his redirect examination on a high note by leading McManus into discrediting her own deposition by stating that she was uncomfortable with her son being around Jackson because – wait for this! – Jackson would rub his fingers through her son’s hair! Oh, the horror!


26 Q. You testified that you had never seen Jordie



27 and Michael Jackson in the Jacuzzi. Is that a



28 correct statement? 5440



1 A. Yes.



2 Q. You had testified yesterday that you had



3 testified in the Chandler lawsuit that you had no



4 problems leaving your son with Michael Jackson. Was



5 that true?



6 A. No.



7 Q. Were you, in fact, concerned about your son



8 and Michael Jackson?



9 A. Yes, I was.



10 Q. Did you ever see Michael Jackson with your



11 son behave in a way that concerned you?



12 A. Yes.



13 Q. What did he do?



14 A. Mr. Jackson would rub his fingers through my



15 son’s hair.



16 Q. Did that concern you at the time?



17 A. A little bit, yeah. I was a little upset.



18 MR. ZONEN: I have no further questions.



19 MR. MESEREAU: Very briefly.

Mesereau’s recross examination was very brief and to the point:


21 RECROSS-EXAMINATION



22 BY MR. MESEREAU:



23 Q. You tried to sell a story to a tabloid about



24 Mr. Jackson putting his fingers through your son’s



25 hair, didn’t you?



26 A. No, I did not.



27 Q. You tried to sell stories to tabloids about



28 your son’s experiences at Neverland, correct? 5441



1 A. No, I did not.



2 Q. Do you recall Mr. Jackson living at Lisa



3 Marie Presley’s home during the week, and Lisa Marie



4 Presley visiting on weekends during the time that



5 you worked at Neverland?



6 A. No.



7 Q. You saw her there?



8 A. Yes, I did.



9 Q. Okay. Did you ever see Brooke Shields there



10 before Lisa Marie Presley?



11 A. Yes, I — I saw Brooke Shields, but I don’t



12 know if it was before.



13 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

Zonen took one last opportunity to take a swipe at Jackson by asking McManus to state where Brooke Shields slept at during her times at Neverland:


15 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION



16 BY MR. ZONEN:



17 Q. Where did Brooke Shields stay when she



18 stayed at Neverland Ranch?



19 A. In a guest unit.



20 MR. ZONEN: No further questions.



21 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.



22 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may



23 step down.



Continued in next post.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 21 febbraio 2019, 11:37

Summary of the Testimony of Adrian McManus

1. Adrian McManus was a former employee of Neverland, and her duties included cleaning and maintaining Jackson’s bedroom. She worked at Neverland from 1990 through 1994.

2. She claimed to have seen three instances of abuse by Jackson against Brett Barnes, Macaulay Culkin, and Jordan Chandler. In each instance, Jackson passionately caressed his “victims”, kissed them on the mouth, and fondled their genitals. Instead of immediately intervening to bring these alleged sexual assaults to an end, McManus simply “walked off” into another room! Unbelievable!

3. In an amazing and spectacular act of honesty, McManus denied ever seeing Jackson molest Wade Robeson! When you consider how easy it would have been to just include him with the other “victims” as a way to make her allegations more salacious, it’s very surprising that she chose to exude at least some honesty and integrity in this proceeding.

4. McManus didn’t intervene in any of the alleged instances of abuse that she claimed to have witness, and didn’t tell anyone until she hired her attorney Michael Ring to represent her and the four other Neverland employees in their frivolous “wrongful termination” lawsuit.

When questioned about the authenticity of her testimony during her deposition, McManus stated that she lied and denied seeing the abuse because Jackson had “threatened” her by saying “You know, Adrian, if you ever say or you do something that I don’t like, all I have to do is tell Bill Bray or Norma Stakos, and they will take care of you, but it wouldn’t come from me.” Whatever. McManus testified that she stayed at Neverland, despite this threat from Jackson, because her husband had been laid off, and she needed the $7.50 dollars an hour that she was earning.

5. After the Chandler allegations broke out, Jackson’s chief of security Bill Bray hired a new group of security guards called “OSS”, and they allegedly intimidated and harassed several Neverland employees who had cooperated in the police investigation. McManus claimed that she had been sexually harassed, and received death threats to her home via telephone, and this prompted her to quit and file a wrongful termination and sexual harassment lawsuit against Jackson.

6. McManus described her motivation for suing Jackson, and the counterclaim that Jackson filed against her. She was accused by Jackson of stealing an expensive drawing, but she claimed that she found it in a trash can in the recreational room. McManus did not file for bankruptcy, unlike the other four Neverland employees, so to this day she still owes her portion of the $1.6 million dollar judgment against her! (To Jackson’s credit, he had a lien put on her paycheck during her tenure at Sears.)



7. McManus and the other Neverland employees granted an interview with Gary Morgan of the Splash tabloid, and they were paid very handsomely for it. The money was used to help finance their lawsuit against Jackson. Their attorney Michael Ring was paid $32,000 dollars, and McManus received only $1,000 dollars.

8. McManus was questioned again about the drawing that she admitted to taking from Neverland, which she subsequently sold to the Splash tabloid for $1,000 dollars. She claimed that she found Jackson’s drawing in the trash can, and sold it to Splash at the request of her attorney Michael Ring.

9. Zonen displayed a Xeroxed copy of $300 dollars in cash that McManus claimed that Jackson paid her in 1994 after her deposition in the Jordan Chandler investigation. She attempted to testify that Jackson called her at her home and asked her to bring him a transcript of her deposition, but Mesereau’s objection was sustained. It was allegedly Jackson’s way of “thanking” McManus for not telling the truth about what she saw in her deposition.

10. Under cross examination, McManus was grilled about the real reason why she lost the civil case involving herself and her husband; they were guardian ad litems for her brother’s estate, and were found to have willfully and maliciously stolen the funds in a trust account that was meant for their niece and nephew! They were ordered to repay $30,584.89 plus the attorney’s fees of the plaintiffs, which totaled $5,085.27!

11. Mesereau then attacked her credibility even more by questioning her about the $35,000 dollar judgment that was entered against her for the sketch of Elvis Presley that she believed was drawn by Jackson, the fact that she stipulated that she had acted with fraud, oppression, and malice in her lawsuit against Jackson, and the punitive damages that would have been awarded to Jackson had he not waived the court hearing to decide the amount in exchange for one dollar! (How nice of him! But I guarantee it wasn’t just out of the kindness of their heart; it was because he knew it was pointless because they couldn’t pay it!)

12. When Mesereau questioned McManus about statements she made during her deposition in the Jordan Chandler investigation on December 7th, 1993, she testified that during that deposition (which was many months before her so-called “harassment” at Neverland began), she stated that she trusted Jackson and would leave her son around him, she never saw Jordan Chandler or Brett Barnes sleep in Jackson’s room, the reason Jordan Chandler’s clothes were in Jackson’s bedroom is because June Chandler brought them into his room in a suitcase, she “couldn’t tell” if Jordan Chandler ever took a shower with Jackson, she had never seen Jackson in a Jacuzzi, and that Jackson’s bedroom alarms were justified for security reasons!

She also admitted that she lied throughout her testimony, but “didn’t really think of it that way”. In reality, she told the truth throughout her deposition with Larry Feldman, and then subsequently lied and said she was lying throughout that testimony in order to maintain credibility with the prosecution.

13. McManus wasn’t “familiar” with the total amount of money she wanted from Jackson, and she even stated that a simple apology from Jackson would have sufficed!

14. McManus admitted that she met with Victor Gutierrez and gave him information about Jackson. The fact that she was one of his sources should tell you all you need to know about the quality of the “research” in his book.

15. Under redirect examination, Zonen questioned McManus about the quotes that she gave to the tabloids about the “kinky sex life” of Jackson and Lisa Marie, and she admitted that they were false statements.

16. McManus testified that she had been bitten by Bubbles the Chimp; maybe it’s because Bubbles had a sixth sense in determining which Neverland employees would stab Jackson in the back, because he also bit Blanca Francia, not once but twice! (The second bite was probably because he knew that she would extort $2.4 million dollars from Jackson!)

17. Zonen attempted to end his redirect examination on a high note by leading McManus into discrediting her own deposition by stating that she was uncomfortable with her son being around Jackson because – wait for this! – Jackson would rub his fingers through her son’s hair! Oh, the horror!

18. Mesereau had a few brief questions for McManus under redirect cross examination, but the damage had already been done, and she was already discredited.

19. You can download a copy of the Neverland 5’s appeal of the $10,970.50 fine that was sanctioned against them; they claimed that they fine was “unwarranted and excessive”, and that the trial court “abused its discretion”. The appeal includes a detailed summary of the case: Kassim ABDOOL v Michael jackson

You can also read this post to see just how “well connected” McManus is with many other enemies of Jackson!

To be continued: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.word ... rt-2-of-3/

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 21 febbraio 2019, 19:59

:D 8-) :)
Hello, #MJFam:

This morning, The Estate of Michael Jackson filed a lawsuit against HBO. HBO is not just a distributor but a co-producer of this so-called documentary Leaving Neverland.

As many of you know, in 1992 HBO entered into an agreement for the broadcast of “Live From Bucharest” which became HBO’s highest rated special. As part of that agreement, HBO agreed to non-disparagement provisions which remain in effect. This program is the epitome of disparagement. Therefore, HBO stands in breach of contract. Even though Michael is not here to defend himself and there is no claim for defamation, this is a contractual obligation.

Please keep raising your voices online to let your local broadcasters know that airing these lies is a mistake, and the Estate will continue to fight to protect Michael’s legacy in the courts.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 21 febbraio 2019, 20:57

Ivy‏ @Ivy_4MJ
Michael Jackson Estate Files Court Petition to Compel Abitration against HBO https://leavingneverlandfacts.com/micha ... bitration/ … via @neverlandfacts

Michael Jackson Estate Files Court Petition to Compel Abitration

February 21, 2019 by Leaving Neverland Facts
Immagine

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 21 febbraio 2019, 21:04

https://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainm ... -a-weirdo/
02/21/2019, 10:39am


In HBO documentary, Michael Jackson is possibly a molester, definitely a weirdo

By Richard Roeper
@richarderoeper | email


 


At times “Leaving Neverland” has you shaking your head in sorrow as you hear the graphic memories of two men who claim to have been sexually abused by Michael Jackson when they were children.

At times “Leaving Neverland” has you practically shouting at the screen, as you want to ask the parents of these men: WHAT WERE YOU THINKING WHEN YOU ALLOWED YOUR SON TO SLEEP IN THE SAME ROOM WITH A GROWN MAN!

And at times “Leaving Neverland” has you wondering why the filmmakers didn’t reach out to someone from Jackson’s camp — attorneys, relatives, former band mates, tour organizers, managers, employees at Neverland Ranch, publicists, etc., etc. — to ask if they had ever seen anything suspicious and/or to get a response to the allegations.

The Jackson estate DID send a 10-page letter to HBO, complaining about not being asked to participate in the two-part, four-hour documentary (which premieres on March 3), claiming the film doesn’t meet HBO’s standards and requesting the movie be shelved.

That’s not happening. HBO’s response read in part, “Our plans remain unchanged. … People should reserve judgment until they see the film.”

Having seen the devastating and undeniably persuasive film, I can’t say with 100 percent certainty Jackson molested the alleged victims — but at the very least, the VERY least, we’re reminded of how bizarre it was for this man to have cultivated such close relationships with a number of boys, even as his legions of fans and his supporters rationalized it by saying Jackson was just like Peter Pan and he had the soul of a child and he was an innocent who didn’t want to grow up.

What a load of … nonsense.

“Leaving Neverland” features extensive interviews with Wade Robson and James Safechuck, two thoughtful, articulate, intelligent and clearly still shaken men in their late 30s who tell separate but chillingly similar tales of how they were brought into the King of Pop’s world when they were just children, and how the magical times of sharing the stage with Jackson and becoming his “friend” gradually turned into something horrific and monstrous and unspeakable.

When Safechuck was 9 years old, he was featured in a Pepsi commercial with Jackson. In the ad, the boy is wandering around backstage and enters Jackson’s dressing room. He regards Jackson’s hat and glasses, etc., with awe, at which point a smiling Jackson enters the dressing room and says, “Looking for me?”

Geez. Even that’s kind of creepy.

A year later, 10-year-old Jimmy Safechuck was on tour with Jackson, his star-struck mother along for the ride.

Safechuck’s mother talks about a vacation to Hawaii, and how she kept her distance from Jackson and her son because she wanted her son to have a good time. However, she drew the line at Jimmy staying in Jackson’s room because “I didn’t think it was appropriate for my son to go to sleep with him.”

No. Kidding.

When Jimmy wasn’t on tour with Jackson, “My son would be on the phone for hours with Michael. Hours.”

Eventually, Jimmy’s parents DID allow her son to share a room with Jackson: “It seemed like a natural thing…when Mom and Dad said, ‘Yes, you can go sleep with Michael.’ ”

As Safechuck relates, it was anything BUT natural. He details the moment in Paris when Jackson introduced him to masturbation, and later recounts how the alleged abuse became more intense as he got older.

Wade Robson won a Michael Jackson dance contest at a store near his home in Brisbane, Australia, which led to Jackson inviting Robson to join him onstage for his next concert — and eventually Robson’s family moving to Los Angeles so young Wade could be close to his new best friend Michael Jackson.

In compelling fashion, Robson recounts how Jackson allegedly molested him on numerous occasions.
Both men talk about how Jackson continually told them to never breathe a word of their “special” relationships to anyone, as it would ruin their lives. Both men acknowledge that in the past they’ve told authorities under oath Jackson didn’t molest them. Both men explain why it took decades for them to state their truths — to themselves, to their families and to the world.

There’s no video or audio evidence of actual crimes, but even old news footage of Jackson holding hands with various little boys as they dash from hotel to limo while the press snaps photos and fans go wild is weird and troubling. When these kids were on tour with Jackson, all that meant was they’d join him onstage for a number or two. Why in the world was he holding hands with them in public, sending them faxes, giving them gifts, taking them and their families on trips?

In 1993, a man named Evan Chandler accused Jackson of molesting his 13-year-old son. Jackson reached a financial settlement with Chandler’s family.

In 2005, a jury found Michael Jackson not guilty on multiple counts of child molestation brought against him.

Jackson died in 2009. In the years since then, his family and friends and countless fans have vigorously defended his name and have called all allegations against him without merit.

At times “Leaving Neverland” feels more like a deposition than a documentary, given we’re hearing from only one side, again and again.

But Lord does that side present a convincing case.




At least now a few newspapers are beginning to report the biased one sided thing that is LN. Hopefully the tide will turn and people will search out the truth and not fiction. Marge.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 22 febbraio 2019, 5:57

https://deadline.com/2019/02/finding-ne ... a5g9E5fvUA
HBO Says Michael Jackson Docu Still On Despite “Desperate” $100M ‘Leaving Neverland’ Suit – Update
“The Jackson Estate will seek all damages proximately caused by HBO’s reprehensible disparagement of Michael Jackson, which could exceed $100 million should HBO succeed in the damage it is intending to cause to the legacy of Michael Jackson,” reads a breach of contract complaint in which lawyers from Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LL and Freedman + Tailtelman LLP seek an injunction and arbitration. The lawsuit (read it here) was filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court.
“Petitioners further pray that the arbitrator award punitive damages in the maximum amount permissible if and when Petitioners show their entitlement to such damages,” the 53-page filing adds.

Having premiered under a heavy police presence at the Sundance Film Festival last month, the tw-part, four-hour Dan Reed-directed Leaving Neverland is set to debut on HBO on March 3-4.

“Despite the desperate lengths taken to undermine the film, our plans remain unchanged,” HBO proclaimed in response to the threatening filing. “HBO will move forward with the airing of Leaving Neverland, the two-part documentary, on March 3rd and 4th. This will allow everyone the opportunity to assess the film and the claims in it for themselves.”

Using a 1992 deal between Jackson and the channel over a concert special as his legal lynchpin, Jackson estate attorney Howard Weitzman told Deadline that “HBO breached its agreement not to disparage Michael Jackson by producing and selling to the public a one-sided marathon of unvetted propaganda to shamelessly exploit an innocent man no longer here to defend himself.”

In language similar to a letter sent to HBO CEO Richard Plepler over a week ago, he added: “HBO could have and should have ensured that Leaving Neverland was properly sourced, fact checked and a fair and balanced representation. Instead they chose to fund and produce a film where they knew the two subjects had for many years testified under oath and told family, friends and law enforcement that Mr. Jackson did nothing inappropriate to either of them.”

HBO execs asserted earlier this month that they stood by the film and nothing was going to stop it from airing in early March. “The one thing I would say about this documentary is I would ask everybody to watch it and make their judgments after seeing it,” the premium cabler’s programming chief Casey Bloys said at the time.

Since it was first announced in early January that Leaving Neverland would open at Sundance, Jackson fans around the globe have taken to social media and elsewhere to condemn the documentary, which features Wade Robson’s and James Safechuck’s claims that they were sexually abused by the Thriller superstar when they were children.

“Nearly four years after Michael died they suddenly changed their recollections, sued the Estate of Michael Jackson for hundreds of millions of dollars and had all of their lawsuits dismissed,” Weitzman said in his statement, referencing Robson and Safechuck. “Yet they are still seeking money, having appealed. HBO and the director were well aware of their financial motives and that ample opposing facts are available from numerous sources, but made the unconscionable decision to bury any evidence casting doubt on their chosen narrative. Had they made an objective film it would have allowed viewers to make up their own minds about these allegations, instead of having a television network dictate to them that they must accept these false claims about Michael Jackson.”

With the constant whiff of legal action in the air from the very beginning, representatives for the estate of Jackson — who died in 2009, four years after being acquitted of seven counts of child molestation and two counts of giving a drug to a 13-year-old boy — had tainted Neverland as “just another rehash of dated and discredited allegations.”

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 22 febbraio 2019, 14:04

Samar @TheMJAP‏ @TheMJAP
Samar @TheMJAP Retweeted LAT Entertainment
Hi @CEThomson - this is the claim that I believe is actionable. Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck accusing Thomas Mesereau and Susan Yu of strong-arming them to testify and coaching them as to what to say.
Thomas Mesereau should be made aware.


LAT Entertainment‏@latimesent
As #LeavingNeverland details, both men now say they were under immense pressure from Jackson & his lawyers to keep quiet about their alleged molestation. Robson says he was sexually abused by MJ from age 7. Safechuck says MJ started molesting him at age 10 https://lat.ms/2Skhoi0



http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/mo ... story.html
They spoke out against Michael Jackson in ‘Leaving Neverland.’ Now, they’re facing the fallout


They’d told their stories before, first in the quiet confines of therapists offices, then explicitly in court documents.




But Wade Robson and James Safechuck never felt truly heard until they stood in front of a crowd clapping for them at the Sundance Film Festival last month. After the premiere of “Leaving Neverland,” the four-hour docuseries in which both men allege they suffered years of sexual abuse at the hands of Michael Jackson when they were boys, hundreds of festivalgoers rose to their feet to applaud the film’s subjects.











“It’s strange to hear people clap,” said Safechuck, 40.




“Yeah, you kind of don’t know what to do with it at first,” added Robson, 36. “There’s a lot of release happening for me. There’s been a lot of tears. There’s tiredness. But this is a sea change moment for me in this healing journey and in trying to be heard. And it’s happened, and that’s incredible.”










It had been one day since “Leaving Neverland” was first unveiled, and the men were sitting in the conference room of a hotel. Robson, who wore a string of beads around his neck, had traveled alone from his home in Hawaii to the festival. Safechuck, who sometimes speak so softly he is difficult to hear, had brought his wife from Simi Valley. The director of the project, Dan Reed, was also at the table for emotional support, though he mostly sat quietly, answering emails on his phone.




Only a clutch of Jackson fans had turned up at Sundance to protest the docuseries, which will begin its two-night HBO run on March 3. But online, his legion of supporters were already beginning what Reed described as a “fatwa,” launching websites and Twitter threads to lay out why they believe Robson and Safechuck are liars.




Even before the festival, Jackson’s estate slammed “Leaving Neverland” as “yet another lurid production in an outrageous and pathetic attempt to exploit and cash in on Michael Jackson.” In the following weeks, the estate has only ramped up its defense, releasing a 10-page letter directed at HBO Chief Executive Richard Plepler slamming the network for airing the project.




But HBO is not wavering, and the critical reaction to “Leaving Neverland” was so strong that the network briefly explored an awards-qualifying theatrical run. A motion picture academy rule barring “multi-part” documentaries from consideration — adopted after the docu-series “O.J.: Made in America” won the Oscar in 2017 — meant that wasn’t to be.


Still, the exposure on HBO is sure to ignite fierce debates. The main argument against Safechuck and Robson’s credibility centers on the fact that both men previously testified on Jackson’s behalf in child sex abuse cases brought against him by other boys. In 1993, when Robson was 11 and Safechuck just a few years older, both said they told investigators that Jackson had never been sexually inappropriate with them. At 22, Robson reiterated that position again under oath in 2005, subsequently sitting for numerous television interviews in which he spoke positively about Jackson.




As “Leaving Neverland” details, both men now say they were under immense pressure from Jackson and his lawyers to keep quiet about their alleged molestation. Robson says he was sexually abused by Jackson from age 7, shortly after he won a 1987 Australian competition in which he mimicked the performer’s dancing. Safechuck, who met Jackson that same year on the set of a Pepsi commercial, says Jackson started molesting him when he was 10 years old.




“My experience with Michael’s threats was that he told me, ‘You and I, Wade, we have to save each other,’ ” recalled Robson. “‘We have to stop these ignorant people. If this gets out, both of our lives are gonna be over. We’re gonna be pulled apart. We’ll both go to jail for the rest of our lives.’ It was like we were in this together, you know?”




Robson and Safechuck crossed paths a couple of times as boys — once on the set of Jackson’s 1991 music video, “Jam,” and another time at the singer’s Neverland Ranch, where he had organized a weekend with the filmmaker Robert Wise. But they never knew each other in any real way.







In 2013, when Robson filed a lawsuit against Jackson’s estate and companies claiming the singer had sexually abused him as a boy, Safechuck felt seen. In the docuseries, he describes how Robson’s legal efforts inspired him to speak out and begin his own legal battle with Jackson’s business entities in 2014.




While he wanted to go to court to “fight back” for “little James,” Safechuck was also desperate to connect with Robson over what court documents revealed to be shared childhood trauma. But due to their respective lawsuits, they had to keep their distance. The men were allowed to meet for a lawyer-supervised lunch about five years ago, though they could barely share any details about their boyhood experiences with Jackson.




“The first thing we did was just hug each other for, like, five minutes,” Robson remembered.




“I was pretty early on in my therapy, so I don’t know if I looked a bit shell-shocked to you,” said Safechuck. “I was still processing a lot.”


Reed first approached the men about “Leaving Neverland” in 2016, after the filmmaker learned about their lawsuits. It was the pre-#MeToo era, the public hadn’t exactly embraced Robson and Safechuck’s stories. So they were wary about participating in the project.











“I wanted the story to be treated with respect, and I wanted someone to really show people what it’s like to be abused,” Robson said. “I wasn’t looking for a radical movie — I didn’t want to be a part of that.”




Both men’s mothers and wives are also interviewed in the film, as are Robson’s siblings and even his grandmother. With the intimate focus on the men and their families, no representatives for Jackson — who was never convicted of sexual abuse — were included in the film.




“I also didn’t want it to feel like some sort of vendetta piece against Michael,” said Safechuck. “Of course, it’s partly about Michael, because he’s the abuser. But he’s dead, and he can’t abuse kids anymore. And this is not about trying to take Michael Jackson down. It’s so much bigger than that. We can’t change what happened to us, but how can we use this story to make an impact on the future for other kids?”




At the time, Robson was already deep into years of therapy. With the aid of Jackson, he’d risen to fame in the late ’90s as a choreographer for pop stars like Britney Spears and N’Sync. But in 2011, just as he was about to direct his first film, “Step Up 4,” his childhood trauma bubbled to the surface. He suffered what he calls a nervous breakdown, dropped off the film and moved to Hawaii with his wife and son.




“Dance and film all got painted black for me, because it was all so connected with Michael,” Robson explained. “So how could I keep doing any of that stuff ever again? So yeah, I quit all of it and I tried to bury it all alive and I swore I’d never dance or make music or make films ever again. I threw a smoke bomb and moved to Hawaii. ‘Agents, managers, don’t call me. I’m done.’”




By the time he met Reed, he was far down a path of healing. Though he’d discussed the details of his abuse with his therapist, he said he found “a whole new level of therapy” in telling his whole story chronologically in front of the camera.




Safechuck, however, did not find the experience therapeutic.




“It was difficult,” he admitted. “You have to sort of surrender and pour your heart out and then hope that it gets treated with respect, and that’s tough to do. … It was also before the #MeToo movement. The world has changed — is starting to change — since we started this.”




“I think once the #MeToo movement kind of took off, I had some sense of hope that a consciousness shift was beginning,” said Robson. “But then also this feeling, like, ‘Yeah, that seems to be happening and that’s great, but often, those sort of things don’t seem to apply to Michael Jackson.’”


Robson said he believes it’s been difficult for people to think Jackson could have been a pedophile because of his level of stardom, which made him almost inhuman.




“People put him on some sort of pedestal that was just seemingly invincible,” he said. “And in my experience with him, he had some good qualities about him. He had some real levels of kindness and compassion about him. And then at the same time, a real twisted, sick urge and lack of any capability to stop himself from doing these horrible things to myself and James and I believe many other kids.”




“I think, for us, instead of looking for people to mute Michael or whatever — I think it’s more of presenting an opportunity for people to reevaluate who they consider their idols,” said Safechuck. “Who do we assign to look up to? Because you can write an amazing song doesn’t mean you should be people’s moral compass.”




Robson, for one, has completely distanced himself from the world of celebrity. About a year and a half ago, he finally felt the urge to return to dance — this time in a teaching capacity. He’s no longer interested in choreographing for major stars, and said he’d even turn down an offer from an old collaborator like Spears should she come calling.




“I don’t think dance ever went anywhere, I just kept trying to push it away because [of the] feeling that Michael gave it to me,” Robson said. “Coming to an understanding that Michael didn’t give it to me — so therefore he can’t take it away from me — I’ve taken back what’s mine. … I started dancing again, I started teaching, and trying to approach it in an extremely different way.




“[It’s] the opposite way that Michael told me to approach everything in the entertainment business, which was just so intense — ‘be the best or be nothing at all, rule the world, destroy everyone.’ These heavy, grand expectations. ... The approach is: How can I have fun?”




Safechuck long ago left any entertainment industry ambitions behind. Though he played in a band for a while — “we exploded in a spectacular fashion” — he found a new passion in computer programming and now works as the director of innovation and technology at a digital advertising agency. He said he’s trying to set “healthy expectations” for the release of “Leaving Neverland” in order to protect himself from any further backlash.




“I think the act of being heard is an accomplishment,” he said. “And if good comes of that for other people, that’s an accomplishment. And that’s it.”




“Of course, as a survivor, it feels amazing when people believe you and support you,” Robson chimed in. “But there's not an expectation of that for me. There’s been too much of the opposite for so long. ...So much of this journey for me has been about trying to be heard. And at some level — at a level that has not happened for me so far — that’s starting to happen.”

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 22 febbraio 2019, 14:35

Sean Ono Lennon‏@seanonolennon 
Since when has a bit of respect and humility become so hard to come by? What happened to decency? To speak ill of a great man in the wake of his death, to do so is a most repugnant act. It brings shame upon all of us. Glass houses everywhere.






Howard Weitzman's 10 page letter to HBO

February 7, 2019
VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Richard Plepler Chief Executive Officer Home Box Office, Inc. 1100 Avenue of the Americas - 15th Floor New York, NY 10036 (212) 512-1960 E-Mail: richard.plepler@hbo.com
Re: Michael Jackson
Dear Mr. Plepler:
We are counsel to the Co-Executors of the Estate of Michael J. Jackson, as well as various wholly-owned entities which own intellectual property and other intangible rights associated with the late Michael Jackson (collectively the “Estate” or the “Jackson Estate”).
We write regarding Leaving Neverland, an admittedly one-sided, sensationalist program—referred to as a “documentary” by HBO and others—that HBO apparently funded and intends to air this Spring. The Estate first learned about this program in early January when its premiere at Sundance was announced in the press. As you must know, contrary to all norms of documentary filmmaking, the Estate was never contacted by the supposed “documentarian,” Dan Reed (or anyone else associated with the program) to provide the Estate’s views on, and responses to, the absolutely false claims that are the subject matter of the program. Likewise, no one else who might offer evidence to contradict the program’s premise was consulted either, as Dan Reed has publicly admitted.
When the program was first announced, HBO and its producing partners did not disclose the identities of the two subjects of the documentary, but referred to them only as “two men.” However, from even the brief descriptions of the “two men” in the announcement, the Estate knew exactly who they were: Wade Robson and James Safechuck. The Estate knew this not because it had any inside “sources” about the documentary—it had none—but because these two men have been peddling their false “story” for years now, most notably in a series of failed legal actions against the Estate. The Estate did not hesitate to advise the media of their identity. The Estate was one-hundred percent confident that there were no other purported “victims” who this documentary could be about (because, contrary to Robson’s and
Richard Plepler February 7, 2019 Page 2
Safechuck’s lawyers’ predictions when they first filed their lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars in 2013, no “flood” of further identifiable “victims” ever came forward beyond these two). HBO and its producing partners were then forced to acknowledge that the Estate had “guessed right” and that the two subjects of the film were indeed those two admitted perjurers who had filed lawsuits against the Estate, all of which have now been dismissed with prejudice (but as noted below are pending on appeal).
The Estate spent years litigating with Robson and Safechuck, and had four different lawsuits by these two men dismissed with prejudice. (Today, Robson owes the Estate almost seventy thousand dollars in court costs, and Safechuck owes the Estate several thousand dollars as well.) In those litigations, the Estate discovered troves of information about Robson and Safechuck that made it unequivocally clear that they had no credibility whatsoever. We discuss some of that information below, but the information discussed in this letter is just the tip of the iceberg on these two. Had HBO actually complied with the most basic of journalistic ethics—rather than just accept their salacious allegations at face value—it would have discovered so much more long before it ever got involved in this disgraceful project. Obviously, that is the reason that Dan Reed and HBO’s producing partners initially tried to hide the identities of Robson and Safechuck. This ambush was carried out because Dan Reed knew that Michael Jackson’s family and friends, his Estate, and his millions of fans who are deeply knowledgeable about the case would have discredited Robson and Safechuck before filming began.
HBO Is Being Used As Part of Robson’s and Safechuck’s Litigation Strategy
Robson and Safechuck are pursuing appeals of the judgments against them, appeals that will probably be heard this year. As many other press outlets noted when their lawsuits were still pending in the trial court, Robson, Safechuck, and their shared attorneys have long engaged in a deliberate campaign to try their case in the media, most often through leaks of false information to some of the most salacious online tabloids. Had HBO done any research into this, it would have easily discovered that every year or so while the litigation was pending, before a major issue was to be decided, the tabloids would suddenly be full of false claims being peddled by Robson’s and Safechuck’s attorneys about Michael Jackson. The trial court never let this avalanche of false claims affect it, and we have no doubt that the Court of Appeal will not be affected by it either. That said, Robson’s and Safechuck’s lawyers will continue attempting to try their cases in the media.
As noted, Robson and Safechuck are now appealing the dismissal of their multimillion dollar lawsuits. Not coincidentally, their appeals are likely to be heard later this year. HBO’s “documentary” is simply just another tool in their litigation playbook, which they are obviously using in a (very misguided) effort to somehow affect their appeals. Sadly, it appears that HBO—a once great and respected network—has now been reduced to the pay television version of Hard Copy (with a little mix of The Jerry Springer Show). Most pathetically, HBO has been reduced to a pawn in part of Robson’s and Safechuck’s attorneys’ litigation strategy.
Richard Plepler February 7, 2019 Page 3
HBO and Dan Reed Intentionally Chose Not to Interview Anyone Who Would Detract From Their Story
Leaving Neverland rehashes accusations against the late Michael Jackson of committing the most heinous crimes any person can be accused of in modern society. Given the seriousness of those allegations, one would have expected that HBO and its producing partners would contact: (1) the Jackson family; (2) persons who worked with Jackson during the relevant time period; (3) other young men and women who spent time with Jackson as children (including ones mentioned by name in the “documentary”); (4) friends of Michael Jackson who knew him for his whole life; (5) the many persons who know Safechuck and Robson well but do not believe them; (6) Tom Mesereau and his investigator, Scott Ross, who Robson happily met with for hours in 2005 to tell them about his experiences with Michael, with Mesereau finding Robson so credible that he made Robson the first witness for the defense in Jackson’s 2005 trial; and (7) the Estate, who spent years litigating the very claims discussed in the “documentary” by Safechuck and Robson. Yet, shockingly, HBO and its producing partners never attempted to contact any of these people. The fact that HBO and its producing partners did not even deign to reach out to any of these people to explore the credibility of the false stories Robson and Safechuck told violates all norms and ethics in documentary filmmaking and journalism. It is a disgrace.
In fact, Dan Reed admitted in the question and answer session at Sundance that he never even attempted to contact the many, many other young men and women who spent time with Jackson as children, yet continue to defend him to this very day. And at least two of these young men are referenced by name in the film with the implications that they “replaced” Robson and Safechuck as Jackson’s “abuse victims.” Both have gone on record since the documentary was announced to explain that they were never abused by Jackson. One of them, who Robson explicitly claimed in the film “replaced” him, has released several “tweets” denouncing the documentary as a work of fiction. Yet neither of them—among the many others who spent time with Jackson as children—were ever approached by Dan Reed and HBO.
In other words, HBO’s “documentary” is based solely on the word of two admitted perjurers. HBO and its partner, Dan Reed, never even attempted to explore whether these two men might not be telling the truth. We have read reports that these two men are supposedly “credible” in the documentary because they tell their story so fluidly. Yet they have been practicing their stories and rehearsing their lines (which changed throughout the litigation as discussed below) for years now. Thus, it is no surprise that these two men—who have also both acted professionally—tell their false story well. The bottom line is that any halfway skilled filmmaker could make a “documentary” telling any outrageous story about a dead man if they can just find two people willing to tell that story and then not challenge those two at all. That is particularly the case when one of the men—Wade Robson—is a self-described “master of deception”; and his own mother testified under oath that he should “have had an Oscar” given how good a liar he is (as discussed below).
Richard Plepler February 7, 2019 Page 4
In Interviews, Dan Reed Is Using HBO in Order to Bolster the Credibility of the Program Despite Making Blatantly False Statements in Those Same Interviews
Notably, HBO’s reputation is being used as one of the main reasons that the “documentary” should be taken seriously. The producer of this program, Dan Reed, is telling the media that one of the principal reasons the documentary is credible is because of HBO’s reputation. When asked whether an attorney had vetted the film, he responded, “that’s what happens on every single film I make or, to my knowledge, that anyone makes, certainly for HBO.”1 The usual checks on filmmakers are ethical and normative ones, such as factchecking (e.g., are their stories consistent? see below), investigating the motivations of people (e.g., do they have a financial motivation to say what they are saying?), talking to others with knowledge who may have something different to say, etc. But as is apparent from our discussion below, HBO apparently no longer cares about these ethical and normative checks on documentary filmmaking and journalism anymore. If HBO does care about such things, this documentary will never air on HBO.
In the same interviews where he touts HBO’s involvement as a reason for his “documentary’s” supposed “credibility,” Mr. Reed has also made blatantly false statements about Robson and Safechuck in an effort to bolster their credibility. For example, in the same Huffington Post interview discussed above, Mr. Reed agrees with the interviewer that “one of the most impactful things in the documentary is the way [Robson’s and Safechuck’s] stories align … even though they didn’t know each other until now.” In another interview, Reed “confirms” that “for legal reasons, [Robson and Safechuck] were kept apart, long before you even approached them about making the movie.” Reed expands on that and says that this was done so “they couldn’t exchange stories. Sundance was the first time [as adults] that they’d met. It’s the first time they’ve had any significant time together.”2 This is utterly false. In Robson’s 2016 deposition, he testified that he had spoken to Safechuck in 2014, the year Safechuck filed his lawsuit against the Estate. When asked what the two men had spoken about, Robson refused to answer the question—his attorney instructed him to remain silent because Robson’s and Safechuck’s common attorneys were involved in the conversations between the two men in 2014. Accordingly, we can never know what they talked about and how they aligned their stories with their attorneys’ help. Given that they were both seeking hundreds of millions of dollars against the Estate, they had hundreds of millions of reasons for aligning their stories.
1 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/le ... f9be689ab0 2 https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/mov ... ew-785817/
Richard Plepler February 7, 2019 Page 5
In any event, the idea that two men who are represented by the same attorneys for the last six years would have stories that “align” is hardly surprising. You really cannot be so naïve that you would not understand this.
Finally, we must note that we can only assume that the legendary Sheila Nevins had nothing to do with the decision to go forward with this “documentary.” It is a shame that she is no longer involved in these types of decisions for HBO. That HBO, the once iconic network, would fund, produce and distribute this pathetic and untruthful vehicle for these admitted liars to revisit false allegations made as part of their effort to revive their dismissed lawsuits is just plain sad.
Robson and Safechuck Were Repeatedly Caught Lying During Their Failed Lawsuits Against the Jackson Estate
Wade Robson testified in detail as an adult before a jury in 2005 that Michael Jackson never did anything wrong with or to him. He was then subjected to a withering crossexamination by Ron Zonen, one of California’s most-seasoned prosecutors. Yet, despite that, Wade Robson never wavered. Moreover, even after his testimony, there are many videos of him (readily available online) where he praises Michael Jackson as an inspiration and denies that Michael ever molested him.
But even setting that aside, Robson was also caught lying repeatedly in the dismissed litigations with the Estate. For example, in order to try to get around the statute of limitations for monetary claims against the Estate, Robson testified under oath that “[p]rior to March 4, [2013,] I did not understand or was even aware that an Estate [of Michael Jackson] had been opened for administration.” That was a lie. In truth, Robson had personally met with John Branca, one of the Estate’s executors, at Mr. Branca’s office in 2011 in a (failed) effort to solicit work with the Estate on a Michael Jackson-themed Cirque du Soleil show. Prior to meeting with Mr. Branca, Robson’s talent agent told him that he had to contact “John Branca, the person in charge of MJ’s estate.” Not surprisingly, the trial judge dismissed Robson’s claims against the Estate, finding that no rational person could believe Robson’s declaration that he did not know about Michael Jackson’s Estate until March 4, 2013 when he, in fact, had met with John Branca, the Co-Executor of the Estate. In plain English, the judge found that Robson had lied in his sworn declaration. (The idea that Robson would want to spend years of his life creating and directing a Michael Jackson-themed show, when he was in fact a victim of horrendous abuse by Jackson, is itself hard to take seriously.)
Robson’s meeting with Mr. Branca was hardly the first time that he tried to capitalize on his relationship with Michael Jackson after Michael’s death when he thought it would help him make money. In the days after Michael’s death, Robson released a statement praising Michael as “one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of human kind.” He then tried to solicit work from Kenny Ortega, the director of Michael Jackson’s This Is It, to help work on the movie. Robson was able to secure work with Janet Jackson, in her 2009 MTV Video Music Awards tribute to Janet’s late brother Michael. In videos behind the scenes
Richard Plepler February 7, 2019 Page 6
of the tribute show (easily found online), Robson is seen praising Michael Jackson in the most effusive terms.
During the litigation with Jackson’s companies, Robson was also caught trying to hide evidence before his cases were dismissed. For example, Robson lied under oath and stated that, other than one brief email in late 2012, he had had “no written communications” with anyone (other than his attorneys) about his newly-concocted allegations that he was abused by Jackson. This turned out to be a complete and utter lie. Robson had actually shopped a book about his allegations in the year prior to filing his lawsuit—a book he tried to hide from the Estate. That book told a completely different story of how he was first abused by Jackson. When asked about some of these discrepancies at his deposition, Robson explained that his memories had “evolved” since writing the draft of the book in late 2012 and early 2013. He explained that “post disclosing the abuse in 2012 and beginning that healing journey, they've evolved as far as I remember more details about scenarios. As it goes along, you know, it evolves, details get added to.”3
Moreover, despite lying under oath in his lawsuit that he had had “no written communications” with anyone about his supposed abuse, he was eventually ordered by the trial court to produce all such documents. Robson produced hundreds (if not thousands) of written communications (emails, texts, etc.) with his family and friends about his false abuse allegations. He never explained why he lied and said he had no such communications.
Most notably, many of these communications were with his mother where he admittedly was trying to reconstruct his own “memories” of the time period when he was supposedly abused—i.e., in his own words, to “add” the “details” that he did not know when he was drafting his book. In one email, he lists over twenty different questions to his mother asking her about the specific details of his interactions with Michael Jackson. Some of these include: “Can you explain all that you remember of that first night at Neverland? What happened when we drove in what did we do? And that first weekend at Neverland?” Notably, in the “documentary,” Robson now recounts “his” supposed “memories” of these events in great detail. But Mr. Reed and Robson never explain that he had to first ask his mother scores of questions before he could tell his story. Indeed, despite telling the story of his first night at Neverland in the documentary as if it is his own memory, at his deposition, he admitted that he “did not know” if his memory of that night “came from [his] own recollection or [if] it was told to [Robson] by someone else.”
Simply put, Robson is an admitted perjurer who proudly called himself (in his draft book) a “master of deception.” Robson is such a good liar that his own mother testified under
3 We would be happy to provide you with any source documents, such as depositions, documents produced in discovery, etc. It is a shame Mr. Reed and your colleagues at HBO were not interested in such documents when producing their “documentary.”
Richard Plepler February 7, 2019 Page 7
oath at her deposition that she could not tell when he was lying; she even volunteered that “he should have had an Oscar” given how convincing his lies were. It may just be that he deserves an Oscar for HBO’s “documentary” as well.
Robson’s fabricated story, of course, is that Jackson’s abuse caused him to have two self-described nervous breakdowns in 2011 and 2012. Those breakdowns, according to Robson, caused him to realize that he had been abused by Jackson decades before. But there is a much more simple explanation for Robson’s breakdowns. He has a family history of suicidal, major depression on his father’s side. Robson’s father committed suicide in 2002. Robson’s first cousin on his father’s side committed suicide in 2012. Unfortunately, major depression is a very heritable disease. Thus, it is no surprise that Robson had these breakdowns. And it is even less surprising that he has continued to have breakdowns given that when Robson saw a psychiatrist in 2011 he was prescribed anti-depressant medication. But he refused to ever take that medication. To be clear, we ascribe no “fault” or “weakness” whatsoever to those who suffer or who have suffered from clinical depression. That said, we must note Robson’s mental illness, and his abject and stubborn refusal to get appropriate medical treatment for it, because Robson’s claim is that his “nervous breakdowns” are strong evidence of his abuse by Jackson. But those breakdowns are much more easily explained by Robson’s family history of major depression and his own (apparent) diagnosis of depression for which he stubbornly and irrationally refused to take the medication prescribed to him by a medical doctor to treat it.
As for Safechuck, by his own admission, he did not “realize” that he had been abused until after he saw Robson on the Today Show in May 2013 being interviewed by Matt Lauer about Robson’s newly-concocted story of abuse. All of a sudden, Safechuck realized that he had been abused. He then contacted Robson’s lawyers and filed copycat lawsuits against the Estate for millions of dollars. And like Robson, he too had testified under oath that Jackson never did anything inappropriate with him. His two cases against the Estate were also dismissed.
Safechuck’s frivolous lawsuits were dismissed so early in the proceedings that significant discovery was never taken in his case, and he was able to avoid having his deposition taken and producing documents. But even in his sworn declarations in the litigations, there are clear signs that he is lying and trying to construct a false story of abuse from his vague memories of his interactions with Jackson. For example, Safechuck claimed in his sworn declaration that he was first abused on the Paris leg of the Bad Tour, which he correctly identifies as taking place in late June 1988 (as a simple Wikipedia search would reveal). He later says that after the Bad tour ended, Michael flew him out to New York “in February 1989” where Michael was performing at the Grammy’s. Safechuck states in his declaration that he was abused on this New York trip for the Grammy’s. However, the Grammy’s were not in New York in 1989; they were in Los Angeles that year (and in 1990). And Michael did not perform at the Grammy’s in 1989. However, Michael did perform at the Grammy’s in New York in February 1988, i.e., before Safechuck claims he was first abused
Richard Plepler February 7, 2019 Page 8
in June 1988. Yet he somehow claims that he was abused on a New York trip to the Grammy’s that occurred before he claims he was first abused. Safechuck’s “error” here is obviously reflective of an effort to create a story of abuse out of whole cloth. Or in other words, Safechuck is just making it up as he goes along.
In the “documentary” and in his declaration for the litigation, Safechuck spins a tale about how he refused to testify for Jackson in 2005, despite threats from Jackson and his legal team. Setting aside the absurdity of Jackson and his sophisticated legal team trying to convince an unwilling and unstable witness to testify on such a sensitive issue, Safechuck’s story is demonstrably false. In particular, Safechuck declares that Michael and his legal team called him “towards the end of the criminal trial” trying to pressure him to testify. But this statement cannot be true. Early on in the trial, the Judge precluded the prosecution from allowing evidence regarding alleged molestation of Safechuck and others because the “evidence” of such molestation was unreliable. The exceptions were that the Judge did allow testimony from certain disgruntled workers that they had heard that Michael had molested Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes. That is why those three specifically testified, and all of them denied the molestation (including Robson of course), and were subject to cross-examination by prosecutors but did not waver. And that is why Jackson and his attorneys would not have ever tried to pressure an unwilling and unstable Safechuck to testify, particularly “towards the end of the criminal trial” as Safechuck so falsely claims in the documentary and under oath.
* * *
Given all of this, which are facts readily available to anyone doing minimal due diligence, why would HBO produce a documentary based solely on the words of these two liars and director/producer Dan Reed? Why would HBO produce this documentary without even seeking comment and response from the Jackson Estate who spent years successfully litigating these false allegations with Robson and Safechuck? Is there any other artist who HBO would do this to? Is there any other artist who HBO would not even seek comment from when making such serious accusations?
Michael Jackson was subjected to a decade-long investigation by an overly-zealous, ethically-challenged, and ultimately disgraced prosecutor in Santa Barbara County, Tom Sneddon, who looked anywhere and everywhere for supposed “victims” of Jackson’s. Yet, he never found those “victims.” Indeed, the 2005 criminal trial of Jackson was a complete farce, and Michael Jackson was completely exonerated. As anyone who has studied that trial knows, the jury utterly repudiated the prosecution’s case. In both his opening and closing statements, Jackson’s attorney, Tom Mesereau, took the unusual step of telling the jury that they should acquit Jackson because Mesereau and his team had proven Jackson innocent. In other words, he did not try the case as a “reasonable doubt” case. Mr. Mesereau tried the case with the purpose and goal of proving Jackson innocent. And he did exactly that. As recently as 2017, several jurors were re-interviewed about the case in light of Robson’s about-face, and they all agreed that they would still acquit Jackson today. The jurors have been interviewed many
Richard Plepler February 7, 2019 Page 9
times; they are articulate bright people, not the gullible idiots that Dan Reed tries to paint them as in his “documentary.” Yet HBO is relying on the uncorroborated stories of two admitted perjurers over the weight of the American justice system.
Of course, the tabloid media’s fascination with Michael Jackson and telling more-andmore ridiculous stories about him is nothing new. The great American intellectual, James Baldwin, wrote about “the Michael Jackson cacophony” all the way back in 1985 when the media first began subjecting him to “the jaws of a carnivorous success.” As Baldwin saw it, Michael “will not swiftly be forgiven for having turned so many tables, for he damn sure grabbed the brass ring, and the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo has nothing on Michael.” By 1985, when Baldwin wrote those words, Michael Jackson was a 27-year-old African-American from Gary, Indiana who had “turned the tables” on the entire power structure in the music business. Leveraging his unprecedented success, Michael insisted that MTV and mainstream radio play his music and that of other African-American artists like him. Michael also insisted that his record company assign him ownership of his own master recordings. In other words, Michael Jackson, the young artist, insisted on controlling his own art and not leaving it to the whims of big business. And more still—the 27 year-old Michael did not just own his own music publishing, he had the gall to outbid other more established players in the industry for one of the crown jewels of music publishing, the ATV catalogue (which famously included the Beatles catalogue).
We suspect that even James Baldwin could not have imagined that his words would still ring so true today, over thirty years later. Michael Jackson has yet to “be forgiven for having turned so many tables” even ten years after he left this world forever. Even the once great HBO—who had partnered with Michael to immense success—is subjecting the deceased Michael Jackson to “the jaws of a carnivorous success” in death, devoting four hours of its programming to the words of two serial perjurers, whose sole agenda has been to extract money from Jackson’s rightful heirs and chosen beneficiaries.
That HBO has now joined the tabloid media’s “Michael Jackson cacophony”—ten years after his death—is truly sad. We know that HBO is facing serious competitive pressures from Netflix, Amazon and other more modern content providers, but to stoop to this level to regain an audience is disgraceful. We know HBO and its partners on this documentary will not be successful. We know that this will go down as the most shameful episode in HBO’s history. We know that Michael’s devoted fans, and all good people in the world, will not swiftly forgive HBO for its conduct.
Richard Plepler February 7, 2019 Page 10
Mr. Plepler, as you yourself said in late 2017: “A lie goes halfway around the world before the truth puts its boots on.”4 The media coverage alone of this disgraceful “documentary” has proven you right.
We would be happy to meet with HBO to discuss a solution. We have plenty of further information and witnesses that would expose these two for who they are. If HBO wants to maintain its industry position as a valid source of news and fact, it owes an obligation to the public—not to mention the deceased Michael Jackson with whom HBO had previously partnered with during his lifetime—to actually investigate these matters.
Barring that, this “documentary” will say a lot more about HBO than it ever could about Michael Jackson.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Howard Weitzman
HW/JPS
cc: Jonathan P. Steinsapir, Esq. Bryan Freedman, Esq. Eve Konstan, Esq. General Counsel, HBO Glenn Whitehead, Esq., EVP, Business & Legal Affairs, HBO
10386.00347/618197

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 23 febbraio 2019, 9:53

King Jordan Radio - Michael Jacobshagen ,MJ's Freind ,Author Will You be my Freind

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/kingjor...u-be-my-freind

As a child Michael Jacobshagen spent time on the move with Michael Jackson. He met Michael Jackson the first time 1995 in Paris, the beginning of a friendship that stretched over years. They visited the famous Circus Krone in Munich, stayed 1998 two weeks in that city, went shopping and spent private time together in hotel suites and elsewhere. When Michael Jackson roamed Europe on his legendary 1997 History Tour, he invited the 13 year old Michael Jacobshagen time and again to various cities his concerts took place in. Now, 16 years later, Michael Jacobshagen lets other fans participate and talks for the first time in detail about his marvelous experiences with Michael Jackson in a profoundly open and personal manner. Among the stories: how they became friends in Munich, played hide and seek, threw water balloons to the fans outside and went on shopping tours.




https://globalnews.ca/news/4987861/mich ... 5wsdy5qMq4
Michael Jackson estate sues HBO over documentary

By Katie Scott
NOTE: This article contains sexual and offensive language and may be triggering for some readers. Please read at your own discretion.

The estate of Michael Jackson sued HBO and parent company Time Warner on Thursday over a documentary about two men who accuse the late pop superstar of molesting them when they were young boys.
Jackson’s estate says the film, Leaving Neverland, violates a 1992 contract to air a Jackson concert.
The lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court alleges that by co-producing and airing Leaving Neverland, as HBO intends to do next month, the cable channel is breaching a deal to not disparage the singer.


The decades-old contract allowed HBO to air Michael Jackson in Concert in Bucharest: The Dangerous Tour and included language that the channel would not disparage Jackson at any future point.

“In those non-disparagement provisions, HBO promised that ‘HBO shall not make any disparaging remarks concerning Performer or any of his representatives, agents, or business practices or do any act that may harm or disparage or cause to lower in esteem the reputation or public image of Performer,'” the complaint states.

“Other provisions in the Agreement require HBO to notify and consult with Jackson and Optimum Productions if it wishes to air additional programming about Jackson.”

According to the suit, Leaving Neverland implies Jackson molested children on the very tour that the concert footage came from.

“It is hard to imagine a more direct violation of the non-disparagement clause,” the suit says, which asks the court to order arbitration and says damages could exceed $100 million.

The lawsuit notes in its opening sentence that “Michael Jackson is innocent. Period,” and goes on to recount the criminal investigation and 2005 trial in which Jackson was acquitted, highlighting the conflicting statements through the years of [Wade] Robson and [James] Safechuck, who are described as “admitted perjurers” in the suit.

“In 2005, Michael Jackson was subjected to a trial — where rules of evidence and law were applied before a neutral judge and jury and where both sides were heard — and he was exonerated by a sophisticated jury. Ten years after his passing, there are still those out to profit from his enormous worldwide success and take advantage of his eccentricities.”

Both men told authorities that Jackson did not molest them, later claiming they were abused in lawsuits filed after the singer’s death and in graphic detail in Leaving Neverland.
“To summarize, HBO profited off the Dangerous World Tour by airing a concert from the tour and promoting Michael Jackson’s talents,” the complaint continues. “Now, HBO is profiting off the Dangerous World Tour by airing a ‘documentary’ that falsely claims Michael Jackson was abusing children on the same tour. It is hard to imagine a more direct violation of the non-disparagement clause.”
It also reiterates the estate’s position that it was irresponsible for the film not to include any defence of Jackson from those who knew him or further fact checks of the men.

“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,” the lawsuit states. “Michael may not have lived his life according to society’s norms, but genius and eccentricity are not crimes.”
HBO responded with a statement saying its plans to air Leaving Neverland remain unchanged.

“Despite the desperate lengths taken to undermine the film, our plans remain unchanged,” the statement reads. “HBO will move forward with the airing of Leaving Neverland, the two-part documentary, on March 3rd and 4th. This will allow everyone the opportunity to assess the film and the claims in it for themselves.”
After the estate wrote a letter earlier this month filled with their concerns about the documentary, HBO said: “Dan Reed is an award-winning filmmaker who has carefully documented these survivors’ accounts. People should reserve judgment until they see the film.”
Jackson’s nephew Taj Jackson sent out a series of tweets on Feb. 21 after news of the lawsuit spread.

“For those late to the party… here’s Wade Robson’s email to me about attending my uncle Michael’s memorial in 2009. His whole family went,” he tweeted, with an email from Robson attached.


Taj Jackson
@tajjackson3
For those late to the party... here’s Wade Robson’s email to me about attending my uncle Michael’s memorial in 2009. His whole family went.
10:44 PM - Feb 21, 2019



Taj Jackson
@tajjackson3
Omg. My old text messages with Wade from 2009 just came back on my phone. I’ve been trying to access them forever. I feel like a higher power is intervening
Receipts coming once I blur out his old number.
Facts don’t lie. People do.

“Wade Robson’s text conversations with me in 2009. Thank God they came back to my phone. This is definitely a gift from above. Here are the screenshots. And people wonder why we are so mad about these false allegations. Media are you listening?

He began to tweet screenshots of his old conversations with Robson, dating back to July 5, 2009.

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine

Immagine
“And the film we are talking about was Code Z, which was a zombie tribute to my uncle Michael that I directed,” he tweeted, adding context to his text message conversation with Robson.

Immagine
The film premiered in January at the Sundance Film Festival, where its subjects Robson and Safechuck received a standing ovation and took questions afterward along with director Reed.

Reed is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

The first installment of the four-hour documentary will first air on HBO on March 3, with the second half airing the following night. Britain’s Channel 4 will air it around the same time.

— With files from the Associated Press

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 23 febbraio 2019, 21:21

Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts
@DanReed1000 has Wade Robson in #LeavingNeveland say Michael gave him his Bad gloves like a perverse gift, but didn't have room in 4 hours to say he bragged about it on VH1 special and later auctioned them for cash before suing for $$$$
Immagine







extraterrestrial‏ @nonamejustheree
"I was forced to testify"
Immagine

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 24 febbraio 2019, 11:41

Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts
Wade Robson at 2009 Janet Jackson VMA tribute to Michael wearing the Bad gloves so he could "feel something physical from him" and "feel that much closer to him." Same gloves he auctioned off 2 years later. This is an opportunist, not a "brave victim."








MJ@MJJ_Legion
IMPORTANT: #MJFam, the reason HBO/Channel 4 and others worldwide are airing #LeavingNeverland is primarily for one reason: RATINGS. HBO in particular is struggling to keep up with competitors and they are desperate to make this mockumentary a huge ratings success.
3:14 AM - 24 Feb 2019







Mimi‏ @bleugangsta
Dear @danreed1000,
Please explain.
Immagine







“Yes, I would leave my child with Michael Jackson.” - Whoopi Goldberg @WhoopiGoldberg








Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson

Where’s the balance/dissenting voice?

*Nobody* at LA Times finds it remotely suspicious that two men with a $1billion motive to lie literally cannot tell their story twice in a row without changing it?

Seriously?

It’s a newspaper. It’s meant to be staffed by *journalists*.








Justice for The Falsely Accused‏ @JuliaBerkowitz1
THREAD: Australian media is now going crazy with putting all these Hard Copy refugees on various shows to slander Michael Jackson. So let's have a thread about who these people are. Because the media just won't fact check anyone these days, so we will.

The people I have seen appear on these shows are: Charli Michaels, Adrian McManus, Michael Jacobshagen and Diane Dimond. It looks like Australian media is recycling 30 year old Hard Copy stories now.

Charli Michaels was a security guard at Neverland until MJ fired her in 1992. She never claimed anything until Diane Dimond's Hard Copy didn't offer her money for a story. She was a particular favorite of Dimond since she featured her on three episodes.

Michaels also filed court documents in connection with a lawsuit filed by five other former guards against Jackson for unfair dismissal. The lawsuit was eventually dismissed by the Court.
The story she came up with featured the Robsons. However in a 2016 e-mail exchange that was found out about by the Estate in discovery during this current Robson case, Wade's own mother, Joy Robson refuted Charli Michaels' story! The e-mail that Wade wrote to his mother:
Immagine

The answer of Joy Robson: "Wow. None of that is true." The rest of the answer is cut off and when Joy Robson was asked about it, she said she couldn't find the rest of the e-mail, neither could Wade present it.
Wade nevertheless included this story in his complaint despite of his mother telling him it was not true - which shows how dishonest he is.

It also shows that Charli Michaels is simply not credible. She is one of those people who came up with stories about inappropriate behavior by MJ to children when they were paid for it by Hard Copy. In 2005 the prosecution planned to put her on the stand, but then they declined.

Some more information about Jacobshagen. This post was made about him in 2013. Even before he made any allegations fans called him out on his BS.
Immagine

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 25 febbraio 2019, 7:53


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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 25 febbraio 2019, 10:29

TheWigSnatcher‏ @TheWigSnatcher1
Replying to @ST_Culture @JonathanDean_
FYI we just proved the movie is staged, with knowledge from the director @danreed1000 and @HBO when Wade Robson "burns" supposed "Jackson gifts" in the film- IT IS A FAKE SCENE. He sold those items for big $$$$$$. This whole thing is FAKED. A DISGRACE.






Reya M‏ @JacksonsLegacy
Thank you Tom Mesereau. God bless you. He never turned his back on Michael and still defending Michael in new 60 Minutes Australia show cause he knew the Truth. Mesereau is a Man of integrity and ethics.





Keya Morgan‏ @KeyaMorgan
Michael Jackson also touched me many times. He touched my heart and he touched my soul with his beautiful music & dance. He was the greatest musical genius of all time.






"He's attacked even in death, by people who want money" Tom Mesereau regarding #MichaelJackson ... "The Love of Money, IS the root of all evil" . Nothing truer has ever been spoken





https://blogsbybolen.wordpress.com/2019 ... n/?sfns=mo





Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson
They then claim this sleazy TV show is the first time a Jackson accuser has been allowed to speak out in detail.
Erm... except the five-month trial, where an impartial jury unanimously acquitted Jackson on all charges. Oh... and the two grand juries which both refused to indict.






hey look its‏ @DirtyDamfino
How much money does Wade blow through that he can make over $100,000 selling MJ memorabilia, then over the course of 2 years, lose directing jobs, beg the Estate for a job, have his wife threaten to leave him over money stress, and then somehow afford to sue the Estate for money?







Keya Morgan‏ @KeyaMorgan
Wade claims he was raped "every day" by Michael Jackson for many years. Really?? Every day?? For that many years?? And he always went back? I wonder how MJ found time to sing or work he was so busy raping Wade every day...








Lightbringer from mjjcommunity took 4 hours to make this transcript - thank you. Sharing it so more people know what is happening.
OK folks, I took 4 hours of my time to make a transcript of what was said on 60 minutes australia interview with Adrian McManus - SINCE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO GIVE THEM CLICKS AND WATCH THE VIDEO!

There may be some mispelling since I rushed it:

I am so angry at that idiot that I dont find words to describe it. She has seen nothing concrete, if anything at all and they are putting on a show based on her lies and ASSUMPTIONS. DESPICABLE! I just want to cry, these horrible persons just ruining Michael, I feel worse than in 2005 even :-(

I need to rest now, my head is spinning from writing the transcript.....


----

Host: She know the life of the star too well, after cleaning up for him, for 4 years.

And tonight for the first time, tells us what the maid saw:

Adrian: I think he was starting to realize maybe I was catching on, because I got a call from him, he called me on mothers day, it was a sunday morning at my home. He said I want to ask you something and I said yeah OK. I kid you not, he asked me about 8 times, what do you kow? Mr.Jackson I do not know what you want me to tell you. What do you know Adrian?

Host, that was the question, what do you know Adrian?

Adrian What do you know? I was starting to get really really frightened. I was scared to hell, I was terrified of him.

Host: Adrian was once a trusted member of Michael Jacksons inner circle. Now she is his accuser. From 1990 to 1994, she was his housemaid, with intimitate access to the inner sanctum of the most famous person on earth.

Host: Its often said that he could be a very generous man when he wanted to be, did you find that? There was some different sides to him, there was a kind side, and there was a dark side, and I feel that he was manipulator and I feel that anybody that come in contact with him, he destroyed them! I´ve been destroyed!

Host: And these accusations are not being made by Adrian alone. New explosive allegations by two men, who were once very close and very loyal to the singer, claims they were abused as children, and there familys exploited in the worst possible way. So now why, whats driving these claims. Was Michael Jackson really a harmless troubled genious, or a cold calculating predator?

Host: Adrian is nervous, during the drive through Santa Ines valley to her old place of work. She has not been back to Michael Jacksons neverland ranch in 20 years.

Host. Just coming up this road gives you anxiety?
Adrian: Its kind of like facing your nightmare, you know.

Host: The singers fans still flock here to get a glimpse of their idols refugee. But for Adrian, its far from a happy place. Up for sale the 67 million dollar, neverland remains empty and off limits to visitors. A place frozen in times from when Michael Jackson ruled the world. From child prodigy to moonwalking megastar. There was no artist like him before, or since.

Host: When you started working at neverland, what was it like?

A: There were rules, alot of rules you had to follow! You dont stare at him, you dont ask him for an autograph, you do what he tells you to do, you dont question him.

Host. Within 3 months of becoming a member of the team, she begun cleaning Michael Jacksons bedroom.

Host: Michael Jackson must have trusted you?

A: Yeah, he told me I was excellent. I did tell him, maybe I am not the right person for you. And he said, "no Adrian your excellent, loyalty means alot to me, you could be with me forever.

The first time I cleaned his beedroom, I did not even know where to start.

Host: Was he the kind of rockstar that would just drop everything behind him and let you pick up?

A: Yeah, it was like that.

Home videos from the time, captured the singer relaxing at neverland. It was a place to live out his fantasies. And he shared the fun with the childrend he surrounded himself with.

What was the first thing for you, what made you first suspect that Michael Jackson had an unhealthy interest in children?

A: I noticed that were a lot of little boys, that all would hang around there, you would not see little girls, and I eeh knew the little boys were there. When they would arrive, they would put their clothes in a suitcase in his room. I started realizing, thinking, wondering, when was taking baths with them or sleeping in his bed.

Host: With sleepings its sleeping?

A: Yeah.

Host: You are talking about about the WORST KIND OF SLEEPING WITH CHILDREN?

A: Yeah, I know the truth, I was there. And I when I would go in the next day, there little boys underwear, either on the floor with Michaels or they were in the jacuzzi.

Host: So you were suspicious as soon as you saw that?

A: Yeah, I got suspicious and then I would also find underwear in his bed. I find undwerwear that were mens briefs in the walking closet, and they were, I dont like saying this, they were like cringy hard with yellow stains all over them. I did not know who they belonged too, because the little boys started wearing MIchaels briefs. And they would live their underwear in his drawer.

Host: The more adrian saw, the more convinced she was a predator. A feeling she says were shared by other staff at neverland. There was alot of vaseline at neverland, sometimes it was found in the golf cart, when Michael Jackson would take off with the boys.

Host: Vaseline?

A: Yeah, vaseline. And there was alot of vaseline in Michaels bedroom. It was actually all over the ranch.

Host: Is there possible an innocent explanation to that?

A: I dont think so.

Host: What disturbed Adrian the most was the way the popstar would be physical with the kids who were intrusted to his care.

A: They were sitting on his lap, the kids, I just saw alot of maybe fondling, him rubbing his his hands in the kids hair. Eeeh, kissing them.

Host: When you say fondling?

A. Hugging, kind of patting them...

Host: Patting them were?

A: Kind of by their rear end. I dont think it was approriate because it was not his children you know. I just did not think it was right.

Host: Did you talk to anyone about it?

A: You know, I signed up confidentilality agremeents, and I was already conditioned and programmed, you dont question it. We were told, stay away from the family. You are just maid doing your job.

Host: Would you think 14 years later this would all be repeated?

Thomas Mesereau: I would never have imagined such a thing would happen. I just still have trouble comprehending it.

Host: The lawyer Tom Mesereau means the latest allegations are claims of oppurtunists, out to make a buck.

Thomas Mesereau: I cant get over it. I just dont put any credibility to it to any of this, I just dont.

Clip from 2005:
Thomas Mesereau: Justice was done, the man is innocent, he always was."

Host: in 2005, he helped clear Jackson of child molestation charges. And defends the singer to this day.


Thomas Mesereau: I am 100% convinced, Michael never abused a child, never harmed a child, certainly never molested a child, I think this is hogwash.

Host: Are you on any sort of retainer from the Jackson estate?


Thomas Mesereau: No I am not a retainer at all (looks disgusted by the question)

Host: So no one is paying you money to say nice things about Michael Jackson?


Thomas Mesereau: No, I will always say he was a nice person, he was, he was one of the nices people I ever met.

Host: But you of all people know the smoke and fire argument? Is there any fire?


Thomas Mesereau: There no fire here whatsoever.


He was enourmous, it shouldnt have been king of pop, it should have been god of pop, emperor of pop. Charisma is not even word he had on people, I was caught up, everthing around him was a fantasy.

Host. Jamie Would is an old school entertainment reporter, who followed Michael Jacksons career from the start. She regarded Jackson as the ultimate creating genious. But also saw a dark side, I could not help but observe, what a spoiled king of pop he was. How he used his fame and power, in very loving and very childish, and mean ways.

Host: Jamie remembers at the height of Jacksons fame, it was easy for starstruck families and their kids to be drawn into the singers magical world.

Host: Surrounding himself with children, did not you find that unusual?

J: We did not find that unusual, he tried to be the piper, when I was around him, there was groups, some in costume, some just regular kids, following him. And it just seemed like a comfort for him, his explanation was he did not have a childhood. Yes, did it seems strange, did it seem eccentric, yes. But that eccentrity let get away with much, because its Michael.

Host: In the 1990s busloads of children would be invited to neverland to enjoy the themepark and the zoo. But Jacksons maid Adrian, says there was always a lucky few who seemed to receive special attention. Young boys like child actor M.Culkin. Who she says she saw being toucher innapropriately by the singer.

Host: You are on record, you are on public record, court record talking about M.Culkin. Do you stand by that story?

A: I stand by what I said in n my deposition, yeah. I think its best to you just leave it at that.

Host: Because M.Culkin is saying its prepostrous, doesnt he?

A: Yeah:

Host: He denies it to this day.

A: He does

Host: But you say it did happen?

A: I say, I saw what I saw.


Host: M.Culkin has always supported Michael Jackson, and denies the singer ever molested him. But back in 1993 another of Jacksons young male friends turned against him. 13 year old Jordan Chandler accused Jackson of sexually abusing him during sleepovers at neverland,

Host: Did you ever see Michael Jackson molest Jordan Chandler?

A: I saw some stuff that I did not think was approriate between Mr.Jackson and Jordy.

Host: What sort of things did you see with Jordan Chandler?

A: Michael kissing on him, Michaels hands very close Jordans crouch. It was terrible to see.

Host: Police launched an investigation into the abuse allegations an Jordan Chandlers family accouned they were preparing a civil case, but despite her strong suspiciouns to the contrary, in a sworn deposition said she had never seen Jacksn molester children.

A: I was scared to say anything bad about Mr. Jackson. And then uuuh, after that after I did the deposition. Probably 30 days after, Michael called my at my home.

Host: She claims Michael demanded to know what his private maid had told investigators about his behaviour. Adrian found herself in a hard position.

A: I did not think I was supposed to do that, I was worried about that, but then I thought you better do it, so I did it. And then one day in the afternoon, he came up to me and said Adrian, this is for you, he handed me a little index card, that was like stapleds on the side, and it said, thanks for everything!

A: I opened the envelope and it was 300$. I covered for him he paid me 300$.

Host: He was buying your silence for 300$

A: Yeah.
---

Michael Jackson fired back his accusers, in a live televised announcement from neverland.

Michael Jackson: "There has been many disgusting statements recently concerning allegations of improper conduct on my part. These statements are totally false, dont treat me like a criminal, because I am innocent."

A: I remember that, I was working there the day that video was shoot.

Host: It was 1993. "Dont treat me like a criminal, because I am innocent" Does that bring back strong memories?

A: It takes me back to that day, it makes me mad that I had to be involved in something like that. Why me?

Host: So you dont believe that statement from Michael Jackson one tiny bit?N

A: No.

Host: Jackson was never charged with molesting Jordan Chandler, but the young boy and his family received a 20$ dollar settlement from the singer. It led to intense critisism that Jackson was buying the silence of his accuser of his victims.


CLIP from Diane Saywer interview:

Diane: Did you ever sexually fondle, have sexual contact with this child or any other child?

Michael: No, never, I could never harm a child or anyone. Its not in my heart, its not who I am, I am not even interested in that.

Host: After Jackson paid millions to settle the case with Jordan Chandler, things changed for the worst for the workers at neverland. Adrian claims she and other staff were victimized by Michael Jacksons security guards, because they knew too much.

A: I was threatened, his bodyguards, told me that if ever came up on TV they could hire someone and take me out. Slice my neck and they would never find me body.

Host: And you believed him?

A: Yeah, I did. I lived in fear for many many years.

Host: Adrian lived with the fear, and Michae Jackson lived with the rumours. But in 2003 he made a monumental mistake. By inviting Martin Bashir, to show his life at neverland. The documentary living with Michael Jackson. Jackson gave an insight of the madness that engulfed the singers every move. Michael Jackson hope it would turn his reputation around. Instead it destroyed him.

Thomas Mesereau: I think the Martin Bashir documentary was a disaster for Michael Jackson. I think he never have trusted Martin Bashir to do an objective, professional documentary.

Host: Jacksons lawyer believes it was a turning point.

Host: Why do you think that? You think the results was slanded against him?

Thomas Mesereau: I think Mr.Bashir turned it all against him, try to created sensationalism documentary, for his own game. Thats my opinion. And it was cut together in my opinion designed to make Michael look bad.

Host: What looked particulary bad was this, twelve year old Gavin Arvizo, bad been recovering from cancer, when Jackson met and befriended him. In the documentary, Martin Bashir asked the young boy about the sleeping arraingments at neverland.

After the broadcast, Michael Jackson accused Bashir of betraing his trust, and manipulating the the interview. But the fuse was lit, and police raided neverland,

Thomas Mesereau: Aprox 70 sheriffs raided neverland, searched every building, every room, for computers for documentarie evidence, anything they could find. They were relentless in their efforts to find evidence to convict Michael Jackson.

Host: And the size of that raid, what did they find?

Thomas Mesereau: Nothing in my opinion.

Host: Michael Jackson was arrested and charged. It was a humiliating downfall. That would see Jacksons dirty laundry aired before the world.

Adrian claims she has been left penniless from working 4 years for Michael Jackson as his house maid. When she left in 1994, she and 4 other employees sued the singer for wrongful termination and lost.

Host: Do you still owe the Jackson estate money?

A: Uuuum, uuuum, I probably do but you know, Michael is dead now

Host: You must know that?

A: I know that, I cant remember, it might have been, oh god it was alot of money.

Host: You were ordered to pay legal fees initially.

A: Yeah, for breach of contract, for suing Michael Jackson

Host: Which was 1.6$ million.

A. It was probably that.

Host: Just to refresh your memory.

A. Yeah.

Host: The sheriff hasnt come knocking on the door?

A: no.

Host: And you hope they dont?

A: Well, if they do they do.

Host: In a counter-suit Jacksons estate accused her of stealing belongings of Michael Jackson from neverland to sell to the media.

A: There waa scetch that I found in thrash.

Host: You sold that scetch of elvis you found?

A. I figured that if it was in thrash it did not mean anything to me, uh, I should not have did that, but I did.

Host: And the jury in the case said that you owed Michael Jackson 32 000$ for stealing and selling that.

A: Yeah.

Host. Did you pay that?

A. No I did not.

Host: Did not pay back that either?

Adrian: No


Host the credibilty of Adrian has again been questioned, because of her changing account of what she saw at neverland. Sworn evidence she gave in 1993, that she never saw any inappropriate behvaiour by Jackson to any child.

Host: At Michael Jacksons trial, you were found to have lied under oath,

Host: So admit to lying under oath?

A: OK, uum, I am going to explain that, when Michael threatened me, I was scared of what was going to happen to me, my family my son.

Host: So admit not telling the truth?

A: Yeah because he threatened me.

Host: How do we know you are telling the truth now?

A: Well, lets put it this way, I know the truth, I did not sleep very good at night. Eeehm, I am happy that I did the right thing by tring to stand up.

HHost: So admit to lying under oath?


Thomas Mesereau: You got to look very careful at peoples motives, and you got to look very carefully at the facts, you got the most famous person in the world, one of the wealthiest people in the world, perceived as very vulnerable. Okay, and people contantly exploited him throghout his life.

Host, for Thomas Mesereau so much of what was aimed at Michael Jackson, was about cash,

Thomas Mesereau: People wanted to make so much money from Michael Jackson rising so high, and then splatter. They wanted the story to have an miserable ending for him, they hope they would see him in the court room in chains, in jail clothes, without make up, without his hair fixed, without the clothing he liked to wear, they were looking forward to the final chapter were Michael *****n gets destroyed. And it was very disheartening to observe.

Host: So you think its all ties into money?

Thomas Mesereau: Yes, money, fame and publicity.

Host: Including what he views as the latest trumped up charges of child abuse

Host: Some of these accusers have not just changed their story slightly, they have don a U-TURN, is there a possible explanation in the metoo movement, where people are now more comfortable to say "look I was abused, can we please do something about?"

Thomas Mesereau:Right now if you were accused of this worst type of thing, you would almost be found guilty before you can defend yourself. I think right now we are going a little too far. And alot of people that are not honest, were trying to capatilize on this particular movement, are raising accusations that needs to be challenged.

Host: You dont think the freedom of the metoo movement can explain why the recent 2 accusers have come forward and saying Michael Jackson abused them?

Thomas Mesereau:I think the freedom of the metoo movement has allowed false accusations as well as real accusations. And we got to be really careful to make sure whats real and whats false.

Host. By agreeing to partipicate in the Martin Bashir documentary, with the innocent assistence of his 12 year old friend Gaving Arvizo had given the police all they they need to investigate. America, or the world had never seen anything like it. In 2005 Jacksons case came to court. And so the stage was set for what would be one of the biggest trials of the century. If was a showdown of a decade in making, covered by twice as many media as turned up for the OJ Simpson trial. Jackson faced 14 counts, from child molestation, to conspiring to inprison the accuser and his family at the neverland ranch. If found guilty he would face at least 20 years in prison.

Thomas Mesereau: These are horrific charges, these are ugly nasty charges, I think its worse to be charged with something like this than homocide. I really do. The 14-week trial was a circus.

Thomas Mesereau in 2005: "This case is about one thing only, its about the dignity, the integrity, the decency, the honer, the charity, the innocence and the complete vindication of a wonderful humanbeing named Michael Jackson.

Host: Hollywood jorunalist Jamie saw things very differently:

J: I saw people that were out to get MichaeL Jackson, I saw people who were angry at Michael Jackson, I also saw people who adored him, then I saw a bunch of people who I felt very deeply was lying, were getting paid, gettng influence, and I found the whole thing frightning.

Host: On which side do you think people were lying?

J: Oh, they were lying in favour of Michael Jackson, in his defense saying nothing ever happened.

Host: Adrian took the stand against her former employer:

A: It was pretty crazy. I was not shocked it was happening again, because I knew it was going to happend again. Do you know what I am saying?

Host: You thought a trial was going to happen sooner or later?

A. Sad to say it, but I did.

Wade Robson whos now accusing Jackson of abusing him, was the star witness for the defense.

Thomas Mesereau: He was very very strong in his defense of Michael Jackson. And he told me in no uncertain terms that he had not been molested, he had not been touched, he had not been abused and these claims for ridicolus. I man this man was so strongly of Michael Jackson, so powerful in his defense of Michael Jackson that is just shocks me that he as changed his story, in recent years, I just cant get over it.

Host: As the trial reached a conclusion, the strain on Michael Jackson was starting to show.

Thomas Mesereau: I watch him detoteriate physicly and emotionally during the trial, he lost weight, his cheeks became more sunken in, by verdict day he looked like just a shellow of his former self.

Host: After 8 days of deliberations, the jury reached its verdict. A unynamious decision of not guilty on all charges.

Host: That moment in the court room, then they said not guilty, how many times?

Thomas Mesereau: 14 times.

Host: 14 times. What was that like?

Thomas Mesereau: It was one of the most unique, powerful, unusual experiences in my lifetime.

Host. what did Michael Jackson say to you?

Thomas Mesereau: He said thank you, thank you, thank you! I will never forget it.

Host: For Michael Jackson it was vincidation, but the damage was done. And life at neverland would never be the same again.

Host: Were you suprised by the outcome?

A. No I was not surpised because, I think in todays world, alot of jurors, they dont like to say that a celebrity is guilty.

Host: Why not?

A: Because they think they are above everybody else, they look up to them and right away thinks, everybody want money, so celebrities can do no wrong in todays world, thats what I think.


Host: Michae Jackson may have been found guilty in the trial, but the trial and the headlines it made, damgaged his reputaion irreversibly. Never again would he hit the higs of the musical stardom, he had once known.


Thomas Mesereau: But for Thomas Mesereau, the man who defended him, Michael Jackson was the victim, not the boys who ended up in his bed at neverland.

host You dont think Michael Jackson has molested one single person?

Thomas Mesereau: Michael was a creative spirit, he danced to his own drummer, he saw things we do not see, he heard things we do no hear, he was a creative genius, he was eccentric, he was different and he was an artist. I dont believe he was a molester for five seconds.

Host: But what about the history? The number of accusers? Chandler, Arvizo, Robson, Safechuck. Are they all making it up?

Thomas Mesereau: Lets look at them individually: Safechuck swore under penatly of perjury he was never abused, Robson swore under penalty of perjury he was not abused, Arizo was not believed by the jury, 2 other people were paid of, to end litigation so he could get on with his career, if you look at evertone under a microscope, what do you really come up with, not much.

Host: Alot more than most humans face in their lifetime...

Thomas Mesereau: He is the biggest target on the planet, he was the most famous on the planet, he was immensly wealthy, he was perceived as immensly vulnerable, this made him a target throughout his life. And hes being attacked even in death by people that want money.

At neverland:

Adrian. I cant believe I am coming back here.

Host: Adrian is inisting she is telling the truth about Michael Jackson and neverland, a place she would rather forget.

Host, when you see these gates again, whats the memory?

A: Anxiety, misery, I would never go through these gates again ever.

Host: Thats how you think about all those years?

A: Misery, a bad choice that I made.

Host: If Michael Jackson was alive do you think you would speak out like this?

A. If he was alive, I would say it, I would say it to his face, I really would.You know I was 28 when I started working for him, these boys were young, if it was hard for me at that age, can you imagine how it was for them? There is another side to him and I saw it. I dont feel sorry for that, I feel sorry for the children.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 25 febbraio 2019, 21:15

Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson
Charles Thomson Retweeted
Wade’s lawsuit claims he was on course to become one of the greatest entertainers in world history, potentially earning billions, until psychological trauma from his abuse turned him into a flake nobody wanted to hire.

Immagine






Pez Jax‏ @Pezjax
I continue to see the words 'Brave' and 'Courage' used in relation to the Leaving Neverland Movie...I'm just wondering when more journalists will exhibit 'Bravery' and 'Courage' to go against the tide of the one sided narrative and use actual facts to present their pieces.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 26 febbraio 2019, 9:54

Sandy‏ @seeskaper
Safechuck claims MJ took him to Hawaii for grooming/molesting. Actually they were in Hawaii courtesy of Pepsi at a Pepsi convention as stars of the Pepsi commercial. MJ didn’t just jet him off to Hawaii to molest him. It was a Pepsi arranged trip for them to appear at the convent





Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts
Keep in mind these allegations have been around since 2013 and were tossed. All Robson and Safechuck are getting is a bigger megaphone with two shamelessly one-sided networks







https://theblast.com/michael-jackson-me ... de-robson/
Michael Jackson Accuser Tried to Sell Memorabilia Anonymously, Auction House Wouldn’t Allow It
Michael Jackson‘s most outspoken accuser symbolically burned some MJ memorabilia in “Leaving Neverland” but not before he sold off some other items years earlier … and he tried to do it on the down low.

In the final credits of the controversial documentary, Wade Robson can be seen burning a sequin glove and a jacket from the music video for “Thriller.” Director Dan Reed said in an interview with VICE that photographic evidence “suggests those were the real deal.”
Julien’s Auctions, who handled an auction of Jackson memorabilia in 2011, responded to a few fans questioning the validity of the items Robson burned. The auction house responded by saying, “Wade consigned his collection to us directly. He was the person who we paid when we sold his collection. He needed the money.”

They added, “Wade asked to remain anonymous and said that he did not want anyone to know that it was him selling it the items in 2011. But we did not agree to that and listed it as the Wade Robson collection. He consigned multiple items and wanted us to sell all items of his that had value.”

According to Julien’s website, they sold two items that Robson provided them: a pair of black spandex, fingerless forearm gloves from the music video for “Bad” and a fedora from the music video for “Smooth Criminal.”
The fedora sold for $49,920 and the gloves fetched $31,250.

It does not appear Robson ever put the “Thriller” items up for sale.

Sources close to the estate tell The Blast they believe this is more evidence that Wade Robson is doing this for monetary gain and he is not a true victim.

The estate for Michael Jackson filed a $100 million lawsuit against HBO last week for their decision to air the documentary. They argue that Jackson has a “longstanding contractual relationship” with HBO and believe there is a non-disparagement clause that was breached.

Robson and Dan Reed have both said that Robson was not paid for his appearance in the film.








Immagine






Verified account@BrytonEjames
Over our 15 year friendship, neither I or my family ever witnessed @michaeljackson conduct himself inappropriately with a minor, or anyone for that matter. & during the time I worked with Mr. Robson as a child, he never once mentioned any wrong doing...

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 26 febbraio 2019, 15:34

Lisa Reimund‏ @ya_reimund
I forgot to mention if Wade Robson is not a liar and a thief then why did he steal a letter Michael wrote to Lisa Marie? He tried to auction it at Juliens but LMP heard it was being sold and she called asking to have HER letter returned! That’s not the actions of a honest man!

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 27 febbraio 2019, 9:41

https://www.ebony.com/news/michael-jack ... ntent=link
Michael Jackson Accuser Tried to Sell Star’s Memorabilia Anonymously

One of the two Michael Jackson accusers featured in ‘Leaving Neverland’ attempted to turn a profit off of the King of Pop’s name anonymously.
By
Jessica Bennett
on
February 26, 2019
One of the two Michael Jackson accusers featured in HBO documentary Leaving Neverland attempted to turn a profit rfom the King of Pop’s name, according to The Blast.

In the final minutes of the doc, Wade Robson is seen burning a sequined glove and a jacket that were allegedly from Jackson’s Thriller video. This led fans to question the validity of the items, and Julien’s Auctions responded to those inquiries. Although the auction house made no mention of the items Robson burned, it did confirm the alleged victim attempted to sell several authentic items anonymously.

“Wade consigned his collection to us directly. He was the person who we paid when we sold his collection. He needed the money,” the company wrote.

It added, “Wade asked to remain anonymous and said that he did not want anyone to know that it was him selling it the items in 2011. But we did not agree to that and listed it as the Wade Robson collection. He consigned multiple items and wanted us to sell all items of his that had value.”
According to the Julien’s website, Robson provided it with
a pair of black spandex fingerless forearm gloves from the Bad music video and a fedora from the music video for Smooth Criminal. The items were sold for $49,920 and $31,250, respectively.

This revelation has led some fans to believe Robson participated in the documentary accusing Jackson of child molestation for financial gain; however, he and director Dan Reed claim he was not compensated.

The Jackson estate is now taking legal action against HBO over the doc and filed a $100 million lawsuit against the network last week.






Emily‏ @queensdrowse
For those people that keep attacking me over this, just remember that I knew wade and most of you claiming he’s telling the truth have never met him and weren’t there witnessing what he told me about Michael, people will do ANYTHING for money.





MJBackstage ‏ @MJBackstage
French TV @m6 is more disgusting than any other ones. they translated the title of LN and it becomes « the words from the victimes ». What the FUCK !? Where is the deontology ? Any answer @devincelles







Samar @TheMJAP‏ @TheMJAP
Wade Robson *only* remembered being 'abused' when he was dropped from an official Michael Jackson tribute 5 years after his death. Jimmy Safechuck *only* remembered when Wade remembered.
They then tried to sue the MJ Estate for multiple-millions of dollars. With the same lawyer!






Samar @TheMJAP‏ @TheMJAP
Their case was thrown out of court with the judge saying "there's no way anybody can take this seriously"

They have appealed.

So they have a MASSIVE financial motive in convincing people Michael Jackson molested them.

Even after denying he did any such thing while UNDER OATH.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 27 febbraio 2019, 15:33

Charles Thomson Retweeted Nihal Arthanayake
The judge ruled that Wade Robson had lied in his witness statement to such an extent that 'no rational fact-finder' could believed his account, so threw out the entire statement and refused to even consider it.









Bella‏ @bellapopov
Bella Retweeted CBS This Morning
Disgusting to taunt the family with not having seen the film when they haven't been allowed to.


Charles Thomson Retweeted Bella

Not to mention extremely disingenuous. The family may not have seen it but the Estate has. And we all know people who've seen it by now. I know &have spoken to three people who've seen it. It's widely known that the show contains no corroborative evidence. Just allegations.








Justice for the falsely accused.
Oprah is not new to cheerleading witch hunts.

Immagine






Charles Thomson
He’s told at least four directly contradictory stories about why he testified for the defence in 2005. And he has told directly contradictory stories about when he first realised he’d been abused.
His story in the TV show directly contradicts his story under oath in his lawsuit.








Verified account @TherealNihal
Replying to @CEThomson
So why didn't he come forward to offer his testimony to defend MJ? He surely could have done that.

Charles Thomson Retweeted Nihal Arthanayake
He wasn't asked. The prosecution never sought to enter any evidence that Safechuck was molested, so there was no cause for the defence to ask him to testify in rebuttal.

DeeJay‏ @Mizerygutz
Replying to @TherealNihal @CEThomson
He didn't have to the judge ruled early on that character witnesses would not be allowed. The only people that testified were directly involved with the allegations. The judge didn't even allow in Larry King who heard accusers lawyer say the family were only after money.

Charles Thomson Retweeted Nihal Arthanayake
His testimony would only have been relevant as 'character evidence' but Jackson opted not to mount a defence based on character. Many people offered to give character evidence - from Stevie Wonder to Donald Trump - but the defence never used them. It fought & won on the evidence.








Verified account@DEADLINE
BBC Two Explores The Rise And Fall Of Michael Jackson With Journalist Jacques Peretti https://deadline.com/2019/02/bbc-michae ... um=twitter …



Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson
Charles Thomson Retweeted Deadline Hollywood
Jacques Peretti has made two prior TV shows about Michael Jackson, both of which were riddled with factual inaccuracies & one of which used a NAMBLA supporter who was proved in court to have sold lies about Jackson as a source, without mentioning his NAMBLA support or court case.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 27 febbraio 2019, 21:33

SAM @SurefireMJ
Replying to @ForrestW @Slate
Which version of Wade’s allegations are we supposed to believe here? Furthermore, have any of you even begun to investigate the fake burning scene at the end?! Why would a ‘victim’ fake such a scene?!

Immagine

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 28 febbraio 2019, 9:46

Immagine









Ivy Retweeted
Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts
Chicago Tribune:"It’s unashamedly one-sided"..Slate: "But several critics have already noted the gaps in Leaving Neverland, with Entertainment Weekly calling it “woefully one-sided.” Chicago Sun-Times "we’re hearing from only one side, again and again."




Phonchrist‏ @Phonchrist
The @breakfastclubam expose Wade Robson lies.
"The documentary is trash"





MJJJusticeProject Retweeted hey look its
Dan Reed was shocked to see the "Sustained" response from the Michael Jackson Global fanbase.... Man.. YOU ain't seen nothing yet!! Your #LeavingNeverland Fiction will fail. You picked the wrong DEAD celebrity to sh*t on.
Immagine








Marina Ivanova‏ @marinapreslava
Bella Farkas:''Now I'm here! If it were not for Michael Jackson, we would not be talking. Michael is to me as my second father and I will be grateful to him as long as I live. All charges against him are false! Just leave him alone. ''
Immagine










MJsLegacy‏ @MichaelJsLegacy
"The allegations surrounding Michael Jackson largely faded over the last decade for a reason...the more people looked into the Jackson allegations, the more evidence vindicated him." Forbes
Immagine








RazörFist‏ @RAZ0RFIST
Oprah on Michael Jackson:
"Every time I left his presence, I wished I could be his friend"
@Oprah on Harvey Weinstein's casting couch:
"This is just how it is if you want to get ahead in Hollywood."
Immagine






https://medium.com/@lrixwoods/the-new-l ... 9e2193f818
The New Lynching of Michael Jackson: Dan Reed’s Leaving Neverland May, In Fact, Leave Blood on Many Hands
By: Linda-Raven Woods

America has a long and sordid history of lynching or unfairly convicting African-American men based on the false allegations of white accusers. The names known to history echo loud and long — Robin White, Emmett Till, Charlie Weems, Ozie Powell, Clarence Norris, Andrew and Leroy Wright, Olen Montgomery, Willie Anderson, Haywood Patterson, Eugene Williams (the latter nine known collectively as “The Scottsboro Boys”) to contemporary names such as Vincent Patton, still serving time in Angola Prison despite the fact that his white accuser later confessed that “all black men look alike” to her and therefore she could not even say with certainty that Patton had raped her. And these cases do not even begin to include the many whose names have long been lost to history; those who paid the ultimate price for the paranoid fears of a Jim Crow-era America. “We currently live in a world of fake news and alternative facts,” wrote Martinzie Johnson in an excellent think piece titled “Being Black in a World Where White Lies Matter.” Martinzie then states, “white lies have tangible consequences.”

Martinizie wrote this piece a few days after a bombshell confession by Carolyn Bryant, the young white woman whose accusation of Emmett Till fifty-two years prior resulted in the 14-year-old boy being kidnapped from his uncle’s home and murdered by her husband and brother-in-law. It took half a century for Bryant to finally admit to biographer Timothy B. Tyson that“nothing that boy did justified what was done to him.”

The current hype that has been built around Leaving Neverland, a film directed by Dan Reed and funded and distributed by HBO in the U.S. and Channel 4 in the U.K., may appear deceptively at first as an important film for the #MeToo era, highlighting the alleged sexual abuse that Michael Jackson inflicted on two young boys who idolized him and fell-by grand and parental design-into his circle. At least, that is according to the hype that has been drummed up around it. But a closer look reveals many disturbing reasons to argue that this agenda-driven film has little to do with either journalistic integrity or concern for sexual abuse victims. Instead, there are many justifiable reasons to argue why this film is simply a new twist on the age-old concept of lynching a black man based on white lies. The fact that it is a black man who also just happened to be one of the most beloved and powerful figures in entertainment is, of course, the very matter at the heart of the film’s controversy, along with the fact that we are into the tenth anniversary of his passing. At a time when Michael Jackson’s life should be the subject of fond remembrances and reflections on his artistic legacy, we instead get this, the equivalent of a posthumous, 21st century lynching based on nothing but the uncorroborated testimonies of two men whose civil case against his estate has already been dismissed, not once but twice.

Why is the “woke” crowd so determinedly asleep at the wheel on this? And an even more troubling question: Why are so many of the most influential journalists in the U.S. and U.K. enabling it? Dan Reed’s controversial film has indeed accomplished one positive goal even before its scheduled broadcast, although it may not be the goal he intended.

For sure, the film has helped shed much needed light on the underbelly of #MeToo, revealing some startlingly dark truths about who the movement is designed to protect-and who it is willing to sacrifice.

But first, let’s back up and look at the key players in this drama. We have Michael Jackson, whose story has already passed into the realm of an American mythical figure, a poor black kid who worked his way up from nothing to become one of the most legendary musical figures of all time. This was a man who worked non-stop from the age of five to build his legacy. In the 45 years of his life that he gave to the public, he managed to break records, to achieve what few black artists before him had done (including owning, at one time, half the Sony-ATV catalogue), and to build a legacy that is intricately woven into the fabric of U.S. pop culture. But beyond that, he became a world icon in a way that only a very few American artists have achieved.

This is all a long way of saying Michael Jackson worked hard — damn hard — — to build what he achieved. And before we start trying to dismantle that legacy based on nothing but the words of two white men who joined his long list of hangers-on, we’d better be looking long and hard at the facts. That is, if we want to be able to live with ourselves in the aftermath.

But herein lies at least some of the problem. Most who have already followed the story to any degree are already at least superficially aware that there are inherent issues with the claims of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, the two subjects of this documentary. It is widely known, for instance, that Wade Robson-as a 23-year-old adult- testified in Jackson’s defense at his 2005 trial, swearing under oath and penalty of perjury that nothing sexual ever happened between them. But the inconsistencies, as well as problematic and ever changing timelines in their stories, goes much deeper.

On February 7 2019, the estate of Michael Jackson sent a strongly worded letter to HBO CEO Richard Plepler, followed by another a couple of days later to Channel 4 CEO Alex Mahon. The letter to HBO outlined, in painstaking 10-page detail, the long, problematic history of Robson’s and Safechuck’s claims (coming from attorneys who have spent the better part of the last six years battling these very allegations in court), while the letter to Channel 4 specified that the program is in direct violation of the channel’s guidelines for ethical journalism, citing a clause which states that any program making “significant allegations” must allow “those concerned” to be “given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond.” Both letters were explicitly detailed, powerful complaints against the two accusers, highlighting the many various flaws and inaccuracies with their stories. Collectively, they revealed a dark history of two opportunists who took advantage of Jackson’s generosity and friendship.

Interestingly, what Dan Reed chose to leave out of his film is as interesting as what he chose to leave in. While I have not seen the film, I know sources who have, and who have been able to describe to me in detail what it represents. It is, quite frankly, a one-sided film in which only two voices are heard-that of Robson and Safechuck. Now, let’s make an analogy. Suppose you had to decide a court case based only on hearing the prosecution’s case presented? Suppose there is no defense, no cross examination, no presentation of exculpatory evidence, no opening statement and no closing argument? You would no doubt find the story as presented only through the voice of the prosecution and their witnesses quite compelling. It is only under cross examination that those stories often start to crumble, raising what we might call reasonable doubt. And it is only through exculpatory evidence that we can actually weigh an accused person’s guilt, or lack thereof.

Leaving Neverland is essentially the equivalent of sitting through a four-hour testimony of two prosecution witnesses offering their sales pitches, without benefit of cross examination. Entertaining? Possibly, if you consider four hours’ worth of extremely graphic descriptions of sexual acts against children entertaining. Truthful? Hard to say, except we know the track record of the accusers. Fair or ethical? Absolutely not, especially given that the accused subject of the film is deceased.

Which brings us back to Channel 4’s weak defense when confronted by the estate. Their claim is that the film contains denials Jackson made in his own lifetime. However, these would have been denials Jackson raised against the accusations made against him in 1993 and 2005. He did not have the opportunity to “deny” the accusations made by Robson and Safechuck, who waited four and five years after his death, respectively, to bring them.

As for HBO, their only response-after having it outlined for them in 10 excruciatingly detailed pages exactly everything that was wrong with the stories these two men are claiming- was that it was “powerful.” In other words, what they were actually confessing is that ratings matter more than truth, fairness, or accuracy.

This truly begs the question: Would HBO have been so quick to fund and support this project had its subject been any celebrity other than Michael Jackson? Moreover, would the immediate condemnation of the media have been as swift to rush to judgment without at least raising a question mark or a demand for vetting of the film’s accuracy? My guess is that the answer would be no.

Of course, if we raise that question, it would also be fair to acknowledge that Jackson’s legacy is one that many feel is already tainted by doubt. After all, he was accused by the parents of Jordan Chandler in 1993, and ten years later, the Arvizo allegations resulted in a grueling 5- month trial which ended in his acquittal on 14 counts. It would be understandable to have doubts and questions, as I did back in 2009 when I first began researching the allegations made against Jackson. For many, those lingering questions remained even after Jackson’s death. At the time, public sentiment largely fell into three camps: Those who always believed, unequivocally, in his innocence; those who said, “Whatever may have happened, it’s past; let him RIP” and then those few who continued, with dogged determination, to unearth his corpse and prop it up for re-trial in the court of public opinion. It may go without saying that those who are standing behind and supporting this project fall into the latter category. But unless we accept the naïve explanation that this project is all about “justice for victims,” there are bigger questions that need to be addressed: Who is really behind this? Also, why now, and what are they really hoping to gain from it?

It is astonishing beyond belief that no one in the mainstream media — not one serious investigative journalist — seems willing to raise these questions.

What many fail to realize is that Jackson became a target for a racist driven agenda. What appears, deceptively, as a case of “smoke and fire” was actually a long and quite convoluted history of “smoke and mirrors.” The first accusation grew out of a personal dispute between Jackson and the first boy’s father, Evan Chandler, when Jackson refused to finance Chandler’s trilogy of film projects. Although Jackson eventually settled that case out of court, the civil settlement did not preclude a criminal trial. Rather, two Grand Jury hearings failed to bring an indictment. However, because Jackson did settle the case, opening the door for financial gain to be made at his expense, a cottage industry of accusing Michael Jackson was thus born. Every accusation made since then, including those of Robson and Safechuck, has come down to an issue of money. It is, after all, easy to make up a convincing story, and in the case of Michael Jackson, all they had to do is study the details and patterns of previous stories. A little known fact is that Janet Arvizo consulted the same attorney who had represented the Chandlers (a pattern that has continued, with both Robson and Safechuck represented by the law firm Manly, Stewart & Finaldi ). Many of these shadesters were convinced that the best case scenario was that they might hit a financial windfall on a par with the Chandlers. But at the very least, even when they knew their bogus stories would never hold up in a court of law, they could always count on the tabloids, some of whom were known to shell out as much as six figures for any potential dirt on Michael Jackson. The 2005 case against Jackson was, in reality, an absolute travesty of justice that should never have gone to trial, another case of a family that took advantage of his generosity and then tried to “get back” when the friendship soured. However, if there was at least one positive aspect that came from it, it was the fact that this also served as the trial by jury that Jackson did not receive back in 1993. Tom Sneddon, in his gloating determination to “get” Jackson at all costs, actually reversed then current California laws against bringing in prior allegations. This meant that questions, evidence and witnesses from the 1993 case could also be introduced.

Jackson, in essence, was not only exonerated from the claims that the Arvizo family made against him, but those of the Chandlers as well. It seemed in theory, at least, that he had finally gotten the chance to fight those accusations in court just as he had initially wanted to back in ’93.

Dan Reed’s film only scratches the surface of the Chandler and Arvizo allegations, which may be understandable from a narrative standpoint if his focus is on the stories of the Robson and Safechuck families, but seems nevertheless a puzzling omission for a film whose entire context comes out of these two past sets of allegations.

What is more damning, however, is the fact that his film also only scratches the surface of the two more current claims that it is purporting to be about. The film presents only the subjects themselves telling their alleged side and their alleged stories of abuse, while purposely choosing to omit any counter narratives or rebuttal testimonies. In the Q&A that followed the film’s premier at Sundance, Dan Reed appeared to dodge this very specific question when asked.
Given the very serious nature of the allegations being waged in this film, to purposely omit any kind of rebuttal testimony (especially on behalf of a deceased individual) is beyond unethical.

While Dan Reed, HBO, and Channel 4 have continued to hide behind the mantra of the oft-repeated“let the viewer make up their mind” the film itself offers no such opportunity.

Furthermore, the film seems to purposely omit details that would obviously raise questions in the viewer’s minds regarding Robson’s motives. For example, why did Robson continue to defend Jackson and to speak glowingly of his friendship with him right up until 2013, when he was denied the chance to direct the Michael Jackson Cirque du Soleil show?
Immagine
Continued in next post.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 28 febbraio 2019, 9:58

Why did he lie, claiming under oath he had no knowledge of the Jackson estate in 2013 when, in fact, it is on record that he met with John Branca to discuss the Cirque gig in 2011? Why do they claim that Robson’s and Safechuck’s stories are completely independent of each other, when the reality is that both have been represented by the same attorneys since 2014? Why is Safechuck allowed to blatantly lie in the film about Jackson contacting him to defend him in 2005, when attorneys involved in the case have specifically stated that the decision was made that Safechuck’s testimony would not be needed, and that Jackson would not have been allowed to personally contact potential witnesses?

Why did early press releases attempt to hide the identities of the two men in question, even though Jackson’s family, the Estate, and fans who had followed this developing story for seven years had absolutely no doubt who the two men in question were? The obvious answer was a well-planned strategy to “blind side” by preventing these entities (particularly Jackson’s family and Estate) from having time to prepare an adequate response or counter strategy.

When the first letter from the Estate to HBO went unheeded, the Estate followed through on its threat and filed a one hundred million-dollar lawsuit against HBO. In that letter, there was mention of a man named Victor Gutierrez who has long been associated with Jackson’s name and has long been suspected as a “source” for the allegations made against Michael Jackson. The story goes that Gutierrez, a Chilean reporter who came to Hollywood in the mid 1980’s envisioning himself as an investigative reporter, infiltrated a number of NAMBLA meetings (and even gained membership). It was reportedly at these clandestine meetings that Gutierrez heard whispers about certain celebrities suspected of being “in the closet” pedophiles. The alleged goal of NAMBLA was to “out” these celebrities in a desperate attempt to “normalize” their cause. But there was an issue, since often these names were circulated about with no concrete proof. Rumors and innuendoes were enough. Michael Jackson was one such name that popped up, largely because at the time Jackson was cultivating his “Kid Power” image. Those within NAMBLA’s ranks who were responsible for starting and spreading those rumors failed to take into account that “Kid Power” was part of a two-fold PR plan for Jackson, 1: Because he truly and genuinely believed in the ability of children to heal the world, and 2: As someone who himself had been scarred by childhood stardom, he sought to “give back” by empowering and serving as a positive role model for children in the industry, as noted by his long-time friend and supporter Corey Feldman.
Those who speak glibly of Michael Jackson’s “obsession” with children fail to note the very fundamental, root causes of that seeming obsession, which seemed to spring deeply from his own pain and an innate desire to protect children from being exploited in the entertainment industry by the same evil forces that had exploited him. This, and nothing more, appeared to be the source of those rumors. But of all the names mentioned, Gutierrez apparently only took one under his belt to investigate further — Michael Jackson.

It is known fact that Gutierrez actually knew and consulted with Evan Chandler, at just about the same time that Chandler was growing disgruntled with Jackson’s lack of “cooperation” in funding his projects and had grown increasingly jealous of Jackson’s relationship with his ex-wife June, son Jordan, and daughter Lily.
There has also been a long suspected link between Victor Gutierrez and Rodney Allen, a Canadian man who was eventually busted for running an underage male prostitution ring in Toronto, and who was caught actually coaching his boys how to make up convincing lies about being molested by Michael Jackson. His scheme was revealed when he wrote a series of letters to Diane Dimond at Hard Copy, signed from the boy, and the follow-up investigation led to the boy confessing everything.
This story is important, as it reveals the lengths that individuals would go to in order to make up stories about Jackson where no story existed. This is, in essence, exactly how the cottage industry of making up stories about being abused by Michael Jackson has continued to thrive. Backed with this kind of knowledge, one can hardly blame his fans for speaking out against what is perceived as an obvious vendetta, or for being skeptical when such new “claims” arise.

In 1995, the same year that Hard Copy unveiled the scam in Toronto, Victor Gutierrez struck again, this time appearing on Hard Copy himself to claim he knew of the existence of a video tape that allegedly showed Jackson abusing one of his own nephews. However, when pressed, he was forced to reveal that he had no such tape in his possession. This did not stop Diane Dimond, however, from going on KABC-AM radio talk show to promote the tape, even though she had never actually seen any such tape and only had Gutierrez’s word that it existed.

Jermaine Jackson’s ex-wife Margaret Maldonado recalled getting a phone call about the alleged tape in her book Jackson Family Values:

” I received a telephone call from a writer named Ruth Robinson. I had known Ruth for quite a while and respected her integrity. It made what she had to tell me all the more difficult to hear. “I wanted to warn you, Margaret,” she said. “There’s a story going around that there is a videotape of Michael molesting one of your sons, and that you have the tape.”If anyone else had said those words, I would have hung up the phone. Given the long relationship I had with Ruth, however, I gave her the courtesy of a response. I told her that it wasn’t true, of course, and that I wanted the story stopped in its tracks.She had been in contact with someone who worked at the National Enquirer who had alerted her that a story was being written for that paper. Ruth cross-connected me with the woman, and I vehemently denied the story. Moreover, I told her that if the story ran, I would own the National Enquirer before the lawsuits I brought were finished. To its credit, the National Enquirer never ran the piece.”Hard Copy,” however, decided it would. “Hard Copy” correspondent Diane Dimond had reported that authorities were reopening the child molestation case against Michael. She had also made the allegations on L.A. radio station KABC-AM on a morning talk show hosted by Roger Barkley and Ken Minyard.Dimond’s claims were based on the word of a freelance writer named Victor Gutierrez. The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true. I’d never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.”-Margaret Maldonado, Jackson Family Values

But Victor Gutierrez’s obsession with Michael Jackson didn’t end there. In 1997, he authored a book that he claimed came from a secret diary kept by Jordan Chandler. The only problem is that no such diary ever existed! The entire book was ghost written by Gutierrez, in language that was not only suspiciously adult, but also graphically (and disturbingly) erotic, even down to its title (not Michael Jackson Was My Abuser, note, but Michael Jackson Was My Lover).
Many readers were quick to note that the book read suspiciously like nothing more than child porn erotica. It was, as it turned out, little more than a piece of NAMBLA propaganda, written with the intent of promoting man/boy love, with the added spice of throwing in the name Michael Jackson. What was even more disturbing was the fact that Gutierrez and the boy’s father, Evan Chandler, obviously collaborated on the project, as evidenced by this very crude drawing from the book in which Chandler and Gutierrez were attempting to come to some sort of mutual consensus on the appearance of Jackson’s genitalia (important to note here that, according to Ray Chandler’s book All That Glitters, Evan Chandler, a practicing dentist to the stars, had once administered to Jackson a shot of Toradol in the gluteus). Also worth noting is that these notes from Gutierrez and Chandler are speculating that Jackson was circumcised, when in fact his autopsy report revealed he was not.
In 1998, Michael Jackson brought a defamation lawsuit against Gutierrez, Diane Dimond, Hard Copy and KABC-AM. Of the $100,000,000 million he sought in damages, the court awarded $2.7 million to be paid to him directly by Victor Gutierrez. However, Gutierrez fled the country and returned to Chile, thus evading the ruling. Jackson never saw a penny of that 2.7 million.

According to the website MichaelJacksonAllegations.com, “ Many of the witnesses who testified for the prosecution at Jackson’s 2005 trial, and on whom the prosecution’s “prior bad acts” case was mostly built, were people who had contact with Victor Gutierrez prior to selling their stories to the tabloids for money…” and “ Former security guard, Ralph Chacon testified he and other ex-employees of Jackson (whom the media often called the “Neverland 5”) spoke to Gutierrez before they went to sell their story to The Star magazine [14]. Former security guard, Kassim Abdool testified that he met Gutierrez once and they had a two, three hours conversation [15]. Former maid, Adrian McManus testified that Gutierrez “was going to try to help us in our lawsuit” (not surprisingly, this includes some of the same cast of characters who have come out of the proverbial woodwork to make the rounds of tabloid interviews and TV talk shows since Leaving Neverland premiered. Adrian McManus, a former employee who had been fired for stealing from Jackson, was featured on a recent 60 Minutes Australia broadcast).

Victor Gutierrez’s role in the current movie, Leaving Neverland, cannot be underestimated, especially since it appears suspiciously that many of the claims being made by Robson and Safechuck-but especially Safechuck-originated in the book Michael Jackson Was My Lover, particularly the very specific claims of a wedding, the gifting of jewelry, alleged jealousy of specifically named female rivals,and other fabrications that were very specific to the narrative Gutierrez invented.

I could go on in this vein, indefinitely, but the truth is that getting into a detailed account of every hole in Robson’s and Safechuck’s stories would be far beyond the scope of a single article. But equally revealing is when the Robson and Safechuck family members complain in the film about all that Jackson apparently didn’t do for them. While it is true that Wade Robson won a dance competition that enabled him to meet his idol Michael Jackson, and that Jackson invited him to dance onstage during the Bad tour, the narrative starts to get a lot murkier after that. The truth is that it was Joy Robson who relentlessly pursued Jackson afterwards. Michael Jackson did not, in fact, “owe” anything to the Robson family after he left Australia in 1987, and what he did benefit to them was given out of generosity. He certainly did not “owe” it to the Robson family to give Wade a role in one of his music videos, let alone to roll out all of the perks of creature comforts. Yet, according to a source who saw the film at Sundance, Joy Robson complains bitterly in the film of having to rent a vehicle to take her son to the video shoot, and of having to live in a dumpy apartment. So here we have the families vilifying Jackson for all he “didn’t” do for them, and yet every gesture he did bestow upon them to show kindness or thoughtfulness is intentionally construed in the film as evidence of “grooming,” even down to a birthday message Jackson evidently taped for Wade because he was obviously too busy to be there to tell him in person. It becomes abundantly clear, less than an hour into this four-plus hour opus of a film, that these two families are determinedly painting Jackson into an inescapable corner of “damned if he did; damned if he didn’t.”
Indeed, the Robson family’s sense of entitlement at Jackson’s expense can be seen all the way up through Jackson’s death and beyond, from Wade’s emails tearfully begging that the Jacksons — even in the midst of their grief — accommodate Wade and his family to attend the memorial, to his revealing in a deposition that he was “hurt” he wasn’t invited to the private memorial service, and to his inflated sense of entitlement that he alone was the best candidate to direct the Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil show as late as 2012.
Less than 24 hours after Jackson was pronounced dead Robson was even pitching the producer of the show So You Think You Can Dance on a tribute that he alone was best qualified to do.

More recently, another detail from the film has been called into question. One of the final segments of the film allegedly shows Robson burning all of the items gifted to him by Jackson, including many highly prized and valuable costume items worn by the icon in his music videos. They include such items as Jackson’s iconic Thriller jacket, a sequined glove, his Smooth Criminal fedora, and other items. But, again, Michael Jackson fans have long memories, and some were quick to point out that Robson had actually sold many of these identical items at auction several years ago. Sure enough, Julien’s Auctions confirmed in a tweet that they had bought these items directly from Robson and had paid him. “He needed the money,” the tweet confirms. In an even more damning follow-up tweet, Julien’s Auctions confirmed that Robson had attempted to sell the items under cover of anonymity but that “we wouldn’t allow it.”
Juliens Auctions‏ @JuliensAuctions Feb 23
Replying to @MJ_fans_unite @TheWigSnatcher1 and 3 others
Wade consigned his collection to us directly. He was the person who we paid when we sold his collection. He needed the money.
Juliens Auctions‏ @JuliensAuctions Feb 25

Replying to @MJ_fans_unite @SeanyOkane and 4 others
We can’t provide a list, but we were told that it was all of the items that Wade had that were gifted from Michael Jackson.
Some have argued that this reveal appears to be direct proof that the entire scene was staged, with Robson apparently burning “fakes” he must have purchased for the express purpose of filming this scene. At the very least, it further calls into question whether Robson is a true victim — or an opportunist. especially considering that his consignment deal with Julien’s Auctions would have netted him several thousand dollars at a time when he was still pretending to the world to be a loyal and grieving friend.
Perhaps even more revealing was a series of tweets from Brandi Jackson, daughter of Jackie Jackson, who revealed that she’d had a 7-year-relationship with Robson. This was an important disclosure on several fronts, since it both: A: Revealed that the timeline he had given for his abuse did not add up, and B: Proved as false his claim that Jackson had taught him to hate women (in fact, turns out it was Jackson who had set Robson up with Brandi).
The bigger concern is that the media is well aware that the stories of these men do not add up. Yet, it seems, instead of raising the tough and critical questions we should be asking, most are content to ride on the cult of “victimhood,” blindly enabling any con artist who wishes to bring an accusation (ironically, this includes many of the same journalists who mocked Wade Robson early on as someone whose story seemed both coldly calculated and oddly opportunistic). Instead of asking the tough questions, the media has instead shamelessly used this propaganda piece as an excuse to wage a trial by social media against Jackson.
At first glance, Kennedy’s account, as with so many others like it from the gamut of “peer influencers” that have been given special access to the film, may seem like the sincere and gutted reaction from a genuine fan who has been left shell shocked by the film. But reading more reviews like this, one starts to notice a rather glaring and disturbing trend: Why are the stories of these men being accepted at face value — even by a presumed lifelong “fan” — without the slightest hint of question as to their actual veracity? Similar buzzwords like “compelling,” “disturbing” and “shell shocked” permeated virtually every review to come out of Sundance, to the point that it began to sound (suspiciously) as if every review had been penned by the same hand. Had they all been simultaneously conned by Wade Robson, who once even dubbed himself “The Master of Deception?”

Since the news of this film first broke, many troubling questions have arisen, both about its origins and its ultimate agenda. According to his interviews, Dan Reed first got the idea to do such a documentary in 2016. The timing is interesting because in 2016, three years had already passed since Wade Robson first initiated these claims and tried to bring his unsuccessful civil case against the Estate. In fact, the case had already been dismissed. But by 2016, Robson and Safechuck had switched attorneys and tactics, this time deciding to wage a legal battle against Michael Jackson’s companies. It was at this time that their legal team, Manly Stewart, and Finaldi began a deliberate tactic of plying the media with “leaked stories” in an effort to sensationalize the case and to allow it to play out in the court of public opinion. Most of these stories were little more than regurgitated tabloid stories from ten and even twenty years prior, but they were counting on the short memory of the public to have forgotten about them and assume them to be “new information.” The tactic was clearly an aggressive ploy to force the Estate’s hand in a cash settlement. By far the most nefarious of their schemes was the deliberate planting of an internet hoax-as sloppily concocted as it was executed-in which they sold a story to the American tabloid publication Radar Online claiming that “new reports” showed that child porn had been found at Neverland and that the discovery had been deliberately omitted from court proceedings. Their “proof” consisted of a bizarre mishmash of court documents taken out of context, old tabloid stories, and graphic illustrations. Some were from genuine art books Jackson had owned; others were complete forgeries (some came from books not even published until 2010, well after Jackson’s death; some of the images came from a renowned art exhibit in Paris from the early 2010’s; in one case, they were called out when the Canadian artist Jonathan Hobin revealed that his photograph “American Idol,” featuring a JonBenet Ramsey lookalike with a noose around her neck-used prominently in Radar Online’s original article — came from his book In the Playroom which was not even published until 2010. In all, several of the images appeared to have come directly from Google searches). Their sloppiness was ultimately their undoing, since it was revealed that some of the forged images contained notes from Robson’s and Safechuck’s legal team. It was obvious then that no one else could have been responsible for “leaking” the forged “evidence” to Radar Online.

But while the fake child porn story was swiftly debunked in the media, the damage had already been done. The lie — to quote HBO’s own Richard Plepler, ironically enough — “had already made it halfway around the world before the truth could get its pants on.”

Now we are to believe that a British filmmaker named Dan Reed, who by his own admission was never a Michael Jackson fan and had no prior interest in his music, art, or personal life, suddenly becomes keenly interested in “investigating” the allegations made against Michael Jackson. But instead of setting out to start from the ground up, by investigating the long line of sordid entanglements that go all the way back to Victor Gutierrez’s first NAMBLA meeting, he decides to go straight to the subjects of the current civil suit against Jackson’s companies and the same, corrupt legal defense team responsible for planting the fake child porn hoax! Is it coincidence that Dan Reed’s interest in this story just happened to coincide with the planting of the phony child porn story and its immediate fall-out?

At this point, we should really be wondering: Why only Robson and Safechuck, especially if the alleged purpose of the film is an expose’ on the Michael Jackson allegations? This is the same troubling question that many more discerning critics and viewers have raised since the film’s premiere. Why did Reed purposely omit interviewing any sources that would have counter balanced his chosen narrative? I understand that documentaries, by their very nature, are often partisan. Many of the best documentaries have been those that dared to make a stand on controversial topics. But we can’t just lightly brush aside the fact that accusing someone of child molestation is a very serious accusation. Such a serious accusation against a public figure-especially a beloved deceased public figure-cannot and should not be conscionably brought forth without at least vetting the sources of the information, and giving opportunity for rebuttal. In the decade since Jackson’s passing, many such documentaries have come to the fore, some of more questionable integrity than others, but all of them for better or worse have at least sought for some semblance of balance and fairness in discussing the allegations, presenting counter narratives that allow viewers to at least reach their own conclusions. Reed’s film does neither. From the outset, it is a purposely manipulative narrative that leaves room for only one conclusion that any reasonable viewer might draw. This modus operandi has been as clear from its promotion as from its content, with headlines boldly proclaiming the film as a story of “two men who were sexually abused by Michael Jackson” as if this were unequivocal truth to be accepted at face value, rather than mere allegations — allegations which, for that matter, have already been cross examined in a court of law and dismissed.

It appears evident that Dan Reed’s film has less to do with truth or artistic merit than it does with serving as yet another piece of litigation propaganda for the same corrupt defense team and defendants who knowingly leaked forged evidence to the media.

This is how HBO is promoting the documentary in its program grid. Note the deliberate lack of the word “alleged” anywhere. What is this if not carefully contrived propaganda?
Aside from Reed’s questionable motives in aligning himself with a shady legal firm and its two perjurer clients, there is the even more troubling question as to why HBO — a network known for its quality programming — has chosen to so blithely throw in the towel and put its reputation on the line for a movie that appears to be little more than a reality show soap opera of groundless allegations. Not only has HBO emerged as a co-producer of the project, it is also very obvious that the company has thrown massive amounts of money into its promotion. The film was given a last minute, “under the wire” slot at Sundance in January, despite the fact that the deadline for film entries at Sundance is in late November. Someone obviously pulled some influential strings to get the film “shoehorned” in. While it may be nothing more than a finely tuned coincidence, it certainly hasn’t escaped the notice of Jackson’s fans and other intuitive individuals that the documentary on Harvey Weinstein, Untouchable, was also set to premiere the same weekend at Sundance.
This might seem like the kind of typical paranoia that the media routinely likes to accuse of Jackson fans, but not so fast. An explosive 2017 New York Times article on Weinstein’s numerous pay offs revealed that Michael Jackson was, in fact, one of the celebrities for whom Weinstein would routinely pay gossip mongers to create stories about, in order to deflect from his own scandals. If Weinstein had no qualms about using Michael Jackson’s name twenty years ago to deflect the headlines from himself, who’s to say he is above it now? Many have noted the ironic timing of Leaving Neverland alongside Untouchable, as well as the fact that Leaving Neverland just happens to be scheduled for broadcast the same week that Weinstein’s trial begins. Coincidence? Unlike Dan Reed, I’ll leave that for you, the reader, to decide.
This now raises further problematic ethics about the film and its agenda. HBO once profited quite handsomely off Michael Jackson, given that Jackson gave HBO the exclusive rights to air his concert performance titled Live in Bucharest: The Dangerous Tour.
This was a broadcast that remained HBO’s highest rated special for many years (and has become the lynch pin for the Estate’s legal claim against HBO, since the network signed a contractual agreement at the time with Jackson promising, in exchange for being given the exclusive rights to air the performance, they would agree to not engage in any activity that would “disparage” Jackson or have cause to “lower in esteem the reputation or public image of [Michael Jackson]”.

The reasons for HBO’s possible turncoat strategy are well outlined in the Estate’s full arbitration claim. Obviously, profit and ratings are at the fore, but it seems that HBO is also willfully jumping the bandwagon on a particularly dark side of the current #MeToo zeitgeist, which is the movement’s apparent zeal for “taking down” Black celebrities while seemingly ignoring the sins — alleged or otherwise — of White celebrities.

If we pause to examine the demographics of all those involved in this current “shakedown” of Michael Jackson, the pattern emerges quite clearly. It starts with two White accusers, who take their claims to an all-White legal team already known for shady tactics. Supposedly, three years into their case, their story reaches across the pond to Channel 4 UK’s Daniel Pearl and Dan Reed (two Brits with admittedly no prior interest in Jackson or knowledge of him who, for some oddly unbeknown reason, just happen to be sitting around brainstorming ideas on “unsolved” American crime cases). Pearl’s keen interest in a story that was already thoroughly hashed out in the media more than a decade ago seems oddly peculiar, as does the smarmy glee with which he has taken to social media to predict the possible fallout of Jackson’s legacy that he envisions will result from the film.
Daniel Pearl‏ @DanielPearlC5

FollowFollow @DanielPearlC5

More

In a matter of days I predict Michael Jackson songs will be taken off radio playlists. The MJ exhibition will be closed as will the other celebrations of his life. #LeavingNeverland

The problem is that Jackson’s case wasn’t “unsolved” and is not some great, lingering mystery. He was fully vindicated in a court of law on 14 counts, as well as exonerated by two exhaustive FBI investigations. One seriously has to wonder why — with all of the many harrowing crime cases that do remain unsolved and where victims are still crying out for justice-these men decide that, no, they would rather exhume Michael Jackson’s corpse and rehash allegations that have long since been disproven.

Now let’s look at who is brought on board to produce and fund the film. HBO, whose board consists solely of one minority member, decides that the lynching of the same Black performer whom they profited from twenty years prior, when Jackson was on top of his game, is a great idea for profit and revenue. Giving a quick glance at the corporate brass of HBO, it becomes easy to see why the interests and welfare of a deceased minority celebrity may betaking a backseat to corporate profit: Out of some thirty executives, only one — Sofia Chang, an Asian — could be considered as a minority representative.

Would HBO have so willingly put their reputation on the line to fund and produce such a project on any other celebrity — deceased or otherwise — carrying such serious allegations against said celebrity, without first thoroughly vetting the source(s) of such allegations? The honest answer to this question is no. And while one might easily forgive HBO for their initial ignorance, it does not excuse their stubborn insistence on continuing to back and support this project in light of having now been fully informed, through two very explicitly detailed letters from Jackson’s Estate, the full history and record of why these two men’s court cases were dismissed. When confronted with every bit of evidence of how Wade Robson and James Safechuck have lied, perjured themselves on numerous occasions, forged evidence and have been caught in inconsistencies too numerous to count, HBO’s only response in defense was “But it’s powerful.”

From the time of the film’s “shoehorned in” premiere at Sundance, it has become even more evident that many powerful forces must be at work to ensure not only that Leaving Neverland-a surprisingly mediocre film despite all the hype — is seen by as many “peer influencer” reviewers as possible. Yet reviews such as “compelling” and “powerful” mysteriously do not jibe with less biased reviews that have raised very legitimate and concerning questions calling into account both the quality of the film as well as the accuracy and accountability of its content. Interestingly, all of the latter reviews seemed to come from independent critics, suggesting they were not part of the select elite of “blue ticks” endorsed by HBO, Channel 4 and ITV.

Almost immediately after its Sundance premiere, many reviewers rushed to their social media accounts to proclaim Jackson a “monster” and a “pedophile” while knowing full well that they were basing such lurid and serious accusations on nothing more substantial than the stories of the two men interviewed in this film. It has been pointed out that this seems to eerily reflect the same manner in which journalists attending his 2005 trial would rush out of the courtroom immediately to report on all of the salacious tidbits from the prosecution witnesses, while deliberately ignoring to report when these same witnesses crumbled under cross examination by the defense.

It Became Clear That It Wasn’t Just Sundance Patrons Who Were Getting Advance Screenings: This Was A Careful Strategic Plan To Go After The Biggest “Peer Influencers.” Yet No One In The Jackson Family Has Been Allowed To See It.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... rland.html

The utter hypocrisy and witch hunt mentality with which the mainstream media has greeted this film is, ultimately, the most disturbing aspect of all. “Hit pieces” on public figures will come and go, and this has certainly been the case with Michael Jackson. But in this case, Leaving Neverland is a travesty that should never have been made. Dan Reed claims that his movie is not about Michael Jackson, yet by his own admission the film would not have been made had it not been about Michael Jackson. Dan Reed owed it to the subject of his film to go beyond the surface of these allegations and to vet his sources. He owed it to the public legacy of Michael Jackson, to his orphaned children and elderly mother, to fully investigate the stories of Wade Robson and James Safechuck before committing them to film, and moreover, to examine and analyze all exculpatory evidence (of actual, inculpatory evidence, the film offers surprisingly none). But just because the film was made does not mean we have to be obligated to embrace or enable it. That so many prominent journalists and media talking heads have displayed the willingness to accept this film blindly at face value, without raising the much needed questions that need to be asked about its veracity, is a bigger unforgiveable travesty than the film itself. But this is exactly what Dan Reed, HBO and Channel 4 are counting on, that the current zeitgeist of MeToo and its “don’t question victims” mentality will create the tunnel vision needed to willfully blind viewers. In turn, the publicity generated by the film has allowed a second generation cottage industry of negative Michael Jackson publicity to flourish, with platforms being given to everyone from the doctor who killed him to long discredited witnesses like Adrian MacManus, the Neverland maid who Jackson fired for theft and who admitted under cross examination that she had lied about her claim to have seen Jackson and Robeson showering together. Yet now, a decade later, these same convicted felons and unreliable witnesses are being given fresh platforms and paid handsomely to tell the same discredited stories they tried to sell a decade ago. Dan Reed and Richard Plepler, as well as the executives of Channel 4, are certainly not naïve. They knew that this was the kind of smear campaign that would result from their film. It has been a carefully orchestrated strategy from the outset, with the clear end goal of diminishing the lucrative power of Michael Jackson’s brand. The logic and obvious modus operandi remains the same as it has been for Robeson and Safechuck from the outset: To force a shakedown for the Michael Jackson Estate.

The very nature of Dan Reed’s hypocrisy can be seen first hand. In a recent interview with Independent, Reed claims to have been “disgusted” by the letter from the Michael Jackson Estate to HBO that clearly broke down the many, varied reasons why Robson’s and Safechuck’s litigations did not hold up in court, claiming, “What would the Jackson estate have to say about what happened in a hotel room in Paris, in 1988, between James and Jackson? Nothing. They weren’t there.” Yet, by that same logic, Dan Reed proceeds within the same interview to state unequivocally of Jackson, He hurt a lot of people. He was cruel. He was vicious.” But Dan Reed, like the Michael Jackson Estate, was not there! Dan Reed was not in those hotel rooms in Paris, either. Dan Reed did not know Michael Jackson. He never met him, and never met Robson or Safechuck until 2017. Yet he has proceeded to weave a one-sided hit piece based on the reality he wishes to sell.


It is understandable to be moved by the power of cinema and storytelling. But journalists also have a responsibility to look beyond the camera lens. It’s one thing to be “moved” by a compelling documentary, but quite another to simply report it as if everything it contains is gospel truth. If the recent Jussie Smollett story should have taught us anything, it should serve as an important awakening of how easy it is to falsify a “victimhood” story and hijack #MeToo sympathies that should be reserved for actual victims. With the example of Leaving Neverland, this is not a case of viewers drawing conclusions after having seen a reasonable preponderance of all evidence brought to the table. Instead, they are emotional, kneejerk reactions to having just sat through hours of hearing nothing but a one-sided story, told by two witnesses with huge credibility issues, who have been given a platform for motivations that remain highly and ethically questionable.

But truth and karma does have a funny way of catching up with its worst offenders sooner or later. After Jackson’s 2005 acquittal, when the media had salivated relentlessly over the prospect of a guilty verdict and the booming cottage industry of stories they hoped they would be able to generate for years to come, the media cacophony that had rejoiced in his lynching was replaced by virtual crickets. No one, it seemed, wanted to take up the gauntlet and examine what might have been actually the story of the century: That is, to analyze exactly why the blood thirst for Michael Jackson had been so exhaustively relentless. It has been reported that only one lone journalist — in the aftermath of the 14 “Not guilty” verdicts — was brave enough to raise a timid voice and to ask the question of his colleagues, “My God, what have we done to him?”

Judging from what I have seen, when the fallout from Leaving Neverland does come, it is going to be huge, and is apt to leave a lot of lot of us asking that very same question.


To read the entire article complete with videos please click on the appropriate link.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 28 febbraio 2019, 16:13

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... thers.html
Janet Jackson does not believe that Michael ever sexually abused children, claim her brothers, as the King of Pop's nephew reveals for the first time he was molested by a different relative
•Three of Michael Jackson's brothers - Jackie, Tito and Marlon - and his nephew Taj sat down for an interview on CBS This Morning
•When asked about the silence of their sister Janet, the brothers said that both Janet and La Toya fully support Michael and do not believe he abused children
•'I think that's why my aunt Janet hasn't said anything because she doesn't want to make it any bigger,' said Taj, who said he was abused by a family member
•Taj's abuser was on his mother's side and not named, but he said that Michael helped him as he tried to cope with that abuse by sending letters
•It was also revealed by Taj, who spent many nights at the Neverland Ranch, that the sleepovers were innocent
•No one in the Jackson family has seen the HBO documentary Leaving Neverland, which will air on March 3 and 4

By Chris Spargo For Dailymail.com

Published: 15:29 GMT, 27 February 2019
The family of Michael Jackson appeared on CBS This Morning to denounce the upcoming HBO documentary Leaving Neverland, which details their brother's alleged abuse of two young boys.

Brothers Jackie, Tito and Marlon Jackson said that the two men at the center of the documentary - James Safechuck and Wade Robson - are just looking for money, and that there is no truth to any of their claims.

They said this despite the fact that none of them have even seen the film.

They also noted that sisters LaToya and Janet feel the same way but have chosen to be silent in order to minimize coverage of these allegations.



'I think there's a fear, as well, to put more energy to it and more eyeballs to it,' said Jackson's nephew Taj.

'I think that's why my aunt Janet hasn't said anything because she doesn't want to make it any bigger.'

Later in the interview Taj spoke about how he spent time at Neverland as a child and was also there for the infamous sleepovers at his uncle's house, but insists nothing ever happened that was inappropriate, let alone illegal.

He did however reveal that a different family member did molest him in his youth, and said that it was Jackson who helped
him through that difficult time.
Immagine
Taj said that the notes Robson and Safechuck got from Jackson were not love letters, but rather messages of hope that he sent to many fans and even his young newphew when he was trying to cope with his sexual abuse.

He did not identify who the individual was, just that they were on his mother's side of the family.

'My uncle gave letters like that all the time to people he cared about. And there's nothing salacious about it,' explained Taj.

He also spoke about the sleepovers at Neverland, where Jackson would sleep in the same bed as five or six young boys.

'I grew up with it, so to me it wasn't odd. To the outside world, yes, it can be odd. I'm not oblivious to what is sounds like. When you're there in the atmosphere and you're around it and are watching movies with the kids, it's innocent,' said Taj.

'I think the fault of my uncle was he just -- he didn't have that bone in his body to look at it the other way. His naivety was his downfall. That's what hurts more than anything, is knowing his innocence but knowing how the world is.'

The brothers said Jackson not having been able to experience childhood was a way to explain his behavior.
Taj, who did almost all the talking in the interview, said that Michael was fascinated with his life more than the lives of people his own age.

'I think, just knowing my uncle and spending thousands and thousands of hours with him, he would always ask us questions like what was this like, what was it like going to a birthday party, you know,' said Taj.

The family all said they are not worried about the documentary's impact, while claiming they have nothing to gain or lose from the estate of the King of Pop because they do not see any of that money.

And it is money that they believe Robson and Safechuck are after in this case.

'It's always been about money. I hate to say it, when it's my uncle, it's almost like they see a blank check,' said Tito.

'They've been taken care of their whole life. I think that's the problem. These people felt that they're owed something. Instead of working for something, they blame everything on my uncle.'

And Jackie said he does not care what these accusers have to say.

'I know my brother. I don't have to see the documentary. I'm the oldest brother. I know my brother,' said Jackie.

'I know what he stood for, what he was all about, bringing the world together, making kids happy.'

There was a bit of a tense moment after
the interview when CBS's Gayle King gave her final comments back in the studio.

'They were adamant as you see. They said that over and over and over again. Asked different ways about Michael, they all go back to we know him, the world doesn't know him the way we know him, and he would never, ever hurt a child,' explained King.

Bianna Golodryga then jumped in to say: 'I understand as a family they want to defend and protect him. One thing that stood out watching the documentary is how alone Michael Jackson seemed. You didn't see the family around him. He viewed the boys as family. That doesn't necessarily work with what they're saying.'

King seemed a bit shocked at the comment, and then stressed: 'He had a complicated relationship with his family.'
Jackson's estate is still hoping to prevent HBO from airing the upcoming documentary Leaving Neverland by hitting the company with a $100 million lawsuit.

That filing, which was obtained by DailyMail.com, accuses HBO of breaching a contract that was signed by the King of Pop back in 1992 when his Dangerous World Tour aired on the premium cable channel.

The film does this by suggesting that Jackson molested children while he was on the Dangerous World Tour.

'It is hard to imagine a more direct violation of the non-disparagement clause,' declares the suit.

It also calls the two men at the center of the documentary, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, 'admitted perjurers,' and mocks current HBO president Richard Plepler, calling him a 'failure.'

'Michael may not have lived his life according to society’s norms, but genius and eccentricity are not crimes. Nothing and no one can rewrite the facts which show that Michael Jackson is indeed innocent of the charges being levied at him by HBO in its "documentary" Leaving Neverland,' states the lawsuit, which opens with a lengthy, and unorthodox, introduction.
'No one-sided "documentary" can substitute for a real documentary, or for a trial where both sides are heard, competent evidence is presented, and witnesses are cross-examined.'

The introduction then goes after HBO, stating that the network is so 'desperate for eyeballs that its growing irrelevance to the cord-cutting generation was crystallized when its chief rival bluntly stated in its January earnings report that it considers a popular online game to be a more serious competitor than HBO.'

Robson and Safechuck are described as 'two admitted perjurers, one of whom is a self described “master of deception,” whose litigation has played out in the courts as a failed melodrama for more than five years.'

The filing goes on to state: 'With more holes in their stories than anyone can count, both view Michael Jackson, the man who they previously swore was an inspiration and did nothing to them, as a lottery ticket through accusations never brought during Michael’s life.

'They never brought these claims during Michael’s life, because they knew Michael would have held them both legally accountable for their defamation, just as Michael had held the “reporter” Victor Gutierrez—who seems to be the true author of these two men’s fictional tales—liable before a jury for millions of dollars when he falsely made similar claims about Jackson.'

The documentary is also biased and one-sided, according to the co-executors of Jackson's estate, John Branca and John McClain, who filed the suit along with Optimum Productions.
'[Producer] Dan Reed made no attempt to review the legal records from Robson’s and Safechuck’s litigations with the Estate, where the judge found that Robson had lied under oath during the litigations on key issues; and where Robson was caught red-handed hiding crucial evidence from the court, from the Jackson Estate, and even from his own lawyers,' states the court record.

'Reed even ignored the fact that these men are still pursuing claims against the Jackson Estate for hundreds of millions of dollars so they have hundreds of millions of reasons to lie.'

Robson, Safechuck and Reed are not named in the suit as defendants.

'Dan Reed is an award-winning filmmaker who has carefully documented these survivors' accounts,' said HBO in a statement.

'People should reserve judgment until they see the film.'
The two-page introduction to the suit closes by naming Jackson's children as the real victims in the case.

'The real victims here are the primary beneficiaries of the Estate, Michael’s three children, who are forced to endure this attack on their father, ten years after they buried him, and when he has no chance to respond,' states the lawsuit.

'Michael Jackson can never be silenced. His music and artistry live, as does his innocence. They will long outlast false claims, gossip, and allegations spread by those who seek to make money off him. In the end, this "documentary" will say much more about HBO than it ever could about Michael Jackson.'

Later in the filing, Jackson himself is also portrayed as a victim.

'Michael Jackson had no childhood of his own. From the age of 10, he was the primary breadwinner for his very large family, and never enjoyed a normal childhood,' states the filing.

'As he explained in the only medium (songwriting) where he could explain himself: "It’s been my fate to compensate, for the childhood I've never known... Before you judge me, try hard to love me, Look within your heart then ask, Have you seen my Childhood?"'

The filing then claims: 'He was arguably the most famous person on the planet but possibly also one of the loneliest.'

And it is Plepler who is the main target.

'Content has been a real problem during Richard Plepler’s tenure as CEO of HBO. With the one exception of Game of Thrones, all of the cutting-edge, and now classic, original content that is associated with HBO—The Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood, Six Feet Under, Entourage, Sex and the City, Curb Your Enthusiasm, etc.—was from the era when Chris Albrecht ran HBO,' reads the suit.
'With Albrecht’s departure in 2007, Richard Plepler took over. And Plepler has almost entirely failed where Albrecht succeeded: original content. With Netflix and others in the industry now, HBO picked the wrong time to fail in original content.'

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 1 marzo 2019, 10:20

Immagine

Lucy‏ @kjngofpops
A new letter to HBO, Time Warner, and AT&T from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization founded by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
“These same allegations, when raised in trial in a court of law during Michael Jackson’s lifetime, affirmed his innocence”






A MUST read

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.co ... neverland/







Verified account @EBONYMag
“Over 300 pages of documents and not one shred of evidence. They would have locked him up.”
Immagine








Autumn Jackson‏ @AutumnJoi
Autumn Jackson Retweeted Lucy
My gratitude to Mr. Charles Steele and the SCLC is beyond words.This message is powerful. It is not only for the addressed recipients but all that had a hand in promoting this filth.And I mean ALL.Not naming names but some should feel the sting of this message more than others







Michael Jackson’s brothers say accusers’ film neglects facts
By ANDREW DALTON yesterday
Download AP News ×
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The family of Michael Jackson had a feeling the years-old child molestation allegations against the pop superstar would resurface at some point. So they say they weren’t entirely surprised to learn that a forthcoming HBO documentary would feature two of his accusers.
“I thought, ‘Oh here we go again,’” Jackson’s oldest brother Jackie Jackson said Tuesday of the moment he learned of “Leaving Neverland” while on tour in Australia. “That’s the first thing we said,” Jackie Jackson said during an interview with The Associated Press seated next to his brothers Tito, Marlon and his nephew, Taj.
The documentary, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival to a standing ovation , will starting Sunday air the abuse allegations of two men , Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who had previously denied Jackson molested them and supported him to authorities and in Robson’s case, very publicly.
“It was going to be the 10-year anniversary,” Taj Jackson said, referring to his uncle’s June 2009 death. “I remember a year ago I was like, ’This is too appetizing for the media. They’re going to do something. This is the time when everyone comes out of the woodwork, the same cast, the same characters that have been discredited throughout the years. They have a platform now to talk about Michael Jackson.”
It was the latest and most public pushback from the family and Jackson estate, which have repeatedly denounced the documentary in recent weeks through written statements, a lawsuit , and letters to HBO and Britain’s Channel 4, which plan to air the film. HBO announced Wednesday that it will air a special on Monday night in which Oprah Winfrey also interviews Robson and Safechuck .
Their central criticism has been the film’s failure to talk to family members or other defenders of Jackson, whom they insist never molested a child.
The brothers said they would have answered the allegations had the filmmakers asked them.
“Oh, we definitely would have come and talked to them about the situation ... to protect our brother,” Tito Jackson said. “He’s not here no more. He’s passed, and, we’re his brothers, we’re supposed to do this.”
Marlon Jackson added, “I look at it as yes, you’re protecting your brother, but you’re telling the truth, and we want people to understand the truth. And I do not understand how a filmmaker can make a documentary and not want to speak to myself or some of the other families that were at Neverland.”
The documentary’s director Dan Reed has repeatedly defended his film, which uses only the voices of Robson, Safechuck and their families.
“It’s the story of these two families and not of all the other people who were or weren’t abused by Michael Jackson,” Reed told the AP the day after the film’s premiere. “People who spent time with him can go, ‘he couldn’t possibly be a pedophile.’ How do they know? It’s absurd.”
Robson, 36, and Safechuck, 40, both came forward as adults, first via 2013 lawsuits and later in the documentary, to talk about the alleged abuse, which Robson says started when he was 7, Safechuck when he was 10.
Both had previously told authorities there had been no abuse, with Robson testifying in Jackson’s defense at the 2005 molestation trial that ended with the superstar’s acquittal.
Jackson family members say they were especially stunned to first hear such allegations coming from Robson, a noted choreographer who has worked with Britney Spears and ’N Sync. Many Jacksons, including Taj, had known Robson and his family since he was a child. Robson had dated Jackie Jackson’s daughter for over seven years.
“I was like ’No that can’t be Wade Robson not the same guy that I knew, They must have got the names wrong,” Taj Jackson said. “Wade was the most adamant person when it came to 2005 and the trial. He was their first defense witness. He was the star witness. He was adamant that nothing ever happened.”
Taj Jackson said he remembers thanking Robson the day he testified, and Robson responding that it was the least he could do for Michael.
“To see that 180, it feels like the biggest backstab that you could possibly feel,” he said.
The film acknowledges and discusses the men’s initial denials of abuse. Both say they experienced trauma that emerged as adults when they started to accept what happened to them.
No one in the Jackson family has any memory of meeting Safechuck. They have focused their criticism on Robson, whose allegations, they say, have coincided with financial problems.
They say in particular that being denied a job with a Jackson-themed Cirque du Soleil show prompted him to change his story.
Robson has said it had no bearing on the allegations, and that he actually removed himself from the Cirque du Soleil show because he was having nervous breakdowns. Those prompted him to talk to his therapist for the first time about the abuse.
Robson’s attorney Vince Finaldi said Wednesday that it was in fact the trauma from reliving the sexual abuse that caused Robson’s financial problems, because he stopped working to deal with it.
“One of the keys to his healing was stepping away from the entertainment industry,” Finaldi said.
The men’s lawsuits have been thrown out on technical grounds, but their attorneys are appealing the rulings. Finaldi said they will pursue all available means whether via the law or media to tell their stories.
“They’re never going to stop speaking their truth,” he said.
The Jackson estate’s lawsuit , filed last week, alleges “Leaving Neverland” violates a 1992 contract agreeing the channel would not disparage Jackson in the future. HBO called the lawsuit a desperate attempt to undermine the film.
Jackson’s family urged those inclined to watch “Leaving Neverland” to look deeper into the situation.
“That’s all we’re worried about is just facts,” Marlon Jackson said. “The facts, which are public record, tell a totally different story than what this documentary talks about.”

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 1 marzo 2019, 14:57

Immagine
In LA

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 marzo 2019, 7:39

Hello, again, #MJFam:

Since HBO is moving forward with the broadcast of Leaving Neverland, the Estate wants to invite the world to enjoy the TRUE Michael Jackson as he performs in concert. The Estate is making Live at Bucharest available to stream on Michael’s YouTube channel for a limited time starting 8 pm ET Sunday, March 3 and Live At Wembley available to stream on Michael’s YouTube (www.youtube.com/MichaelJackson) channel starting 8 pm ET Monday, March 4.

Please encourage your friends, families, and networks to watch these incredible concert performances, a playlist of Michael Jackson short films, the film, “Michael Jackson’s This Is It” or either of the 2 actual documentaries, “Bad25” and “Michael Jackson’s Journey From Motown To OFF THE WALL”, rather than the HBO propaganda piece being broadcast this weekend.

The Estate also applauds the efforts of many of you in the fan community to educate your spheres of influence about the truth about Michael Jackson. Keep it up.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 marzo 2019, 10:56

TJ Jackson liked
Bill Whitfield‏ @MJBODYGUARDS
I protected Mr. Jackson in his final days. Only a coward will dishonor him for gain.
Immagine








Keen Zhang‏ @mkgenie
China rages continue....Fans in Chongqing city rally for #MichaelJackson , KEEP FIGHTING AND WE SHALL WIN #MJInnocent
Immagine








Brenda Harvey Richie‏ @BrendaRichie
I have known The Jacksons since The Commodores were their Opening Act. I was dating @LionelRichie at the time! I went on Tour, braided their hair, fell asleep, ate together, we were all family..we still are today. Michael was 12 when we met. I know him! ALL LIES ABOUT HIM!








SamanthaDGosson‏ @SamanthaDGosson
Lying is easy when you have no morals. Having no morals is easy when you have no conscience. Having no conscience is easy when you have no soul, and to have no soul is to lack humanity. Michael, your humanity will live on forever.






The Estate is making Live at Bucharest available to stream on Michael’s YouTube channel for a limited time starting 8 pm ET Sunday, March 3 and Live At Wembley available to stream on Michael’s YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/MichaelJackson ) channel starting 8 pm ET Monday, March 4.








Brad Sundberg and 3 others follow
Eddy Derden‏ @777rellirhtjjm
Wade Robson is 36 years old. He claims he was molested by Michael between ages 7 and 14. From 1989 until 1996.
So these alleged rapes occured DURING the Chandler investigation and DURING MJ's marriage to Lisa Marie Presley as well?
And the FBI found nothing?? Really???








Flo Anthony‏ @banananosekid
I was blackballed & never had a talk show but I will always love & believe in my friend Michael Jackson, a philanthropist, humanitarian and a as my mom once said: “Your friend Michael Jackson is a phenomenon.” Dear God, Let him Rest In Peace !









Paul Dwyer‏ @PauliDee
Before you go crucifying the dead @Oprah, #LeavingNeverland we’d like to know about your relationship with #HarveyWeinstein
Who’s the real predator here?
https://newspunch.com/british-actress-o ... weinstein/

A British woman has accused Oprah Winfrey of pimping her out to sexual predator Harvey Weinstein when she was a struggling actress in Hollywood.
Following Oprah’s deeply hypocritical speech on Sunday night at the Golden Globes, a report about how actress Kadian Noble was raped by Weinstein after being coerced by Oprah to go back to his hotel room has gone mostly ignored by the mainstream media.

Thegatewaypundit.com reports: In a largely ignored report from Page Six, British actress Kadian Noble came forth with shocking accusations.

Noble claims that when she first met Weinstein at an event in London, she was overtly impressed because he was partying with model Naomi Campbell and had Oprah “swinging off his arm”. Noble recalled:

I thought, obviously, this man has something amazing in store for me…
Noble is the most recent in a long list of actresses and models who claim Harvey Weinstein either forced himself on them or coerced them into sex.

After meeting Weinstein for the first time in London, Noble brought along her “show reel” to his hotel room when she met up with him again in Cannes in February 2014. During their second meeting, Noble alleges Weinstein used promises of career advancement to lure Noble to his hotel room, where he forced himself on her.

Instead of watching Noble’s reel, Weinstein allegedly began to touch her whilst discussing getting her connected with a modeling agency in London.

The indecency ended in the bathroom where Weinstein allegedly made Noble perform sex acts in front of the mirror.

Noble blames Weinstein for destroying her acting dreams and notes that he failed to help with her career as he had promised.

Bigger and bigger names keep dripping out, now with Oprah accused in the fray of Weinstein’s indecent behavior…









Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts
In regards to the repeated references to the Robson/Safchuck litigation being dismissed on "technicalities" note in Estate filing that "these men were caught lying under oath repeatedly in their litigations with the Jackson Estate" #LeavingNeverland









Verified accoun @GeraldoRivera
Covering #MichaelJackson molestation trial in 2005 I recall effective testimony from #WadeRobson that Jackson had Never molested him. After Jackson's death, Robson tried to get job w Jackson estate projects. They didn't hire him. Now-in #LeavingNeverland-Robson claims he molested

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 marzo 2019, 11:14

TrubluJustice‏ @JusticeTrublu
So are we going to talk about the fact that the new BBC doc is being directed by Jacques Peretti who did the hit piece with Victor Gutierrez and Diane Diamond?
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi ... -neverland








Immagine







On Fox News at 8pm @Geraldo and a few others were defending @MichaelJackson they think the two boys are just out for the money! They are so right. Thanks Fox News for airing that! #Geraldo









Samar @TheMJAP‏ @TheMJAP
Can someone let Diane Dimond know that we clocked that this paragraph on Michael Jackson's Wikipedia page was changed THIS MORNING in order to reference her book alongside the DA's comment AND remove MJ's defence team's comments.
Thank you








MJBackstage
Dr. Andrew Greene‏ @AndrewGreene86
THREAD: I’ve been very vocal in my support for news and media outlets everywhere! I must say that with the recent public LYNCHING of Michael Jackson, the SUPER inaccurate and biased reporting about him is slowly starting to change my opinion. Some of my most favorite media








Taj Jackson liked
Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts
Robson knowingly signed a false document under penalty of perjury the day he filed his claim against Michael's estate. He later was caught hiding evidence Why are journalists/critics willing to overlook dishonsty and perjury?
Immagine

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 marzo 2019, 11:52

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







@RobLives4Love
Jason Eisberg worked for MJ for several years, even helping on "Thriller 25: The Book."
Immagine

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 marzo 2019, 14:43

https://www.tmz.com/2019/03/02/michael- ... on-threat/ :)
Michael Jackson

HBO Threatened Over Molestation Insinuation
... Leave Me Out of 'Leaving Neverland'!!!
Immagine
Michael Jackson never molested a guy named Brett Barnes -- so says Barnes himself -- and he's getting ready to sue HBO for a documentary insinuating he was sexually abused by MJ.

The upcoming documentary, "Leaving Neverland," shows Brett, and he claims it implies Jackson molested him as a boy. As for why Barnes thinks this ... Wade Robson -- one of Jackson's well-known alleged victims -- claims in the doc, Barnes "replaced him." The film then shows Michael and Brett together on tour. Thus, the insinuation.
Immagine
Barnes lawyered up and threatened HBO with a lawsuit, claiming the documentary puts him in a false light and subjects him to "hatred, contempt and ridicule." Presumably, the lawyer is saying MJ supporters will target Barnes as a result of the documentary.

Barnes testified at Jackson's criminal trial in 2005 -- along with Macaulay Culkin -- that he was never sexually abused by Jackson ... and he hasn't changed his account since. Brett also tweeted about the MJ allegations in January, calling them "lies."


Brett Barnes @IAmBrettBarnes
Not only do we have to deal with these lies, but we’ve also got to deal with people perpetuating these lies. The fact that they fail to do the small amount of research it takes to prove these are lies, by choice or not, makes it even worse.
Jan 30, 2019

Leaving Neverland" does include Barnes' denial that Jackson did anything inappropriate, but only for a few seconds in writing on the screen. Brett's camp doesn't think that's nearly enough to "cure such a despicable allegation."

Barnes says he wants nothing to do with the film, does not give HBO his consent to use his image and likeness and wants all references to him axed ... or else.

We're told HBO replied to the letter, telling Barnes to pound sand. We're told a lawsuit now looms.

Charles Thomson
An innocent victim of journalistic atrocity Leaving Neverland is threatening legal action.
The director included false suggestions that Brett Barnes was molested, gave him no right of reply & now he’s been harassed for weeks.
Unethical beyond belief.



Charles Thomson Retweeted Xose Navarro

Correct. He’s NOT referring to MJ fans. He’s referring to the gutter press, who’ve been harassing him for weeks as a direct result of Dan Reed’s unethical conduct, and to those who, also as a result of Reed’s unprofessionalism, are now accusing him of protecting a paedophile.







https://www.mjvibe.com/brett-barnes-to- ... neverland/
Immagine
Brett Barnes, one of long time friend of Michael Jackson is to sue HBO over the upcoming “documentary” – “Leaving Neverland”.

In the movie, Wade claims that he replaced Brett as an abused victim and confirmed that Brett was abused by Michael Jackson using his image and name. While Wade claims that Brett always denied it, Brett spoke out the day the movie came to light at the Sundance Film Festival.


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

Brett lawyered up and threatened HBO with a lawsuit, claiming the documentary puts him in a false light and subjects him to “hatred, contempt and ridicule.”

Brett also testified at Michael Jackson’s criminal trial in 2005 — along with Macaulay Culkin — that he was never sexually abused by Michael … and he hasn’t changed his account since. Brett also tweeted about the MJ allegations in January, calling them “lies.”
Brett says he wants nothing to do with the film, does not give HBO his consent to use his image and likeness and wants all references to him axed … He also still insists that Michael Jackson is INNOCENT!

HBO replied to the letter, telling Barnes to pound sand [How rude]

We hope that Brett gets HBO to pay for this disgusting claims, again unfounded!









Casey Rain @CaseyRain
James Safechuck - "MJ didn't want us spending any time with women and cut contact after puberty"
Must have forgotten travelling with Michael and his wife Lisa Marie Presley when he was 16 then. Convenient omission.
Immagine





Keya Morgan‏ @KeyaMorgan
Why does HBO and the media not talk about Michael Jackson spending so much time with a little boy by the name of Ryan White who had AIDS and was dying??
Immagine





https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ctims.html :???:
'It is a scourge on humanity': Oprah Winfrey DENOUNCES Michael Jackson while praising Leaving Neverland and the brave men coming forward to say 'they were raped by King of Pop'
•Oprah Winfrey taped the OWN and HBO special After Neverland in New York City on Thursday with director Dan Reed, Wade Robson and James Safechuck
•Talk show host, who was raped at the age of nine, spoke about how important the film was because it showed how seduction plays a role in sexual abuse
•After Neverland will air Monday at 10pm on both HBO and OWN after the finale of Leaving Neverland
•'This moment transcends Michael Jackson, it is much bigger than any one person... It is a scourge on humanity,' said Oprah
•'It's happening right now it's happening in families, we know its happening in churches, and its happening in schools and sports teams,' she added
•Oprah sat down with Jackson just once, in 1993, and it remains to this day the most watched interview in television history with 90 million viewers

By Chris Spargo For Dailymail.com

Published: 18:50 GMT, 1 March 2019
The world's most famous survivor of sexual abuse sat down with the two men who have accused Michael Jackson of raping them when they were children in the new documentary Leaving Neverland.

Oprah Winfrey taped the HBO and OWN special After Neverland on Thursday in New York City, were she was joined by the director of the documentary Dan Reed and the two men at the center of the film, James Safechuck and Wade Robson.

That special will air Monday night after the completion of the show, but Winfrey has made no secret about how powerful and important she believes this film is in shifting the way people think about sexual abuse.

And Winfrey is using all her star power to promote the documentary and her after show, going so far as to retweet eight stories about the special and post two trailers.


It is no surprise given the Oprah was raped as well by someone close to her when she was nine, just like Robson and Safechuck, who allege they were seven and 10 when they were first sexually abused by Jackson.

A rep for Oprah contacted DailyMail.com after the story was published and asked that it be noted that it was the Oprah Winfrey Network and not Oprah herself who tweeted those stories.

The rep also took issue with DailyMail.com stating that Oprah ‘denounced’ Jackson, despite the talk show host noting at one point that parents should beware of individuals who just want to be around their children.

After Neverland will air Monday at 10pm on both HBO and OWN after the finale of Leaving Neverland.

'Here's the reason why I'm here. Twenty five years of the Oprah show I taped 217 episodes about sexual abuse,' said Oprah at the start of the taping.

'I tried and tried and tried to get the message across that sexual abuse was not just abuse, that it was sexual seduction. But for me, this moment transcends Michael Jackson, it is much bigger than any one person. It is a moment in time that allows us to see this societal corruption. It is a scourge on humanity.'

She continued: 'It's happening right now it's happening in families, we know its happening in churches, and its happening in schools and sports teams everywhere.

'So if it gets you, our audience, to see how it happens, then some good would have come of it.'
She illustrated the divide between those who have been sexually abused and those who have not later in the interview while using her friend Gayle King as an example.

'I remember when Gayle's children were younger and smaller, and I would always be talking about this subject, and she would say to me: "My kids aren't going to let themselves be hurt. They're not going to let themselves be punished,"' recalled Oprah.

'So many parents don't understand - it does not feel like hurt.'

Oprah and King actually watched the documentary together last month on Oprah's birthday.

'Just watched ALL FOUR hours of Leaving Neverland. Powerful, compelling & a game changer for those who have been afraid to speak up of child sex abuse,' wrote King.

'My heart goes out to Wade Robson & James Safechuck. Thank YOU for sharing your pain it will make a difference. Bravo to producer Dan Reed.. I’m still reeling.'

This is not the first time Jackson has been accused of sexually assaulting young boys, and both Safechuck and Robson had shared their stories in the past.
Immagine
The Queen of Daytime did sit down with Jackson for one interview back in 1993 that attracted an audience of 90 million people and remains to this day the most watched interview in television history.

That was filmed just before the first allegations about Jackson had been made public, and so the conversation centered more around Jackson's difficult childhood, his love life and his plastic surgery.

Early in the interview Michael opened up to Oprah about his insecurities and the fact that he struggled as a teen with pimples, which made him think he was 'ugly.'

He then told Oprah his father would tell him he as ugly during his days fronting The Jackson 5.

'What's your relationship like with him?' asked Oprah.

'I love my father but I don't know him,' responded Michael.

When asked if he was angry with the man, Michael struggled to answer, and looked to be stalling for time.

He twice repeated the question back to Oprah before stating: 'Sometimes I do get angry. I don't know him the way I'd like to know him. My mother's wonderful. To me she's perfection. I just wish I could understand my father.'

He then revealed how deeply unhappy he was at the height of his fame.

'I felt there wasn't anything important for me to say and those were very sad, sad years for me,' said Michael.

When asked how this was possible given his success, Michael explained: 'Oh, there's a lot of sadness about my past and adolescence, about my father and all of those things.'

Oprah then asked if Michael was teased by his father, and then followed that up by bringing up the allegations of abuse.

'Would he... did he ever beat you?' asked Oprah.

'Yes,' said Michael.

'He saw me, he wanted me... I guess I don't know if I was his golden child or whatever it was, some may call it a strict disciplinarian or whatever, but he was very strict, very hard, very stern. Just a look would scare you, you know.'

Michael then explained just how afraid he was of the man by stating: 'Like there's been times when he'd come to see me, I'd get sick, I'd start to regurgitate.'

He added that he was still afraid of the man, then quickly began to apologize.

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 marzo 2019, 21:38

Taj Jackson Retweeted Charles Thomson
Hey media, please do your job! Here is a non public figure who is demanding to be taken out of Leaving Neverland and threatening legal action. Dan Reed used his name and likeness without permission. He didn’t even give Brett the option to respond.
Facts don’t lie, people do







Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson
Charles Thomson Retweeted
Liberian Girl was recorded in 1986 released on the Bad album in 1987. Another hole in the time line

@SlaveToTheRhyt6
Wades mom says when they were invited at the studio MJ was recording “Liberian Girl” this song was written in ‘83, it was rec. in ‘86 and released in 89’ so how can it be recorded in ‘90?
Immagine







Immagine







LoveLand‏ @jacksons_land

"Michael didn't like women" Dick Zimmerman is the photographer who spent an entire day with #michaelJackson and Lisa in the 1994 and this is what he said:
Immagine

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

Re: jackson family consider 'innocent' documentary/Sundance

Messaggio da soulmum » 3 marzo 2019, 6:42

:)
We’d like to share the following message from Michael’s Estate with you:

When we first learned of Leaving Neverland on January 9 it was inconceivable to us, as it must have been to you, that a respected company like HBO was behind it. We assumed that HBO’s corporate values reflect a commitment to fairness, honesty and integrity.

Sadly, we were wrong. Leaving Neverland is nothing short of a premeditated ambush, announced at the 11th hour at the Sundance Film Festival as part of a secretive two-year deception to escape scrutiny from Michael’s family, Estate, friends, associates and fans. HBO even tried to hide the names of the two accusers in announcing the film, only begrudgingly identifying them after our initial public statement revealed them to be two failed litigants we know well.

HBO’s goal is obvious: It wants to mute the voices of all who would speak up in defense of Michael Jackson and who know the lack of credibility of these allegations as well as the character of the individuals making them. Thanks to all of you, HBO and its filmmaker have been unable to prevent the harsh light they hoped to avoid from being directed at this film.

They do not want anyone noting that it is overwhelmingly one-sided. They do not want it known that the filmmaker, in two years, never so much as reached out to anyone other than his two subjects and their families, including those he maligned and was morally and ethically obligated to contact. Nor does HBO want anyone knowing that the subjects have repeatedly changed their stories, committed perjury and have financial motives hidden from the public. Rather, HBO hopes to sneak Leaving Neverland by any rigorous scrutiny of facts and credibility that it should have demanded of its filmmaker. But your tenacious passion to defend Michael in the face of such dishonesty pierced HBO’s lack of transparency. It is inspiring and heartwarming, and we are grateful to all of you.

Most important, HBO and its partner Channel 4, want to deflect attention from the fact that it is attacking an innocent man who is no longer with us to defend himself and that they can do this only because they cannot be held legally responsible for defaming a deceased person. The refrain from HBO continues to be that fairness is irrelevant while adding the disingenuous and absurd claim that its film is not about Michael Jackson. Let’s be clear: it is entirely about Michael Jackson. The same Michael Jackson who had his day in court on accusations just like these 14 years ago and was declared innocent unanimously on all counts by a sophisticated jury.

But in HBO’s court, there is no jury, no opportunity to cross examine witnesses and no defense; just a predetermined conviction of an innocent man by an intentionally lurid filmmaker who declared himself the final judge and jury. And rather than let viewers weigh all the evidence and decide for themselves if the subjects are telling the truth or lying, HBO forces the filmmaker’s storyline down every viewer’s throat, allowing no time in four hours of viewing for even a scintilla of the volumes of conflicting evidence.

Michael Jackson suffered during his life through a malicious spotlight no artist of his generation was forced to endure. As James Baldwin prophetically wrote in 1985, when Michael was coming off the global phenomenon that was Thriller, “The Michael Jackson cacophony is fascinating in that it is not about Jackson at all. I hope he has the good sense to know it and the good fortune to snatch his life out of the jaws of a carnivorous success. He will not swiftly be forgiven for having turned so many tables, for he damn sure grabbed the brass ring, and the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo has nothing on Michael.”

Sadly, his children have had to repeatedly endure the additional pain of these lurid tabloid tales after losing their father, be it during the criminal trial of the man responsible for his death or the claims of the two individuals in this film. While the press has treated the allegations in this film as fresh and new, in truth these individuals have been making these same salacious and false accusations in the media for six years, more than half of the time Michael has been deceased. But having hijacked HBO’s credibility, what they have now is just a louder platform, a soundtrack, drone shots, skillful editing and a multimillion-dollar marketing budget. What they can’t buy is the truth. Facts don’t lie; people do.

In the six years since these false allegations were first made, Michael’s music and his legacy thrived for a simple reason: you can’t silence Michael Jackson. His genius and artistry are timeless, and his resilience prevails. We will continue to fight the meritless claims of his accusers because he is innocent. His legacy is stronger than two individuals seeking hundreds of millions of dollars after defending him for years and whose similar epiphanies raise countless questions about their timing and motives. Their repeated dishonesty such as committing perjury and hiding evidence says everything about their credibility that four hours of
Leaving Neverland goes out of its way to hide.

Finally, it’s important to remember what Michael said himself in 1994 when he was invited to the NAACP Image Awards. At that time, the relentless persecution that would haunt him the rest of his life had started. In addressing the gathering, he went out of his way to note the right all of us have to the presumption of innocence.

“I never really took the time to understand the importance of that ideal until now,” Michael said, “until I became the victim of false allegations, and the willingness of others to believe and exploit the worst before they have a chance to hear the truth. Because not only am I presumed to be innocent, I am innocent. – And I know the truth will be my salvation.”

—-The Michael Jackson Estate

Rispondi