Leaving Neverland

[soulmum]

https://hannahkozak.wordpress.com/2019/ ... bfRolQIE5U
Lights, camera, fiction! Leaving Neverland Has Been Derailed
By hannahkozak
Lights, camera, fiction!

Leaving Neverland is anti-Michael Jackson programming at its zenith, a clearly fraudulent movie that is collapsing daily—even hourly as journalists, activists, and writers such as Keya Morgan, Mike Smallcomb, Charles Thomson, Kerry Ward, Raven Woods and John Ziegler fire more cannonballs and Reeds’ ship continues to sink. We continue debunking everything from its major plot points to its minute details.

Leaving Neverland was never about what truly happened at Neverland Ranch or about alleged victims of sexual abuse. It was meant as a smear campaign against Michael Jackson. And as the movie’s credibility continues to fall apart, I’m left with so many questions… Like, why is the U.K. press covering director Dan Reed’s faux pas but the U.S. media is ignoring the whole ordeal? Why hasn’t Oprah, who publicly promoted the film, made a public statement about the lies that have since been uncovered since it opened? Who supported this movie? Who financed it?

Defending Michael Jackson doesn’t make you crazy and stating tabloid headlines doesn’t make you woke either. The story of Leaving Neverland is a painted upon, crazy canvas of lies, frauds, and players with an agenda. The movie itself is a plot to bring down the world’s greatest entertainer ever.

And you shouldn’t buy it—I would know.

I watched my mother be abused by her second husband for five years on weekends from the ages of nine to fourteen until she ended up in intensive care at UCLA with brain damage. She has spent thirty-nine years of her life in aging facilities. That’s a fact.
As someone who has a background with abuse, I resent the lies meant to pull on our hearts with the end goal of a financial payoff. I’m also a photojournalist. To document my father’s survival of eight Nazi forced labor camps during the Holocaust, I spent more than eight years on and off conducting research. Reed said he did three weeks of research for Leaving Neverland. I know it takes more time than that.

So, unlike the movie, let’s get some facts straight:

1) Wade Robson insisted Michael was trying to turn him against women in the movie. Meanwhile, Robson asked Michael to properly introduce him to Michael’s niece, Brandy, after they met on a commercial for Michael. Brandy and Wade had a relationship for more than seven years, during the time Michael was allegedly abusing him. This throws off the narrative, doesn’t it?

2) Wade never stayed behind in Neverland alone with Michael while his family went to the Grand Canyon. In her 1993 deposition and during the 2005 trial, Wade’s mother testified that the whole family, including Wade, went on that trip.

3) James Safechuck’s lawsuit against the Michael Jackson estate claimed abuse from 1988-1992. But the train station where Safechuck vividly described this daily abuse didn’t even exist during that time period. Dan Reed admitted days ago that Safechuck committed perjury because the train station only acquired permits for construction in 1993 before opening for use in 1994.

So Robson and Safechuck are not victims. They made up allegations to sue for hundreds of millions and lied repeatedly in court to try to get money. And it’s evident now that Reed has placed himself firmly in the driving seat of these allegations.
The deterioration of Michael Jackson’s reputation and well-being during the 2005 trials wasn’t enough for the media. The American federal judicial system found Michael Jackson innocent, but years later films like Leaving Neverland are still attacking him and spreading lies that he can no longer respond to because he is no longer with us.

Michael Jackson was a globally renowned black icon. He broke barriers between racism and religion and was a true humanitarian. As I wrote in January, try as some people might to put another nail in Michaels coffin, his dedicated fans and followers know the truth: Michael was a kindhearted man.

Michael Jackson was a fan of P.T. Barnum and believed he was put here to entertain and the show must go on. This movie is a three-ring circus and the show must not go on. This house of cards is falling down.

The Dalai Lama recently said: “We have to learn how to use our time properly. It’s important to make our lives meaningful. Bullying and cheating others may give a short-term return, but leaves a nagging sense of unease. Money doesn’t yield real satisfaction, whereas compassion does.”

I’m going with the Dalai Lama and the compassion that Michael Jackson showed us while he was on this planet. We need more compassionate hearts, not people getting on board a train of lies.

Michael Jackson had a soft heart in a cruel world. Like him, I will continue to stand up for what I believe in, as I have for the past ten years. Even if it’s not always popular, it is the only truth in my heart.

[soulmum]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity- ... n=sharebar
Leaving Neverland director's changing story over Michael Jackson abuse allegations

Some Michael Jackson fans have questioned the timeline of the Leaving Neverland documentary, but the director is standing firm
The director of Leaving Neverland has come under fire for his evolving story about alleged abuse involving the late Michael Jackson and two young boys.

The controversial documentary has been a talking point since it first aired at the Sundance film festival back in January this year - before airing on HBO in the USA and Channel 4 in the UK last month.

The unsettling documentary features interviews with Australian dance star Wade Robson (now 36) and James Safechuck (now 41) who both allege they were abused for years by Billy Jean singer Michael (who died in 2009 aged 50).

Some fans have noted that some of the accusations presented in the film don't quite 'add up' - including the revelation James said he was abused in the Neverland train station when he was 14, but planning documents show the building wasn't constructed until he was 16.

Documentary maker Dan Reed, 54, has defended his work and stands by his two interviewees - here's what he has said over the 'evolving' story.

U-Turn allegations

Fans have poked holes in the Leaving Neverland documentary after it suggested James Safechuck was abused until he was 14 - with one incident taking place inside the train station found at Jackson's sprawling Neverland Ranch home.

However, some have highlighted that the building in question would not have been built until James was 16.

Dan appeared to suggest some of the facts in his documentary were not correct as he tweeted: "Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse."

This sparked many to suggest he was 'backtracking' on the claims made in his documentary - but the director stood firm.

"Progress - the stans seem to have conceded that Safechuck was molested and are now debating which rooms at Neverland the sex took place in + James' age when it stopped. How about adding up total number of nights MJ slept with other people's sons: was it hundreds or thousands?" he tweeted.

He continued: "1. James Safechuck was at Neverland both before and after the construction of the train station there. The two still photos of the station shown in #leavingneverland were in fact taken by James, who is very clear that he was abused by Jackson in multiple places over many years."

Dan added: "2. #leavingneverland also makes clear that sexual contact between James and #MichaelJackson continued until James Safechuck was in his teenage years. The station at Neverland is just one of the many locations where James remembers sexual activity taking place."

Taking on Piers Morgan

Good Morning Britain star Piers Morgan waded into the debate following the train station debacle.

"Hmmmm. What other facts did you get wrong @danreed1000?" Piers tweeted - prompting Dan to sarcastically retort: "What facts did I get wrong @piersmorgan? Do tell."

The pair previously clashed when Dan appeared on GMB, with Piers suggesting the documentary could be all about money, saying: "This is a huge payday for anyone who can establish they were a vicitm. I don't know the truth. I'm questioning you as a director."

But Dan replied: "They want justice, they are not fussed about the money. I don't know what they would do with the money when they get it. They are entitled as citizens to use the court to hold the Jackson estate [to account]."



On denying the documentary is a money grab

Leaving Neverland has been seen by some as an attempt for those involved to make gains, financially, with their allegations.

Dan admits the documentary is, in a way, about money - but that it is the Jackson estate that fears losing profits, not the alleged victims wanting to earn cash.

"Of course it's all about money. It's about the estate's money. It made $400m last year [and] is trying to protect its main asset," he told the Independent.

"I'm not making any allegations, but I think the question remains: how much did the family know?" he continued.

"When did they know it? It's clear that a lot of people in the Jackson household saw things. On the record, they testified to that. [They] gave evidence in court. But the only noise I'm hearing from the Jackson camp is the estate hurling abuse at children who were raped by Michael Jackson. I think that's shameful," he said.


Branding Michael Jackson fans 'vile'

Since the release of the documentary, Dan and his two interviewees have been on the receiving end of a barrage of abuse from Michael Jackson fans - who the director branded as "vile".

"To prosecute men you have the courage to say they were raped as children by this powerful god-like individual, to make them into the scapegoats is beyond absurd and quite vile," the director told AFP.

He suggested he struggles to understand how fans can continue to defend the singer.

"It is a kind of blasphemy when you accuse somebody who is a pillar of the community of such a grotesquely horrific act, so bad in fact that people do not want to hold that image in their heads… That's what generates this rage against the victims. It's heretical. Not only is your godhead human but he does this appalling thing to children."

He added: "From the start, the Jackson strategy has been to portray Michael as the victim, and they have been incredibly successful. That has been the noise of the last two decades, 'Poor Michael, poor Michael, being exploited by these boys and their families'. No one seems to understand that this is a bizarre inside-out Alice in Wonderland version of the truth. Because Michael is not the victim, he is the perpetrator."
On rejecting accusations Wade and James are lying

Asked by the NME if he think people can still view Michael Jackson as innocent, Dan said it would be impossible for his interviewees to have faked their whole story.

"It's not just hearing the guys tell their stories – it's seeing the impact it's had on their mums, on their wives, on their sisters and brothers," he said.

"[In each instance] the whole family has been devastated by learning what has actually happened. By the end of the fours hours, it's really difficult to imagine that anyone would be able to dismiss such a consistent and emotional set of interviews. These people would have to be genius actors. Having your mum go on telly and say, 'I f**ked up and I allowed my son to fall into the hands of a predatory paedophile' – for the average son, that's quite a move to pull if all you're after is a bit of cash," he added.







RazörFist‏ @RAZ0RFIST

No one should be disavowing #LeavingNeverland more vocally than #MeToo's founder. Accepting an invitation to sit in Oprah's audience? Irresponsible, but understandable. Now that it's obvious the film is aiding an Extortion attempt? The quicker you disavow, the lesser the damage.






Raven Woods‏ @emailraven
Raven Woods Retweeted Va_te_faire_maitre_gims

Whoa! Dan Reed and I are about the same age. Surely he knows none of us were carrying around iPhones in 1992. And how would JS have photos in 92 of a building that didn't even start construction until 1993?





http://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/ ... H1?ocid=st
A group of Michael Jackson fans have joined forces to sue the two men accusing the King of Pop of sexual abuse in the documentary Leaving Neverland.

Officials at the Michael Jackson Community, the MJ Street, and On The Line fan clubs are filing a suit in France against Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who claim they were molested by the Thriller star as kids in director Dan Reed's new film.



The fans’ lawyer, Emmanuel Ludot, reveals they are suing the accusers for "sullying" Jackson's memory.

"They want to discredit the accusations of paedophilia," he says.

Ludot previously successfully sued Jackson’s doctor Dr. Conrad Murray for causing distress to his fans by administering the drugs that killed the pop star in 2009.

Leaving Neverland, which debuted at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah in January (19) and aired on TV in the U.S. and U.K. earlier this month (Mar19), prompted backlash from Jackson’s fans, who held a demonstration outside Channel 4’s London headquarters on the day of broadcast after network bosses refused to pull the film.



News of the new lawsuit came hours after reports suggested Louis Vuitton officials plan to remove items inspired by Jackson from the brand's new collection.

Artistic director Virgil Abloh said, "I am aware that in light of this documentary the show has caused emotional reactions. I strictly condemn any form of child abuse, violence or infringement against any human rights."

The Jackson family and Michael's estate officials have slammed Reed, his film and the networks behind the project, insisting it is full of falsehoods.






https://medium.com/@cpowers726/leaving- ... b92468619f
Leaving Neverland Exposes a Culture of Judgement Without Ethics or Law
Leaving Neverland may be remembered as the biggest example of false allegations in recent history. I would like to believe that we are all advocates for victims of abuse. But what determines who is a victim? Does the mere act of pointing an accusing finger at someone automatically make the accuser a victim? According to our laws, every citizen is innocent until proven guilty. But over the past couple of years, our society has shifted towards ignoring this most precious right. HBO’s Leaving Neverland accuses music legend Michael Jackson of the most-vile criminal acts possible. Creators of the film admit to giving no presumption of innocence. And most journalist have applauded the film while acknowledging that it is blatantly one-sided.

However, the other side of this story has been strong in its defense of the music legend. Jackson’s side is being told by his fans, family and billion-dollar estate. Many have asked, would this film have been made if Michael Jackson were still alive? The answer is no for the following reasons. In 2005, Jackson was accused of similar acts and found not guilty. And both current accusers previously gave testimony under oath saying the crimes they are now alleging never occurred. Therefore, without any evidence proving their claims, Jackson would be able to sue for defamation. Because the movie makes serious criminal allegation without any proof, Jackson would likely win a lawsuit. For these reasons, no one would have made this film if Jackson were here to defend himself.

US law gives more information as to why this film was made. There is no law that protects the deceased from slander. Once someone dies, the most outrageous claims can be made. The dead person’s family or estate have no legal recourse for protecting their memory from slander. HBO and the film’s director Dan Reed sought to exploit this loophole in the law. Despite this loophole, Jacksons estate immediately slammed HBO’s film as “a one-sided character assassination”. In an interview with Variety, director Dan Reed brushed off the criticism by saying, “The estate has no legal argument whatsoever”. Reed’s comments give a lot of insight. Jackson has been dead for almost 10 years. The people behind the film believed they could say whatever they want. Make a blatantly one-sided film accusing the music legend of committing horrendous crimes. Then brag about no threat of legal consequences.

On February 21, 2019 the estate of Michael Jackson filed a $100 million lawsuit against HBO. The suit centers around a non-disparagement agreement the late pop star had with HBO. In 1992, HBO televised his concert “Live from Bucharest”. The contract Jackson had written up includes the following highlights in detailed legal terminology: HBO cannot do anything that would harm or defame the reputation of Michael Jackson, and HBO cannot make any additional show or project about Michael Jackson. If so, HBO would have to check with Jackson, his representatives or his company Optimum Productions. Leaving Neverland’s director admits he did not contact Jackson’s family or his estate. Moreover, the lawsuit makes a very specific point. The pop star’s concert became HBO’s highest rated program. But in the film Leaving Neverland, a claim is made that Jackson was sexually abusing children on that same concert tour. The lawsuit states there could not be a more direct violation of the contract agreement. But would a contract from 1992 still be valid? There is language in the contract that refers to this. It included words like “perpetual”.This means ongoing and unchanging. So even in death, HBO would still have an agreement with Jackson’s representatives and Optimum Productions which remains a company within the estate. Attorney Christine Lepera told Vulture.com, “The suit does have merit because of Jackson’s contract with HBO”.

Moving forward, the lawsuit will give the estate a chance to make two significant accomplishments. One, prove HBO was in violation for making the film. Two, debunk the accusations the film is based on. What would happen if that were to occur? HBO’s film has been a worldwide media campaign intended to ruin Michael Jackson’s legacy. Many have gone on record saying they believe the stories of accusers’ wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck to be credible. What if these allegations of abuse turn out to be false? The estate appears confident. Perhaps this is due to their history of successfully having Robson and Safechuck’s lawsuits against the estate dismissed. The two accusing men have the same lawyer. Over the past six years the Estate has been successful in having their lawsuits dismissed a total of four times. A judge dismissed Robson’s first lawsuit by ruling, “No reasonable fact-finder could believe Robson’s sworn declaration”.
Unfortunately, people have been falsely accused. And false stories of abuse make it harder for real victims of abuse to be believed. In every situation, searching for the facts is the best way to protect both the accuser and the accused. Sometimes advocates for victims’ rights come across as ignoring facts and the presumption of innocence. Credibility is lost when a social agenda becomes more important than a search for the truth. In conclusion, it is very possible that Jackson’s estate will be successful in their lawsuit against HBO. If so, it will shine a very bright light on this issue. And Leaving Neverland would be remembered as the biggest example of false allegations in recent history.




VP_Advocacy‏ @VP_Advocacy

I summarised Wade's various versions of his first CSA encounter before the airing of Leaving Neverland. He went for Version 2 - the one version his own mother discredited in her 93/94 deposition and her 2016 deposition (whoops). What a twat.

[soulmum]

https://www.focus.de/kultur/musik/le..._10558402.html

Several dozen Michael Jackson fans protested Saturday in Munich against the German broadcast of the controversial documentary "Leaving Neverland". In the film, which was shown in the US at the end of January, raise two men violent abuse allegations against the 2009 died musician.

For the demonstrating Jackson fans, the allegations are all lies. With poster slogans such as "Facts do not lie - people do", or "MJ innocent" they sat down on Saturday afternoon at the outskirts of Munich in Unterföhring. "This is the station ProSieben has its headquarters and shows the movie in the evening for the first time in Germany," said the demonstrator Jennifer Fuhrman siting. She had organized the rally together with her colleagues on Facebook - according to their information came about 70 fans.

The director had to admit a mistake

After their protest in front of the station, around 30 supporters marched into the center of Munich in front of the unofficial Michael Jackson Memorial. Fuhrmann is aware that the demonstration will not prevent the film from being broadcast. "Our main concern is that unlike the film, another side is heard - one that is certain that Michael Jackson is innocent."

At least in one detail, the director of the film, Dan Reed, had to make a mistake before broadcasting the film. One of the two interviewed men had claimed to have been abused by Jackson from 1988 to 1992 - including in a room of the "Neverland" station. But it was not built until 1993, as a Jackson biographer found out in the official documents of the building permit. However, the fact that abuse victims remember details incorrectly decades later is a common occurrence.

[soulmum]

TSCM‏ @MJJRepository

Dan Reed (Feb. 25 BBC): "James gave false testimony [to grand jury] when he was ELEVEN."
Every time Dan speaks he exhibits just how ignorant he is on the material facts. Here he says James was 11 in 1994, rather than 16. Another five year discrepancy. He literally knows nothing.






Elena Orlovskaya‏ @ElenaOrlovskay2

On April 6, in one of the Moscow clubs, fans of MJ from Russia organized an Act of protest against slander and lies around his name We had been watching fantastic MJ-videos for 8 hours and took pictures with a photo of MJInnocent





naisha‏ @naisha48

Please MJFan stop attacking people who defend Michael even thought you don't like them like Frank Cascio. He always defend Michael Jackson against those allegations. Michael Jackson family need every person who know Michael Jackson in their conner.






Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson
Replying to @MsSunnySideUp1 @itstimetoriseX and 7 others

It’s idiocy. To claim someone who’s studied original court documents from a case for five years has less right to comment on that case than someone who’s simply watched a four-hour video of people talking about it - it’s almost painful, how thick you’d have to be to say that.

[soulmum]

KerryWard liked
MJJJusticeProject Retweeted Jibrail MJ

See how #MichaelJackson kept all of his "victims" SEPARATED?? Wade Robson, Brett Barnes, and James Safechuck on set of JAM music video







MJJJusticeProject‏ @MJJJusticePrjct

Lord - "In 2005, Wade Robson was FIRST Defense witness for #MichaelJackson and stood by him, but he LIED" Reed Isn't Wade's stance to get around the Statute of Limitations is that he testified because he DIDN'T KNOW he was abused? Reed is sayng Wade KNOWINGLY LIED.

[soulmum]

https://www.rt.com/usa/455920-michael-j ... ary-media/


#MeToo-gagged media silent as holes emerge in Michael Jackson abuse documentary

Published time: 8 Apr, 2019 20:03



Weeks after an explosive documentary detailing shocking allegations of child abuse by the late Michael Jackson made instant headlines, holes have appeared in the narrative of the abusers — but the US media has gone silent.


The four-hour-long ‘Leaving Neverland’ documentary by filmmaker Dan Reed offered detailed accounts of sexual abuse and garnered massive amounts of media attention when it aired across the US and UK in March.

Jackson's two accusers, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, instantly became part of the #MeToo generation and few journalists questioned their stories or probed any further.

But in late March, Jackson biographer Mike Smallcombe raised concerns over a key date in the documentary. While Safechuck alleged he was abused in the train station at Jackson’s Neverland, it turns out that construction of the train station didn’t begin until the end of 1993, and it did not open until 1994 — two years after Safechuck said the abuse ended at age 14.

Smallcombe even tweeted images of construction permits for the train station on Twitter to prove his case. Responding to Smallcombe’s unearthed documents, director Reed appeared to admit that the dates in his documentary were wrong, before quickly backtracking and insisting that there was “no clash of dates.”

One month after the documentary produced a major media storm, there seems to be little interest from the US media in the new information — or Reed’s response to allegations that Safechuck could be lying.

Other holes have been picked in the narrative, too, including one involving Safechuck’s mother, who claimed to have celebrated Jackson’s death four years before her son said he realized he had been abused.

A string of other details which seemingly don’t add up were compiled by Mediate reporter John Ziegler, who has questioned why the new information has not “gained any traction” in the US, despite being picked up by at least three major outlets in the UK. The Daily Mail, the Sun and the Mirror, along with multiple smaller outlets, have all written about Smallcombe’s concerns over the documentary.

Media in Australia and Canada have also reported on the documentary’s discrepancies, but remarkably little interest has been shown by major US outlets.

Why? Ziegler suspects the lack of media interest could be down to the “radically altered rules” for how allegations of abuse are evaluated in the #MeToo era.





Michael Jackson's Defense Attorney Tom Meserau Speaks of the 2005 Trial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amLrvHn6BS8

[soulmum]

Live Stream April 8th, 2019 (Live with Taj Jackson!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRBnL5MjIU0

[soulmum]

https://www.iloveoldschoolmusic.com/ted ... rs-stories
Teddy Riley & Berry Gordy’s Granddaughter Stand Up For Her Uncle Michael & Call Out Accusers’ Stories
Posted On : April 8, 2019

[soulmum]

Verified account @tajjackson3

There is an actual construction permit for the Neverland train station(1993) AND aerial photos and footage from before it existed, while being constructed, and after it was completed. James Safechuck lied. Case closed!
Facts don’t lie. People do

[soulmum]

Bill Whitfield‏ @MJBODYGUARDS

The same media outlet that’s taking my book out of context is the same media outlets that offered me $$$$$ to slander Mr. Jackson. I know how they work, now they know how I work!












Original MJJForum.com‏ @MJJForumUSA

Really media? You’re trying to label #mjfans as cultists & truthers? People with a hunger for truth and fairness are crazy? So mere allegations are now more important than the presumption of innocence? Exculpatory evidence exists, and yet the USA media ignores it. SHAME!





KerryWard‏ @FallAgainMJ

Rhymes With Snitch | Celebrity and Entertainment News | : HBO Pulls the Plug on Leaving Neverland





https://meaww.com/michael-jackson-leavi ... ade-robson
Michael Jackson's longtime tech director refutes claims that Wade Robson was abused at Neverland studio

In 'Neverland Firsthand: Investigating the Michael Jackson Documentary', those close to the late singer have mounted a vigorous defense against allegations made in 'Leaving Neverland'

By Ishani Ghose
Published on : 08:50 PST, Apr 9, 2019



Late pop legend Michael Jackson has come under intense scrutiny after the release of HBO's documentary 'Leaving Neverland,' where he has been accused of sexually abusing James Safechuck and Wade Robson when they were children at his Neverland Ranch.

While the accusers maintain that Jackson abused them, some people close to the late singer, including his longtime tech director Brad Sundberg, his nephew Taj Jackson, niece Brandi Jackson and private investigator Scott Ross, have revealed a different side to the story in a new mini-documentary titled 'Neverland Firsthand: Investigating the Michael Jackson Documentary'.

In the documentary, Jackson's niece Brandi Jackson, who dated Robson for over seven years, claims that Robson has not been truthful with his allegations.

Brandi said that Robson bent the truth in his favor in a bid to benefit financially from the uproar and outrage that 'Leaving Neverland' has caused. Brandi said she believes that she was not mentioned in 'Leaving Neverland' as it would discredit Robson's claims. "It would discount or discredit the things he is trying to claim and I find it fascinating that he thinks he is able to erase 10 years of his life," Brandi revealed.

If given the chance to confront Robson, Brandi said she would tell him to "stop lying" and regardless of his reasons, "he needs to stop."

Meanwhile, Sundberg who worked with Jackson for around 18 years, discredited claims by Robson in his lawsuit that suggested that some of the abuse had taken place at a recording studio called Record 1.

Robson has claimed that the 'Thriller' hitmaker had a "green room" where the abuse would happen. However, Sundberg said that even though Jackson did have a private lounge like most celebrities, the studio was very private and nobody was allowed to come in it.

"All those who were in the studio had a reason for being there. It wasn't like Michael had guests there every day. Guests were actually pretty infrequent. The perception that Michael always had kids there, there is really no validity to that. We were working," Sundberg shared.
When asked whether he believed Robson's claims, Sundberg said that he was a father at that point and had two daughters and had worked with children in church for several years. "I'm very aware of kids. Not in a million years, did I ever see a child around Michael Jackson that looked like they had been distressed, hurt, abused. I can't put my hand on a bible and say, 'Absolutely nothing happened in that room.' It's just, there weren't that many instances."

"I remember seeing Wade once or twice in the studio but it was not a regular occurrence at all and there just wasn't a sense of [any] wrongdoing," Sundberg continued.

Sundberg, who was given the opportunity to help Jackson design the music and video systems in Neverland, also addressed rumors that the ranch was a place where children were abused.

"Neverland was unbelievable. It was such a peaceful, safe, fun place designed very specifically for kids that were underprivileged or burn victims, or sick kids, or make-a-wish kids. I have been in every corner and in every closet. There was that level of trust. There was nothing that even hinted at 'Oh Wow, what is this guy into?'," Sundberg shared.

Private investigator Ross who looked into Jackson's trial in the 1993 Jordan Chandler case shared that the money which was given to settle the case did not come from Jackson but from his insurance company. He said that much against popular belief, the musician did not pay the $20 million to settle the case, his insurance company did. Jackson was at the peak of his career and like most celebrities was no stranger to lawsuits and scandals whether the accusations were true or not.

According to Jackson's nephew Taj, Jackson was a repeated target of lawsuits as he was a nice person and people took advantage of that.

In November 2003, Jackson's now infamous Neverland Ranch was checked and searched by the police who found no incriminating evidence against the 'Thriller' singer.

However, he was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent for the purpose of committing a felony. In a 2005 trial, Jackson was found not guilty on all the 14 counts made against him.

[soulmum]

Bill Whitfield‏ @MJBODYGUARDS

How dare you misinterpret my book on Michael Jackson just for news coverage. I didn’t work for MJ in 1990 as my description only stated when Neverland was established. Just like the LN documentary your inaccuracy and falsification is a disgrace. Facts don’t lie...The Sun does!

[soulmum]

https://www.showbiz411.com/2013/06/30/m ... ade-robson
Wade Robson is the young man who is now suing Michael Jackson’s estate. He claims Jackson molested him from age 7 to 14. Thanks to the re-surfacing of old “files” from the old “National Enquirer” in the British press today, I had go to back and look through my files from 2005. And what I found is pretty interesting.

I met with a young man named Bobby Newt, a kid from the files whom National Enquirer reporter Jim Mitteager targeted as a Michael Jackson “victim.” By 2005 he was an adult, and I met with him. He told me nothing happened to him. He also added that nothing happened to Wade Robson, who was then going to be a witness in the trial.

Bobby Newt and his two brothers, who wanted to be the next Jackson 5, spent two weeks with Michael at his Hayvenhurst house in Encino (this was before Neverland). This is what I wrote:

“…nothing about what Bobby Newt hears now about himself or others makes sense.

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

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

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

Published April 7, 2005

Former Protege Vouches for Jackson



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Maybe there aren’t any other kids,” a current Enquirer editor conceded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He knew you were lying, I reminded Bobby Newt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts

Still waiting for photo of Safechuck in Thriller jacket to emerge. Dan Reed to show "grooming" by Michael has him say in #LeavingNeverland he wore it everywhere, including the grocery store, but has to resort to photo from the video? Starstruck parents didn't take at least one?

[soulmum]

Justice for The Falsely Accused‏ @JuliaBerkowitz1
Replying to @AndrewGreene864 @Oprah and 2 others

It's not a "timeline issue", not if it was on a Tuesday or Wednesday! He claimed abuse happened regularly in a building that did not exist! He provided photos of the train station used in the film. He did not "mix it up" with anything! He LIED!






Tasha S‏ @NatashaShingles

MJ heavily sedated in his final days, recorded by Conrad Murray
“I’m going to use the money (this is it tour) and build a hospital for sick children”
They took the one thing he loved and made it dirty.






Samar @TheMJAP‏ @TheMJAP

Oprah Winfrey referring to a 6 YEAR timeline discrepancy, that decimates the entire narrative that the Leaving Neverland TV show is predicated on, as "they might not remember if it's a Thursday or a Friday."
These people are DELIBERATELY lying in order to defend this fraud.






Deepi‏ @deepika1038

New proof for train station from Michael himself!!


Michael says in this interview with the magazine, I'm getting a steam train, it was June 1993!!!

[soulmum]

Judi Brisse‏ @JudiBrisse
Replying to @scobie @GayleKing @Oprah

I sincerely wish Oprah could have afforded my former boss, Mr.Jackson, the same respect. At the very least, she could have gotten the facts straight. She certainly enjoyed all the comforts of Neverland when I saw her and her crew in the kitchen in 1993, the day of the interview.

[soulmum]

MJJJusticeProject‏ @MJJJusticePrjct

RT 2005 - The media so bent on harming #MichaelJackson legacy, DATELINE NBC used Victor Gutierrez, a Pedophile book author- as a "Consulting Producer" Now Victor Gutierrez stench is penetrating the narrative of these FICTION #LeavingNeverland - @Oprah cannot escape this FACT.






Darrin D Henson Exposing Wade Robson Leaving Neverland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqqjMscRlvk

[soulmum]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... _share-top
EXCLUSIVE: 'It's time to get mine!' Wade Robson tried to cash in on his Michael Jackson sex abuse saga with tell-all book to make him 'relevant' - and considered divorcing his wife who had reservations about the project
•Wade Robson shopped around a book in 2012 detailing his claims that Michael Jackson sexually abused him, DailyMail.com can reveal
•Robson and fellow accuser James Safechuck allege Jackson sexually molested them at his Neverland ranch in the HBO documentary Leaving Neverland
•The Australian dancer approached a string of publishing companies demanding a 'large amount of money' for rights to the book, according to court docs
•In a note dated in August 2013, Robson typed: 'My story of abuse and its effects will make me relatable/relevant'
•In another note from April 2015, Robson jotted down 'writings of my thoughts' and one sentence ended with the words: 'It's time to get mine!'
•The documents also reveal the book was causing friction between Robson and his wife Amanda, who questioned whether if it 'was the right thing to do'
•When publishers passed on his proposal frustrated Robson launched a doomed $1.5 billion civil lawsuit seeking damages from the Michael Jackson Estate.
Michael Jackson accuser Wade Robson wanted to cash in with a tell-all book revealing sex abuse allegations against the King of Pop and wrote a personal note stating: 'It's time to get mine!', according to bombshell court documents.

Robson was so desperate to push his story out to the world that he approached a string of high profile publishing companies demanding a 'large amount of money' for rights to the book and even noted that his tale of abuse would make him 'relatable/relevant' as a victim.

But when publishers passed on his proposal frustrated Robson launched a doomed $1.5 billion civil lawsuit seeking damages from the Michael Jackson estate.

And according to court documents obtained by DailyMail.com it took three years before estate attorneys became aware of his book project because Robson tried to hide it.
It's alleged the dance choreographer was uncooperative and concealed drafts of the book before a judge took notice of the ditched memoir and ordered the dancer to produce all documents relevant to the case.



It's also claimed Robson repeatedly dodged requests to produce all communications relevant to the case and heavily redacted a lot of messages he did produce, including 50 emails with his mother.

And details about meticulous notes Robson took, book drafts, and emails with an agent and publishers have also emerged in the legal dossier.

The documents cast new light on the Australian dancer's actions in the run-up to him filing the 2013 lawsuit.

And the revelations may fuel further scrutiny of Robson's abuse claims which have already come under the microscope.

Attorney Vince Finaldi, who represents Robson and Safechuck in lawsuits alleging Jackson molested them, said the documents are 'biased' and 'one-sided'.

'This is the reason why we want a trial so that there's rules of evidence, there's rules to this process and a neutral fact-finder under the supervision of a judge and that's what we want and that's what we're fighting for and we're not going to stop until we get it.'

He added: 'These are comments that are written by the same lawyers that have been defending that pedophile for 30 plus years, they've run over victims, they've run over victims' families, they've apologized for this man and they've made excuses for him for years and years and years.'
Robson - who has admitted lying under oath during Jackson's 2005 sex abuse trial - often journaled his thoughts onto paper and revealed that he had 'dedicated seven months' of his life to penning pages for his book.

In one email between Robson and his literary agent Alan Nevins, dated February 27, 2013, the subject line is titled 'Our Secret Project.'

In another note, dated August 2013 – five months after filing the lawsuit — Robson, who was vying to be a meditation teacher, typed: 'My story of abuse and its effects will make me relatable/relevant.'

During his deposition, estate attorney Katherine Kleindienst asked him what he meant by that and Robson explained it away.

The now 36-year-old said: 'I believe what that's referring to is where the teacher was talking about how as teachers of meditation… not everybody wants to learn meditation from the same kind of person with the same life story.

'And so, that's in relation to me having gone through trauma in my childhood and… that's one of the pieces of my life that would make me relatable to a certain amount of people who have had similar experiences in childhood.'

The documents also reveal that the writing of the book was causing friction between Robson and his wife Amanda (pictured together in 2005). Amanda had questioned her husband over whether writing a book 'was the right thing to do', according to the court documents



In February 2013 — when publishers were considering his book proposal — Robson had logged a note of his thoughts. He had written: 'Amanda cannot stop me from doing what I want to do. Makes me think about divorce. That is how angry it makes me. I have dedicated the last 7 months of my life to this idea of the book. This path. Now, now trying to ask me if it's the right thing to do?'

In another note from April 2015, Robson jotted down 'writings of my thoughts' and one sentence ended with the words: 'It's time to get mine!'

But when questioned in his deposition about what he meant by those words, he said he couldn't remember.

None of this background was known when Leaving Neverland first aired on HBO, depicting the graphic accounts of both Robson and fellow accuser James Safechuck.

Both men claim that Jackson sexually abused them as children.

After the two-part documentary was broadcast, Oprah Winfrey interviewed both accusers for a show called 'After Neverland' and Robson spoke of looking for a platform to tell his story, but talked only about pursuing legal avenues.

He said: 'Nine months into my healing the question was ''Could I do something good with this bad? Is there a platform where I could tell this story where they [the Estate] would have to listen and be held accountable?'' For me, that's where it began, because one of those platforms is the legal system.'

But DailyMailTV has learned that it all began for Robson when he sat down, for at least an hour a day, to write out his life story in a bid to cash in on his connection to the superstar singer.

He then turned to Los Angeles-based agent Alan Nevins, of Renaissance Literary and Talent, to shop a book deal to both US and UK publishers in late 2012.

In a legal deposition with Jackson estate attorneys, Robson said he 'started writing just for the sake of processing'.

That writing then morphed into a draft for a book in the latter half of 2012, he says.


He says he authorized Nevins to speak with publishers about securing a deal but denies ever discussing money.

But according to the documents, Ms Kleindienst, for the estate, told him: 'When I spoke to Mr Nevins on the phone, he volunteered to me that you had demanded a large amount of money for your book. Are you saying that he's lying?'

'Tell me again what he said I said?' Robson asked.

'That you were demanding a very large amount of money for your book.'

'Not true', Robson replied, insisting that he gave no instructions about what should be said to publishers, except that he 'did not want to be a part of any sort of book that was focused on sensationalism.'

A source close to the Robson family, however, told DailyMailTV that when Robson first talked about writing a book, he expected the deal to fund his vision for a non-profit organization to help victims of child abuse, through therapy and meditation.

The dancer said he didn't remember if any written materials had been sent to publishers as part of his submission, or whether he'd authorized anything to be sent.

But emails produced to the court reveal that at least three publishing houses had read his words in some form.

Editors at Harper Collins, Pan Macmillan, Sidgwick & Jackson had considered the book proposal, according to an emailed list Robson requested to see from his agent in February 2013 'so I know all the options that have been explored.'

Later that spring, all publishers passed on the book.

In May that same year, Robson filed his lawsuit against the Jackson estate and the performer's companies.

The documents also reveal that the writing of the book was causing friction between Robson and his wife Amanda.

Amanda had questioned her husband over whether writing a book 'was the right thing to do', according to the court documents.



For years, Robson had maintained the megastar never touched him sexually or inappropriately, maintaining his story - even to his own mother - well after the singer's death in 2009



In February 2013 — when publishers were considering his book proposal — Robson had logged a note of his thoughts, which was raised by the estate attorneys.

He had written: 'Amanda cannot stop me from doing what I want to do. Makes me think about divorce. That is how angry it makes me. I have dedicated the last 7 months of my life to this idea of the book. This path. Now, now trying to ask me if it's the right thing to do?'

When asked about that note, Wade dismissed the idea that he seriously contemplated divorce.

'Nothing beyond, like, in a moment of being emotional, angry, the thought crossing my mind for a split second, but never beyond that,' he said.

'There were definitely those sort of intense conversations, but I don't remember her ever telling me, suggesting that I shouldn't do it.'

When asked by attorneys why he stopped pursuing a book deal, Robson suggested it was his call rather than lack of interest from publishers.

He said it was 'not going to be as impactful in that form… as I wanted the truth of Michael's sexual abuse of me to get out there and be of help [to others].'

The court documents also allege that when Robson was asked to produce 'all written communications relating to his allegations of abuse', he stated under oath that only a single document existed.

'Documents obtained by third parties, however, showed that these sworn statements by Robson were false,' Howard Weitzman, attorney for the Jackson estate, said.

It's claimed Robson later produced several bankers' boxes full of communications that he had previously claimed did not exist.
The document states that on three separate occasions Robson 'falsely' claimed to have produced all the documents he had, but estate attorneys found 'clear evidence' that he wasn't telling the truth.
Weitzman added: 'To this day, Robson has failed to produce numerous communications with third parties and has never explained why.'

He continued that Robson had redacted the 'entire content' of numerous emails he produced for 'no plausible reason', including over 50 emails between him and his mother and a further 20 to other family members.

'Many of those redactions are clearly improper,' Weitzman states.

The documents cite one email exchange dated February 16, 2016 between Robson and his mother Joy, under the subject line, 'Security testimony'.

'Robson describes a purported statement by a former security guard at Neverland implying inappropriate conduct by Defendants, and asks his mother what she thinks,' the document states.

Eight minutes later Robson's mother responds: 'Wow. None of that is true...'

The paperwork continues: 'The remainder of Ms Robson's response is (conveniently) obscured in the version produced by her, and Ms Robson now (conveniently) claims she no longer has access to this email, making its production by Robson himself critical.'

The documents add that Robson failed to produce multiple emails from another conversation chain with his mother, entitled 'Questions for Mom'.

Robson went into therapy after suffering two nervous breakdowns he says were triggered by sexual abuse at Neverland.

For years, he had maintained the megastar never touched him sexually or inappropriately, maintaining his story - even to his own mother - well after the singer's death in 2009.
He was the star witness for the defense when Michael Jackson stood trial and Jackson was acquitted on child molestation charges in 2005.

This new information came to light after a judge in the lawsuit was told by the Michael Jackson Estate that Robson had 'misrepresented' the status of producing the documents he was legally obliged to hand over surrounding the book.

The estate only learned about the book project in October 2016.

The judge eventually ordered that all drafts, emails, attachments, and documents related to the book be produced by Robson, but an estate request to forensically examine the choreographer's computer was denied.

Robson's lawsuit, which was later joined by fellow accuser James Safechuck, was ultimately tossed out of court.

In Leaving Neverland Robson and Safechuck accuse the King Of Pop of sexual abuse at the Neverland ranch over several years.

Jackson bought the Sycamore Ranch after 'falling in love' with the place while filming Say Say Say with Paul McCartney.

A huge fan of Peter Pan, Jackson vowed to turn the home into a real Neverland.

The 2,800 acre estate - four times the size of Monaco - has 67,000 sycamore trees and features a sepia savannah which slopes up to a 3,000 feet peak that Jackson dubbed Mount Katherine - as homage to his mother.

In 2003 Jackson allowed British broadcaster Martin Bashir to film his daily life and interactions with children at Neverland.

In the interview he defended 'sleeping with children' as a natural part of his life.

However, two years later cancer survivor Gavin Arvizo accused him of abusing him, which
lead to his child molestation trial in Santa Maria in 2005.

He was cleared on all counts, but never returned to Neverland.

[soulmum]

https://pagesix.com/2019/04/11/photogra ... %20buttons
Photographer David LaChapelle defends Michael Jackson


By Emily Kirkpatrick
April 11, 2019



David LaChapelle Getty Images

Famed fashion photographer David LaChapelle is the latest celebrity to defend Michael Jackson.

LaChapelle, 56, shared his photograph of the disgraced pop star three times on Instagram on Thursday depicting Jackson as a weeping angel with his foot atop a red devil.
In the caption for the first image, the artist wrote, “LIGHT OVER DARKNESS — KEEP THE FAITH — against greed and lies…truth out now!!!!” This was followed by a zoomed in version of the same image with the caption, “PRAYERS ARE ANSWERED!!!!! — NO MESSAGE COULD HAVE BEEN ANY CLEARER — against greed and lies.” And a third of the same photo that reads, “TRUTH IS REVEALED! — VICTORY against greed and lies.”

The photographer’s defense of the musician comes as an apparent (and belated) response to the HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland,” in which James Safechuck and Wade Robson claim they were sexually abused by Jackson when they were children.

The photo of Michael Jackson David LaChapelle posted to his Instagram accountGetty Images

LaChapelle isn’t the first star to stand by the “Bad” singer. Last month, Diana Ross tweeted, “I believe and trust that Michael Jackson was and is A magnificent incredible force to me and to many others.”

Barbra Streisand also said that while she believes Safechuck and Robson’s accounts of what transpired, “I blame, I guess, the parents, who would allow their children to sleep with him.” She told the Times of London, “His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has. You can say ‘molested,’ but those children, as you heard say, they were thrilled to be there.”

She later clarified her comments after receiving backlash, stating, “To be crystal clear, there is no situation or circumstance where it is OK for the innocence of children to be taken advantage of by anyone,” her statement read. “The stories these two young men shared were painful to hear, and I feel nothing but sympathy for them. The single most important role of being a parent is to protect their children. It’s clear that the parents of the two young men were also victimized and seduced by fame and fantasy.”




MJJLegion @MJJLegion

Famed celebrity photographer David LaChapelle has expressed his support for Michael Jackson on Instagram with several photos of his MJ art pieces.

[soulmum]

andjustice4some‏ @andjustice4some

UPDATE: The Estate of Michael Jackson v. HBO: The Estate will appear in court on 5/13/19. They have filed a motion to remand the case back to the state court.







MJJJusticeProject‏ @MJJJusticePrjct

From the Estate of Michael Jackson The Estate has spoken: BAM
“Leaving Never http://tl.gd/n_1sqs2km via mellie4justice
“Leaving Neverland" Causes Rush to Judgment about Michael… https://www.instagram.com/p/BwK0IxJD_kM ... hhb6mcz8ul





https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1659595






GeraldineBlondeau‏ @GeraldineBlonde

WATCH a lawyer about the reason why Wade Robsons & James Safechucks lawsuits were dismissed.
link to the full video about the 93 & 05 case & LN and the estate vs. HBO
here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGVuid2j98k …






Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts

Those outraged at the lies being exposed in #LeavingNeverland now should organize and demand that @WarnerMediaGrp launch an independent review of claims made in the film, its sourcing, and @HBO's vetting procedures. Warner should hire an academic institution or outside law firm.







Lisa Brisse‏ @LisaBrisse
Replying to @tajjackson3

Omg. That, my friends, is what betrayal looks like.. My mom, @JudiBrisse just started working at Neverland as a housekeeper and I watch this and feel what a magical time it was in our lives and then the reality of now sets in. so sad. I’m sorry Taj.We loved ur uncle.





AllforLove‏ @love_allfor

Shane (brother) & Joy (mom) testify that Wade has money concerns. Wade attempts to sell MJ memorabilia anonymously through Juliens Auctions but they refuse. In his lawsuit, he says he recd a total of $50000. As you can see, we have receipts for $140000.







@jessresisters
Replying to @HanukkahHal

Follow my thread please.
1/ Evan Charmatz Chandler lied about Michael Jackson for money & fame. I know this because his parents were my parents best friends. We moved to New Rochelle NY because the Charmatz family lived there. Evan's mother Bea told my mom that Evan lied for $

2/ We moved to New Rochelle when I was 6 & Evan was 12, his brother Raymond was 10. His mom Bea went to high school with my dad. When my dad's secretary's poodle had puppies we took Toni Charmatzes took Gabby. Evan was walking Gabby when a woman ran her car into her killing her
3/ Our dog Toni died 3 months earlier after getting hit by a car too. Our families were very close. Bea helped us plan 2 surprise wedding anniversary parties for my parents. After her husband Harold died & my dad died my mom & I moved to apartment building where Bea lived.
4/ My mom & Bea traveled to Scotland, Ireland & Israel together. Bea told my mom that Evan changed his name from Charmatz to Chandler because Charmatz sounded too "Jewish". Bea said Evan needed money wanted to be famous that's why he lied about Michael Jackson & his son hated him
6/ Evan's son Jordan became an emancipated minor after his father lied about Michael Jackson. Evan's infamy got Mel Brooks to produce his movie Robin Hood Men in Tights. Tgen Ray cashed in with defamatory book of lies about Michael. Evan lied for $ just like these other guys
7/ Three months after Michael Jackson died Evan killed himself shooting himself in his head. I saw the news first online & read that Evan allegedly had a fatal genetic Jewish disease & that was the reason he killed himself. Fortunately Bea had died a few years earlier. /End

[soulmum]

This is not from the MJ Estate but from a fan group.



Los Angeles (April 12, 2019) –As a global icon, Michael Jackson made history and headlines throughout his life, and he is making history and headlinesonce again -- this time as perhaps the only person to be placed on trial after death. He is not being tried in a court of law, of course, but he is being judged in a court whose repercussions can be just as lasting, if unchecked or unchallenged: The court of public opinion.



However, in the case of Michael Jackson and “Leaving Neverland,” judgment about the King of Pop is being made based on one-sided tales by two men with a track record of inconsistent stories and whose recounting of incidents and information was never fact-checked by the film director’s own admission. Now that the film has aired, the facts and truths about the two accusers are coming to light.



Just as HBO recently decided to pull “Leaving Neverland,” from its programming lineup due to multiple discrepancies in the two accusers’ statements in the documentary, it is time to now share some critical facts that many people may not know.



First, let’s consider some important questions that should concern us all.



When does a person’s right to protect his or her good name and legacy end? Does it end when they die and can no longer defend themselves against allegations? In that case, doesn’t an individual like Michael Jacksonstill have the right for people to judge him or her on the facts and not on a series of one-sided tales when that person cannot stand up and say, “The allegations against me are categorically false! Here are the facts!”Is it fair or just that someone can attempt to rewrite history or tarnish a deceased person’s legacy with uncorroborated statements dressed up as truths?



These are critically important questions that every person around the worldshould be asking in the wake of the controversial HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland,” and here is why.


Some Undeniable Facts​



First, an event unprecedented in the documentary film world occurred during the week of April 8, 2019, when the film’s director, Dan Reed, admitted that there are several discrepancies in the accusers’ story. James Safechuck, one of two accusers in the documentary claims that he was assaulted in an upstairs room at the Neverland Ranch train station from 1988 to 1992 but construction on Neverland’s train station did not start until late 1993 when the ranch received permits. The station was not even partially opened until 1994, which can be verified through state of California public records.



Second, and equally disturbing, is that Mr. Reed admits that he did not fact check the stories that Safechuck and Wade Robson tell in the film, despite the fact that he devotes four hours to their tales and took more than two years to do the film.



Mr. Reed uses selective editing and false claims in an attempt to discredit Mr. Jackson’s 2005 acquittal on child molestation charges.



“Leaving Neverland” presents a series of uncorroborated tales and allegations against Michael Jackson by two accusers who are in the midst of appealing a lawsuit for millions of dollars against the late pop star’s estate. They did not mention this in the film, but it is an indisputable fact that both men have a financial stake in participating in the film, particularly if it influences their appeals.



Mr. Robson and Mr. Safechuck had their lawsuits dismissed by the court twice for numerous provable inconsistencies in their sworn statements regarding alleged abuse by Mr. Jackson. The judge wrote in his judgment that “no rational fact-finder could possibly believe Robson’s statements.”



Mr. Robson and Mr. Safechuck swore under oath that Mr. Jackson never abused them or harmed them in any way. For more than two decades, publically and privately, both accusers denied that Mr. Jackson abused them.



Mr. Robson testified to this as an adult and under oath at Mr. Jackson’s 2005 trial -- a trial at which Mr. Jackson was found innocent of all charges by a jury of his peers in a court of law. He was Mr. Jackson’s first witness.



Of significant note is that during the 2005 trial, it was disclosed that Mr. Jackson had been investigated for child molestation by the FBI and other California law enforcement agencies for 10 years, costing millions of dollars, and they found no evidence that he had abused any children.



Another case in point is that Mr. Robson completely changes one of the critical moments of his narrative in the documentary from what he had said in his court papers as well as in a deposition taken just two months before he was filmed in “Leaving Neverland.” In in 2012, as he was attempting to write a book, he recalled so little about his interactions with Mr. Jackson that his mother had to fill in the blanks; her input did not include any references to the alleged abuse. However, in the film, unaided, Mr. Robson appears to have vivid recollections of specific events and alleged sex acts.


Numerous relevant facts are omitted from the documentary that would help viewers better decide the credibility of the accusers, including:



Michael Jackson was subjected to a lengthy and extensive investigation by law enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation provided support to those investigations. The FBI website states, “Between 1993 and 1994, and separately between 2004 and 2005, Mr. Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges.”


Mr. Jackson’s home and offices were raided unannounced multiple times and his medical records confiscated, which resulted in no evidence of the allegations.


Mr. Robson met with Michael Jackson Estate lawyers in 2011to ask for a producer’s role in the Cirque du Soleil Oneproduction, based on Mr. Jackson’s music. Mr. Robson sued after he was denied the position. Also, he stated that he had no knowledge of the Michael Jackson Estate before March 4, 2013, even though he met with an Estate lawyer in 2011.


Mr. Safechuck falsely claims he was pressured to testify at the 2005 trial but had already been eliminated as a witness by the judge who limited witnesses to Mr. Robson, Brett Barnes and Macauley Culkin. In the film, he states that he decided not to testify.


Mr. Reed claims that Mr. Robson and Mr. Safechuck had not met until the Sundance Film Festival in January 2019 for legal reasons. However, in Mr. Robson’s deposition in 2016, he specifies that he had met Mr. Safechuck in 2014 while they were pursuing the cases against the Michael Jackson Estate.


Mr. Robson is shown burning Michael Jackson memorabilia as the credits roll but Mr. Reed neglects to mention that Mr. Robson, as the press reported, auctioned his most valuable items in 2011 to satisfy a cash flow shortage.

These are but a few of the many facts surrounding the tales presented as unchallenged truths in “Leaving Neverland,” most of which have not been widely or even limitedly released to the public but the public has a right to this information and a right to not have their freedom to decide what to believe circumvented by uncorroborated stories.



Finally, we began with a few questions and we will conclude with two more that we should all ponder: Is it wrong to question why these facts were intentionally omitted from “Leaving Neverland,” and perhaps most of all, is it fair or just for a deceased human being, whose voice has been forever silenced, to have his or herlegacy tarnished, diminished or even erased?



Michael Jackson’s music has been the soundtrack of our lives for 50 years. His untarnished legacy and his music belong to the world, and we should all want to preserve and protect these irreplaceable gifts.



Let your voice be heard at:



#IAM4MJ



#STAND4MJ



The Michael Jackson Estate

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts

This is why it is so disgraceful that #LeavingNeverland was never fact checked and that Dan Reed intentionally avoided non Robson-Safechuck sources. @HBO should have double checked if not tripled checked allegations for accuracy. This was the heart of a major claim in the movie.


Brett Barnes‏ @IAmBrettBarnes

My mother, sister and myself were definitely there for dinner that night.






https://www.iloveoldschoolmusic.com/ste ... l-jackson/
Stephanie Mills Obliterates Oprah, HBO, & MJ Accusers In Honor Of Her Ex, Michael Jackson

Posted On : April 14, 2019
When it comes to the legendary songstress Stephanie Mills there are few facts that are certain: (1) She is a SANGIN’ somebody; (2) She’s still sexy as ever at 62; (3) she’s a 4’9″ feisty woman, who always speaks her mind; and (4) when it comes to standing up for her ex-boyfriend, Michael Jackson, she is most definitely his ‘ride-or-die type of chick’.

The latter description of Ms. Mills could not be more evident in her latest display of outspokenness, regarding the Leaving Neverland documentary and everyone involved…including Oprah.
In case anyone out there didn’t know that the “Feel Good” singer dated MJ back in the day, we’ll break down their monumental coupled up era shortly. For now though, let’s dig into how Stephanie Mills has just put Oprah Winfrey, HBO, and MJ’s accusers all in their places over the ‘lies’ the accusers told about her ex.

In a lengthy online post, Mills had much to say about HBO’s documentary and the discrepancies it’s exposed.
After several parts of MJ’s sex abuse accusers, Wade Robson’s and James Safechuck’s, claims were exposed for being either fictitious or having been altered by them on several occasions, Mills took to social media to go OFF. She also slammed Oprah and HBO for giving them a platform:

We live in this new way of life where being first is better than being correct! They slandered his name, they tried to ruin his image, they wanted the ratings, they wanted the likes and clicks and all they got was embarrassed and humbled for being ambulance chasers! #HBO, #Oprah and all involved, owe my friend #MichaelJackson, his family and friends an apology for what they did.

I really want y’all to have that same energy to right what y’all know was so wrong when y’all took the word of two individuals that had zero credibility when y’all sat down with them. You can’t blame them for trying, however when the pros go low…we go high! #GodDontLikeUgly…and he ain’t that cool with pretty either. What y’all did was unprofessional and ugly! We have got to do better and we have to stop with the assignation of people who are no longer here to defend themselves. I love and miss you Michael. Go ahead my friend and Moon Walk into your greatness. Because NO weapon formed against you shall prosper



In a past interview on Mo’Nique’s talk show, Stephanie Mills gladly gave a lil’ insight about the time she dated MJ:
Mills: “At that time, I was what- 15, 16 years old – and every girl in America wanted to be with Michael Jackson. And I just KNEW that I was gonna be Mrs. Michael Jackson.

Now …I will say this, he was TRULY my boyfriend, now I don’t know if I was his girlfriend, but he was TRULY my boyfriend, okay?!! And we spent a LOT of time together. I got a chance to spend a LOTTA time with him, especially when…he would come to the show [“The Wiz” Broadway play when Mills starred as “Dorothy”] almost everyday and sit back and watch…and I got a chance to go to the house. So we became really, really, really, really good friends and I was REALLY in love. I just knew I was gon’ be Mrs. Michael Jackson. […]

I was washing his clothes, I stayed with him on Sutton [inaudible]. … I made rice for him one day and he said the rice was real runny, because I can’t cook -I don’t profess to cook- but he ate it. I was trying to cook for him (LOL).”

When Mo’Nique jokingly said, “Now that sounds like an overnight visit…did you go to Never-Neverland?!!” Stephanie laughed, then replied:


“YEEEESSS! …Well, I will say this, I used to spend a lot of time [with Michael] and I did spend the night, but [she pauses] I did, I just spent the night (LOL).”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpS1qlup1C0






Justice for The Falsely Accused‏ @JuliaBerkowitz1

I love it how in her deposition Joy Robson says the fact that MJ didn't call Wade from the Dangerous Tour was "emotional abuse". But then they claim MJ calling them in Australia was "grooming". MJ could not win with these people, could he?





Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts

Dan Reed's mouthing off about doing a "sequel" to #LeavingNeverland on the 2005 trial only confirms that, contrary to his claims, he did no research. If he did he would know it was a disaster for the prosecution and that the jury was right. That's not a film he would ever do.






Michael Jackson Rebuttal (Part 3): Skeeving Slumberland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYx0vLfpRYY

[soulmum]

RazörFist‏ @RAZ0RFIST

It's the ONLY commonality among every accuser.
Not 'he groomed us all' (that's a recent invention).
But "WHY did he freeze me out?"
When Tom Mesereau asked the '05 accuser on the stand why he was mad at MJ, he didn't say 'he abused me'. He said "He stopped calling us."






RazörFist‏ @RAZ0RFIST

It was the perfect storm.
MJ DID have flaws. One of them - according to Lisa Marie & even his own family - was that he iced people out abruptly.
Do that to entitled stage moms you were previously showering with gifts? In the shadow of allegations?
You KNOW how they'll retaliate.

[soulmum]

Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts

Michael Jackson Estate Claims HBO is Helping Wade Robson Try and Take Millions from MJ’s Kids

https://theblast.com/michael-jackson-le ... ids-money/
The estate of Michael Jackson is trashing HBO over “Leaving Neverland,” and says the network is only helping Wade Robson and James Safechuck in their attempt to take money straight out of the pockets of Paris, Prince and Blanket.

According to legal documents obtained by The Blast, attorneys for MJ’s estate says they litigated for five years with Robson and Safechuck, and has “overwhelming proof that the two are not credible.”

The estate is not pulling any punches with Robson and Safechuck, and flat out says, “They are trained actors who made up their stories years after Jackson died, in order to sue the Estate, and try to take hundreds of millions of dollars from Jackson’s rightful heirs, his three children.”
Specifically addressing HBO, the estate believes it is a “violation of just about every journalistic standard” that HBO, “neglected to even mention in [‘Leaving Neverland’] that the two are still pursuing claims for hundreds of millions of dollars from Jackson’s children.”

Jackson’s children have not directly spoken on the allegations in “Leaving Neverland,” but Paris did recently tell fans it was not her role to defend her father, and, “there’s nothing i can say that hasn’t already been said in regards to defense.” Prince has always defended his father, and Blanket, who goes by “Bigi” these days, has also been silent.

The estate, which has sued HBO for breach of contract, argues that they would never have released “Leaving Neverland,” had MJ still been alive, because they state, “If Michael Jackson were alive, we have no doubt at all that he could sue, and win, for defamation.” They admit that neither MJ’s children, nor the estate, are able to sue for defamation and believe that was a major factor in HBO releasing the film.

Shortly after it premiered at Sundance, MJ’s estate filed a petition to compel HBO to arbitration over director Dan Reed‘s “Leaving Neverland.”

The estate is arguing that Jackson had a longstanding contractual relationship” with HBO, and believe there is a non-disparagement clause that was breached.
MJ’s estate believes their damages could exceed $100 million and are intending to go after HBO for the full amount.

HBO fought to have the lawsuit transferred to a federal court, but now Jackson’s estate is demanding the judge remand it back to state court. They accuse the network of playing games by moving the case and want a “real process to expose HBO’s lack of journalistic integrity.”

[soulmum]

"You still want to hear Michael Jackson"

"After the controversial documentary" Leaving Neverland "we wanted to know from you, if you want to continue listening to Michael Jackson in our program and the result is very clear!
You have decided: Michael Jackson will continue to run with us.

After the serious allegations against the King Of Pop in the documentary "Leaving Neverland", we wanted to hear from you, our listeners, if you would like to hear his hits in our program. The result of the non-representative WhatsApp survey is clear: 86 percent have voted to continue his hits weiter.Bundesweitere survey started

The market research platform Appinio asked on our behalf an additional 300 hamburgers representatively: "Should the music of Michael Jackson continue to be played on the radio?" Again, there is a clear majority (81.6 percent) who are in favor of the whereabouts of his music on the radio pronounce. Appinio surveyed 800 German citizens representatively throughout Germany. 83.5 percent of the respondents even spoke out in favor of this, 16.5 percent opposed it. HAMBURG TWO Program Manager Markus Steen: "It was important to us to put the answer to this sensitive question in the hands of our listeners, not to mention I did not expect the result to be so clear. "
Morning-Show host & "Mister Music" Fabian Kühne adds: "Michael Jackson is one of the most important artists we have in the program and it would have opened a big gap if his hits were suddenly missing.I am very pleased!"

https://www.hamburg-zwei.de/Musik/Mu...KBhY2ZEN08WJrg





A new update in the article about the differences between Leaving Neverland and the lawsuits:

The Safechucks are telling a completely different story in the film about how their relationship with Jackson started compared to James’s lawsuit. That Jackson and James first met during the shooting of a Pepsi commercial in late 1986-early 1987 is the same, but after that the stories dramatically differ.

In the film we hear Stephanie Safechuck say: “One day the phone rang and I picked it up: ‘Hi, this is Michael, I’m calling from Australia. I saw Jimmy’s commercial.’ I thought: ‘How touching, he doesn’t think it is his commercial, he thinks it’s Jimmy’s.’ So I put Jimmy on the phone and I could hear Jimmy say: ‘People tell me at school that you’re weird.’ Michael said: ‘Don’t listen to what anybody says. You know me, you know I’m not weird.’ And that started the relationship.

So Michael is still in Australia and asked if he could send a crew to our house to film Jimmy. So a crew came and Jimmy didn’t have any posters of Michael, so they put up posters of Michael all through Jimmy’s bedroom, so when they filmed it, you know, it was more appealing. It was exciting for all of us, for the the whole family.”

James Safechuck: “I sat on the bed and put all my memorabilia there and they just interviewed me. And then I did a little dance performance and they filmed that. Now that I look on it, it’s almost like an audition for him. He sends this film crew out.”

Stephanie Safechuck: “He didn’t explain that. I just figured he’s far away and this is part how he can be with people, and he made it clear that he was very lonely, he didn’t have any friends.”

James Safechuck: “And then his secretary or somebody called and asked if we would like to go to dinner at the Havenhurst house.”

So this is how Jackson’s relationship starts according to Leaving Neverland.

The story in James’s lawsuit, however, doesn’t even remotely resemble this. There the claim is that after the Pepsi commercial “Michael Jackson wrote a letter to [James Safechuck]” dated March 10, 1987. Notice how in the first sentence of paragraph 12 below the implication is that it was Jackson who initiated the contact. However, if you pay attention to the following letter that Jackson wrote to James, its first sentence is: “thank you for your letter”, which clearly indicates that Jackson answers to a letter that James had previously written to him. That initial letter is never mentioned explicitly in Safechuck’s complaint, though.



[3]

In the complaint after this letter (so shortly after March 10, 1987) the Safechucks are invited to Jackson’s Hayvenhurst home and by Thanksgiving Day (November 26, 1987) they are already good friends with Jackson.



[3]

This is a quite different story to what we see in the film, isn’t it?

In the film the Safechucks claim that the start of their relationship with Jackson was when Jackson, just out of the blue, called them from Australia. They claim that was their first contact with him after the Pepsi commercial. Jackson was in Australia in November 1987. Here are the dates when he performed in there during his Bad Tour:



In James’s lawsuit, on the other hand, by Thanksgiving Day (November 26) they already have a friendship with Jackson and Jackson spends Thanksgiving in the Safechucks home. Which is quite amazing because in reality he was in Australia, as we have seen above from the tour dates.

There seems to be a zeal by the Safechucks to portray Jackson as the initiator of the relationship. We can only learn that it wasn’t so, if we pay attention to the first sentence of Jackson’s letter to James on March 10, 1987. Perhaps this is why the film does not show or even mention this letter, but instead claims that the relationship started with Jackson calling the Safechucks from Australia in November 1987 and then Jackson immediately (while still in Australia) sending out a film crew to film James. The suggestion seems to be that Jackson did that to see if James is to his liking as a potential victim. Except, if he already had a friendship with the family before that and they already visited each other several times before, then of course this suggestion about the film crew does not make any sense.

Of course, it is difficult to tell what is true and what is false in each version of their story. That’s just the difficulty we have with people who cannot keep their story straight.

themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2019/03/17/differences-between-leaving-neverland-interviews-and-the-robson-safechuck-lawsuits/

[soulmum]

VP_Advocacy Retweeted

Cirque ONE show premiered on May 23rd 2013.
Wade went public on the today show one week before.
THIS WAS NOT A COINCIDENCE how can people not see this?
Actions of an entitled narcissistic brat!







Justice for The Falsely Accused‏ @JuliaBerkowitz1

Also: Safechuck filed his lawsuit on May 9, 2014 (Friday). It was immediately leaked to Diane Dimond for her to write an article about it in the Daily Beast by Monday. Just one day before Xscape was scheduled to be released (May 13).

[soulmum]

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news ... aoFSL5W4Fk
Michael Jackson Co-Executor John Branca Says He's Considering Suing 'Leaving Neverland' Director Dan Reed
4/16/2019
"Those people made up a goddamn story because they wanted money and we will not allow that to go unchecked," Branca said following a talk at Harvard Law School.
Michael Jackson estate co-executor John Branca spoke publicly for the first time about Leaving Neverland on April 16 and indicated that additional litigation -- this time against the documentary's director Dan Reed -- may be forthcoming. Branca and two of the other members of Jackson's estate legal team, Howard Weitzman and Bryan Freedman, were the the key participants in the panel discussion titled "Trial by Media: Guilty Until Proven Innocent" presented at Harvard’s Institute of Politics in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The attorneys had harsh words for the documentary and Reed, telling an audience of approximately 20 they were determined to defend and rebuild Jackson's reputation in the wake of Leaving Neverland, which contained disturbing and graphic first-person accounts of Jackson's alleged pedophilia but did not give the estate a chance to respond to these accusations.
With litigation already underway against HBO -- in February, the estate filed a $100-million lawsuit against the pay-cable network alleging it had violated a non-disparagement clause contained in a 1992 agreement to premiere Jackson's concert film, Live in Bucharest: The Dangerous Tour -- Branca said he and the estate's lawyers are now considering legal action directly against Reed, although he was not specific about what grounds he had for litigation.

In response to Branca's comments, an HBO spokesperson said, "Dan Reed is a proven, award-winning filmmaker and we have full confidence in his film."

For Branca, 68, who knew Jackson personally and even once had the singer serve as his best man, the documentary hit below the belt.

"Those people made up a goddamn story because they wanted money and we will not allow that to go unchecked," Branca told Billboard after the event. "It's that simple."

He said the estate was blindsided by the film because it was done "in complete secrecy." He said neither HBO nor Reed gave the estate an opportunity to clear up inaccuracies or to present Jackson's side of events involving Wade Robson and James Safechuck. For Branca, Freedman and Weitzman, Jackson's treatment in the media has been one-sided and made possible by the fact that there is no defamation protection for the deceased.

Branca said he believes the law surrounding defamation should be reevaluated.

"Because the laws of defamation are what they are, there is nothing we can do or say," Branca said. "The man can be damaged, his kids can be hurt and theoretically nothing can be done. I'm going to suggest the law should be changed to protect the deceased at least for a period of time. Because it's about the truth, it's about fairness, and it's about balance."
"Dan Reed's documentary is replete with inaccuracies, lies and stuff they knew not to be true," Branca told Billboard. "They should be ashamed of themselves."

Branca said he understands that people would say he is biased because he has a financial interest in Jackson's estate. Over the 10 years that have passed since Jackson's death in 2009, the estate's wealth has grown exponentially under Branca's leadership. Billboard calculates that Jackson's music catalog alone is now worth upwards of $570 million, and as co-executor Branca receives a 10 percent commission on new entertainment revenues generated for the estate. "It's a fact I won't deny," Branca said, but he added that his fight to clear Jackson's name is more about fairness than money.

"I knew the man, I had my feelings about the man, and I don't like what has happened where you can't hear the other side of the story," Branca said during the panel presentation. "There are real world implications and repercussions when somebody says something like was said [in Leaving Neverland]."

Branca said the estate was on an upward trajectory prior to the documentary and has taken a hit. He added, though, that streaming sales are still up from last year.

Hopefully the real truth will come out, other facts will come out and people will pay attention to both sides of the story," said Branca. "From the point of view of society, I want to make it so people feel comfortable saying, 'I love Michael's music.'"

"Michael," Branca said to Billboard, "is too big to fail."

[soulmum]

https://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainm ... is-legacy/
04/16/2019, 05:38pm


Michael Jackson estate confident fans will ‘protect his legacy’



By Associated Press


 


BOSTON — The co-executor of Michael Jackson’s estate said Tuesday that he’s confident the late superstar’s supporters will be able to protect his legacy in the wake of an HBO documentary featuring the disturbing stories of two men who say Jackson sexually abused them as boys.

Longtime entertainment attorney John Branca called the documentary a one-sided “made-for-TV-movie” and accused the film’s subjects of being motivated by money. Branca acknowledged that Jackson’s estate has faced “challenges” since the documentary’s release, but said he doesn’t believe there will be a long-term impact.

“People love Michael. They love Michael’s music for sure. And if the investigation is effective, which I think it will be, in showing that there is severe doubt about what may or may not have happened, we will be back to people feeling ‘It’s OK to say I like Michael,'” Branca said on a panel hosted by the Harvard Institute of Politics.

It’s the latest attack by Jackson’s estate against “Leaving Neverland,” featuring Wade Robson and James Safechuck. The estate has slammed filmmakers for not interviewing any of Jackson’s family members or other defenders, who insist the singer never molested a child.
The film’s director, Dan Reed, has repeatedly defended the film. Robson and Safechucks’s accusations are not new, but have put Jackson’s legacy under fresh scrutiny amid the #MeToo movement.

A lawyer for the men said Tuesday that Branca and lawyers for Jackson’s estate are seeking to discredit the singer’s accusers out of their own financial interest.

“Their recent comments are just part and parcel of the same thing they’ve been doing for years, which is protect the estate so they can continue to profit off of it,” attorney Vince Finaldi said.

The men first came forward with their stories years earlier in lawsuits. Both of them had previously denied the singer sexually abused them, but said having their own children and Jackson’s 2009 death forced them to face the truth. Their lawsuits were dismissed for technical reasons and their appeals are expected to be argued this summer.

Jackson, who was cleared in 2005 of charges that he molested another boy, acknowledged that he befriended numerous children, including some he invited into his bed, but denied molesting any.

ALANNA DURKIN RICHER, Associated Press







RazörFist‏ @RAZ0RFIST
RazörFist Retweeted KerryWard

Add another #LeavingNeverland inconsistency for the pile.
The story Safechuck's mother told about being 'locked out' of the movie theater while Michael and James were inside is physically impossible.






VP_Advocacy‏ @VP_Advocacy

"Dan Reed's documentary is replete with inaccuracies, lies and stuff they knew not to be true," Branca told Billboard. "They should be ashamed of themselves."






Michael #MJInnocent‏ @Mike_dropUK

Still waiting for someone who knew/knows wade to come out and defend him or say they believe him, all I see is people doing the opposite, unlike michael Jackson who has had hundreds of people who knew him come out in his defence....
#mjinnocent #mjfam











Damien Shields‏ @damienshields

Dear @Channel4
Your Factual Programme Guidelines state:
"It is never acceptable to represent something as having happened that did not."
Dan Reed includes in #LeavingNeverland that child rape occurred in a train station that PROVABLY did NOT exist.
PLEASE EXPLAIN!







RazörFist‏ @RAZ0RFIST

>Strongly imply Brett Barnes is a sexual assault victim in #LeavingNeverland
>He tells you he wasn't, demands you remove him from said film
>Refuse to do so
>Proceed to harass someone you claim is a 'victim'
Dan Reed and his pal Stinson are a bottomless wellspring of class.







Verified account @SIEDAHGARRETT

Shooting an interview today for the forthcoming documentary “Mirroring Michael Jackson”, focusing only on MJ’s music, philanthropy, and impact on my career.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7643430/

[soulmum]

Michael #MJInnocent‏ @Mike_dropUK

Remember when wade testified he wouldn’t be able to work or perform again in“any manner or capacity whatsoever”& that he can no longer be in the entertainment business again because he only associates it with physiological injury,illness & damage from his “abuse”

[soulmum]

https://pagesix.com/2019/04/17/jackson- ... W3h2wrBQ-k
Jackson kids quietly investigating Wade Robson and James Safechuck
By Derrick Bryson Taylor April 17, 2019 | 3:00pm

While the late Michael Jackson’s children continue to explore legal options against his accusers Wade Robson and James Safechuck, Page Six has learned they’re also quietly investigating Robson and Safechuck in advance of filing a lawsuit.

Robson and Safechuck made headlines when they appeared in HBO’s “Leaving Neverland” documentary, which aired earlier this year, to recount alleged sexual abuse by the King of Pop. Now Prince, Paris and Prince Michael Jackson II, aka “Blanket,” are on a mission to find out if the men were paid, in any capacity, for their participation, and to look for any inconsistencies in their accounts of the alleged abuse.

The film’s director, Dan Reed, has previously said they weren’t compensated, several outlets have reported.

According to a source close to the family, the children are said to be preparing a lawsuit for fraud, emotional distress, slander and misrepresentation.

We’re also told that in the potential suit, Prince, 22, Paris, 21, and Blanket, 17, are not looking for money, but want Robson and Safechuck to accept “responsibility” and give an “apology.” Any funds awarded will be given to charity.

Jackson’s three heirs feel the documentary violated their privacy as they are mentioned in it. “All of these things take away their privacy,” said a source.

As part of their investigation, the famous siblings are also digging into Robson’s Hawaii-based charity.

Around the time the documentary was released, Robson set up the “Robson Family Fund” through the Hawaii Community Foundation, reports The Blast.

Robson and his wife, Amanda, have been accused of capitalizing on the documentary’s popularity, as it was initially unclear where donations would go. Shortly thereafter, Robson changed the name to the “Robson Child Abuse Healing and Prevention Fund.” The charity’s website says funds are required by law to be distributed to 501(c)3 non-profit organizations.
An insider close to the family tells Page Six Robson’s charity faces possible scrutiny from investigators in Hawaii. Requests for comment from the charity and the office of Hawaii’s attorney general weren’t immediately returned.

A rep for the Jackson siblings told us, “The three children say that all they want is to preserve their father’s musical legacy. They feel that the ‘documentary’ was one-sided and the two men have made numerous claims that aren’t true. As for the allegations, they believe that per their own investigation and other news sources, money raised by the two men and maybe others has not gone to a charity or to promote anything positive. They want formal answers on the ‘charity’ issue of Mr. Robson and his ‘donation’ and more. They certainly haven’t used their new platform and that is the point. The Jacksons use theirs to help others. It’s the principle, but it’s also possibly illegal and they want answers.”

While this looms, the family is preparing a special tribute to Michael Jackson, who died 10 years ago on June 25.

[soulmum]

Judi Brisse‏ @JudiBrisse
Replying to @FallAgainMJ @Hammertonhal @RAZ0RFIST

Don’t remember ever needing a key to open doors to go clean the rooms.












KerryWard‏ @FallAgainMJ

So let’s recap. Wade sets up a fund just before #LeavingNeverland comes out. Yet Dan does the interviews around the world, likely not for free. And charity donations are tax exempt

[soulmum]

LEAVING NEVERLAND's suspicious editing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7f_9O0P1XA

[soulmum]

KerryWard‏ @FallAgainMJ
Replying to @SelmaB1717 @MJJJusticePrjct @tajjackson3

I mean over £600k in liabilities and less than £200k in profit...yikes! This guy was running on empty! If he'd have carried on like this, he likely wouldn't have survived any longer than say 18 months - at the most!



GeraldineBlondeau‏ @GeraldineBlondeau
GeraldineBlondeau Retweeted KerryWard

So not only were Wade and James broke, Dan Reed was about be bancrupt too..
Imagine my shock






RazörFist‏ @RAZ0RFIST

Not only body shaming.
Body shaming over a skin disorder beyond the man's control. Even after his autopsy confirmed he had vitiligo, dolts still persisted in the fiction that he changed his skin tone because he 'hated his race'.
NO OTHER celebrity would be treated that way.







Dr. Andrew Greene‏ @AndrewGreene864

#MJFam and fans of the Jacksons, According to various media reports, the @Jacksons will not be at Motown 60 this Sunday on @CBS. This is not Berry Gordy’s fault as he no longer owns Motown, that would be @UMG. Let us focus our energy on streaming the Jacksons’ music starting now.

[soulmum]

Mjfs Michael Jackson FanSquareLike Page

::: EX AMICO DI WADE ROBSON :::

«TROVATI UN LAVORO E VERGOGNATI!»

«Conobbi Wade Robson al processo di Michael, nel 2005. Era simpatico e gentile. Ma c'è di più....
See More
::: former friend of Wade Robson :::

" find a job and shame on you

" I met Wade Robson at Michael's process, in 2005. He was nice and kind But there's more.

Do you remember the process in which Michael Jackson was judged not guilty for all counts? The one who is now his "Accuser", Wade Robson, testified under oath that nothing, nothing, nothing had ever happened.

Yes, I'm talking about your elusive eyes, Robson. If you look superficially at this HBO stuff, it looks overwhelming. But once you throw some light on these people, all their motivations have one master: the money.

As for Wade... he lied to some fans, while they were waiting outside the court, on the organization of certain projects with Michael once he finished the process Some of them kept in touch with him.

And in the end, when years later I found myself working for Michael, someone who worked in close contact with MJ told me to point in white: " Wade lies to many people to build a reputation. None of those projects he was talking about were real, and he knew ".

Very elegantly, you shed shit on your friend who you were so faithful to when he was alive. But, once he's gone, and that you couldn't make money choreograph a show produced from MJ's summer, suddenly Michael, your friend ", molested you.

I am glad that your civil cause inherent in this garbage was rejected by the court, a few years ago. And I hope that, in the same way, the audience sees beyond your liars reasons for this movie bullshit.

Wade... grow up man and find a real job. You have a family. What example of shit are you giving on all fronts? Shame on you Stop trying to make yourself free. The levels to which you will fall are officially beyond disgust. Shame on you

- Jason Eisberg, Facebook, April 2019 -
________________________________

Curated by Vincenzo Compierchio from our facebook group Michael Jackson Fansquare • Italia.

Thanks to Elisabetta Righi and Antonella Cucci for the report.

[soulmum]

Clarification is needed on whether or not this woman actually stated she believed the accusers!


MJTruther‏ @MjTruther

Did the estate really just patronize fans? Did they just tell us to be nicer to the writer of a "tribute" that called Michael a pedophile? Are we really going with "he was a flawed genius pedophile," now? Great PR! It's catchy like #MJTruthSquad. Estate and musical CANCELLED.


kapowski‏ @santikapowski

That's was it for me. I've just sent an email to Alicia, including quotes and interview link. I've told her this was not a case of a misplaced quote. She clearly stated how she thinks MJ is guilty and how she'll cope with that being a fan of his work.

[soulmum]

https://www.showbiz411.com/2019/04/20/t ... al-triumph

The Exclusive Inside Story of Sunday Night’s Motown 60 Special on CBS: Why JLO?, Diana Ross Says No to the Supremes, No Mention of Michael Jackson, and Mary Wilson’s Eventual Triumph

Tonight’s “Motown 60” special on CBS is a mixed bag. It’s certainly worth seeing, but what went on backstage and in the negotiations is far more interesting.

Back in 1983, the 25th anniversary of Motown was the place where Michael Jackson did his Moonwalk to “Billie Jean,” and became a monster celebrity forever. Contrast to this show, where Michael isn’t mentioned and the Jackson 5 are a footnote. It’s jaw dropping. In the Seventies, Motown lived off Michael and the Jacksons.

“Motown 60” features a repeat of Jennifer Lopez’s god awful Motown medley from the Grammy show in February. If you didn’t like it then, you won’t like it now. But to get Lopez, a “contemporary” star, on the Motown special, the producers had to give her a spot on the Grammys.

Ditto Diana Ross, who got a big spot on the Grammys and no one could figure out why. That was her trade off for doing the Motown show. Ross, even at 75, doesn’t want to seem like an oldies act– even though she is one. (A good one, mind you.) And her contribution to the Motown show was NO SUPREMES. So Diana sings from “Lady Sings the Blues.” She doesn’t go near the Supremes. (One Supremes song is sung in a medley by Meghan Trainor.)

But Ross’s NO SUPREMES decree may have backfired. During the taping, we saw clips from an interview with beloved ex-Supreme Mary Wilson. When the interviews were taped, Mary wasn’t dressed properly, had no make up or stylist. Mary, however, really knows the Motown history. Producer Ken Ehrlich saw that, and invited Mary back to L.A. from Las Vegas. Wise Ken re-interviewed Mary all dolled up, and paid all her expenses. We may see the fruit of that interview Sunday night.

What a nice thing to do considering Mary was among many Motown performers who were left out of the 60th anniversary show entirely. Some of them were in the audience– like Mary, Otis Williams of the Temptations, Scherrie Payne, who sang with the Supremes from 1973-78 — but were seated far away from Diana Ross and Motown founder Berry Gordy. Duke Fakir, the only living member of the original Four Tops, wasn’t even invited to the taping– and he was in L.A. Insane! Mary and Otis were treated very badly at the taping. They got their revenge last month when “Ain’t Too Proud,” Otis’s musical about the Temptations, opened on Broadway. Mary came in, too, and was given a huge shout out from the stage.

There’s no denying Berry Gordy’s amazing contribution to our culture with Motown. It’s astonishing. Gordy is 89, and he deserves a Kennedy Center honor. But Motown suffers from revisionist history all the time. If you want to know the real stories, you have to read out of print books like Gerri Hirshey’s “Nowhere to Run” or Mary Wilson’s “Dreamgirl: My Life as a Supreme.”

We’ll see what made the final cut for Sunday (tonight’s) show.







caramella‏ @Caramelicedtea

The Motown special was filmed during the weeks the Leaving Neverland story was getting the most hype in the American media. They put it together under the premise MJ would be a tainted darkened subject by now. Embarrassing. Don't expect the show to be good.

[soulmum]

Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts

In Motown 25, #MichaelJackson gave the world one of the most iconic moments in TV history. But because James Safechuck lied about being abused in a train station that didn't exist and Wade Robson had an epiphany after he didn't get hired by Cirque, it's erased from history.






Verified account @tajjackson3

HBO wants to quietly slip in the word “alleged” after NUMEROUS LIES have been widely exposed worldwide about Leaving Neverland. Too late HBO. We warned you about the two men’s past lies before LN even aired and you gave us the middle finger. We WILL hold you accountable.









https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/why-is ... -pouncing/
Why is U.S. Media Silent on the Implosion of Leaving Neverland, While the U.K. Press is Pouncing?


By John ZieglerApr 4th, 2019

One month ago, HBO aired an explosive “documentary” called Leaving Neverland, which told horrific stories of child sexual abuse by two accusers of pop icon Michael Jackson. In the aftermath of its premiere, which was almost universally embraced by the mainstream media, I wrote three different stories, including one which included interviews with important subjects the movie ignored, casting doubt on whether the film really should be taken as mostly, or even partly, factual.

Since then, the production has been found to have numerous substantive problems, and its narrative is now filled with significant holes. But strangely, while the tabloid press in the United Kingdom has been all over the movie’s implosion, there has been a complete blackout of these developments in the news media here in the United States.

The revelation which has gotten the most attention (it has been featured in at least three of the major U.K. tabloids), deals with the story of accuser James Safechuck, who was originally presumed to be the more credible of the two alleged victims. It centers on Safechcuk’s detailed claim in the movie that he was forced to have sex with Jackson, near the start of his abuse, in the second floor of the train station at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch.
In the film and in his lawsuit deposition, Safechuck says that his abuse by Jackson ended in 1992, when he was about 14 years old. A huge part of the movie’s narrative is that Jackson lost sexual interest in these boys when they reached the age of 14, supposedly because that is when puberty hit (though the average white American boy currently begins puberty at around ten years old).

However, there is now a huge problem with Safechuck’s allegation. Construction on the train station building, which was not commenced until late 1993, wasn’t completed until mid-1994, and after that time, Jackson, who had just gotten married to Lisa Marie Presley, was rarely even at Neverland for the next several years.

This suggests that Safechuck, based on his own testimony, and the film’s most prominent premise, made up the story about being abused in the train house. This would be problematic for anyone who has no corroboration for their dramatic claims, and who finally came forward to sue 21 years after their abuse, but given the remarkably wide latitude which abuse claims are given, especially in the #MeToo era, it would hardly be devastating on its own.
But that radically changed when the movie’s director Dan Reed, who has been effectively acting as the PR director for the massive lawsuit these accusers have against Jackson’s estate, inexplicably poured gasoline on a brushfire. Instead of simply saying Safechuck was mistaken (which would have only been seen as rather strange), Reed decided that Safechuck had indeed been abused in the train house, but his star victim had just gotten the year very wrong.

Except that explanation simply doesn’t work, and it causes enormous portions of Reed’s film to go down in flames. Even if we concede that Safechuck was just mistaken about the train house episode occurring at the start of the abuse (which he says began in 1988), at earliest Safechuck is at least a mature 16-years-old by the time it was built.

So, according to the movie’s own director, Safechuck lied under oath, lied in the film, and his abuse at 16-years-old, at which time he was clearly well past puberty and even larger than Jackson, blows apart the project’s entire theory of how and why Jackson supposedly only preferred the company of very young boys. But as much as this episode brings suspicion to the credibility of the research and testimony behind Leaving Neverland, it is really only a piece of a much large puzzle.

Here are just some of the other recent revelations which, in a rational world, would have the American news media thoroughly revisiting the claims at the center of this movie:

1.The other accuser, Wade Robson, asserts in the film that he was first abused by Jackson when left alone with him as his family went on a trip to the Grand Canyon. However, his mother, Joy Robson, a central figure in this saga, testified under oath twice, including well after Wade finally announced that he had been abused, indicating that Wade was actually on that trip with his family (it should also be noted that a radio interview Joy did in 2011, which casts further doubt on other aspects of Wade’s timeline, was just recently mysteriously removed from YouTube).
2.It was revealed that Joy not only remained part of a Michael Jackson fan group on Facebook, well after her son went on the Today Show in 2013 to announce that he was abused, but that she had “liked” several pro-Jackson posts way after that event. Then, within hours of someone tweeting about this discovery, those “likes” suddenly disappeared.
3.The movie tries desperately to explain why Robson was Jackson’s star witness at his 2005 criminal trial, and attempts to spin a narrative that a pensive dinner at Neverland influenced his decision to lie on Jackson’s behalf (which is strange because he also claims he didn’t know yet that he had actually been abused). However, people who were at the dinner say they are sure that it occurred after Robson’s testimony, not before.

4.Robson testified in his lawsuit that he realized he was abused while in therapy in May of 2012. However, there is an interview with Robson which was posted to YouTube in July of 2012 where he is still speaking of Jackson with very high praise.

Stephanie Safechuck, mother of James, who was exceedingly close to Jackson, is shown in the movie describing in detail how she celebrated learning the news of Jackson’s death (which she says happened as she awoke in bed, even though Jackson died in the afternoon in LA where she lived) because he could no longer abuse any children. However, since James has said numerous times that he only realized that he was abused when he saw Robson on the Today show (four years after Jackson’s death) and had never told anyone at all about it, it would require time travel for his mother not to have totally made up that story, with some rather poor acting.
6.In an attempt to promote the narrative that the evil Jackson PR machine can and will destroy anyone claiming to be a victim of the pop star, Reed blatantly used a clip of one-time Jackson attorney Mark Geragos totally out of context. Then, making matters even worse, Reed responded to Geragos’ anger over the editing ploy by exposing that he clearly had not done even the slightest research into an event he had featured in his film.
So, why is it that none of this has gained any media traction here in the United States, even though it has in the United Kingdom? There appear to be at least three explanations.

One, attention spans here are shorter and Leaving Neverland, especially in the Donald Trump era, is already considered “old news.” Second, the strategic use of Oprah Winfrey to sanctify these accusers as legitimate carries far great weight in the American media, where she is still revered and feared. Thirdly, the impact of the #MeToo movement having radically altered the rules for how we evaluate such stories is much more pronounced here.

Of course, none of this remotely justifies the American media taking a dive on this story. And, just because they have, it doesn’t mean that Leaving Neverland is at all based in truth.

John Ziegler is a senior columnist for Mediaite. He hosts a weekly podcast focusing on news media issues and is documentary filmmaker. You can follow him on Twitter at @ZigManFreud or email him at johnz@mediaite.com






Keen Zhang‏ @mkgenie

We are honored to host Yuko Sumida Jackson tonight in Beijing. She told us Michael Jackson is all about love, and unite us in music and through his big heart, and thus he can't be destroyed by some powers. He lives forever.






smith252‏ @smithz252
Replying to @ClassicMotown @CBS

Jackson family NOT invited to #Motown60
Michael Jackson NOT honored
(especially with the 10th anniversary of his death only 2 months away)
NOT WATCHING!!
- I’ll be listening to Michael Jackson & Jackson 5 instead
#MJInnocent

[soulmum]

PHOENIX‏ @PhoenixLaNegra

It’s absolutely hilarious that Dan Reed has changed the story AGAIN. First, he accepted that construction on the station had not been finished until 94, but claimed Safechuck got the dates wrong. Now he’s abandoned that story for this one, which is also wrong.


Harrison Funk‏ @harrisonfunk
Replying to @joanlarma @danreed1000

The photo shoot that I was referring to happened in JUNE, 1994, definitely NOT BEFORE. I refuse to engage with the people attempting to twist my words to fit their agenda.


Harrison Funk‏ @harrisonfunk
Replying to @danreed1000

You may try to twist public opinion of someone’s character who is no longer here to defend himself but you will not twist my words in defense of my friend
Remove your lies Dan.






https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/s ... 0436126718

S6E5: MJ: Was Alleged “Leaving Neverland” Victim Caught in a Lie?

Hidden Truth Show with Jim Breslo

In Part II of our interview with journalist Charles Thomson, we explore the controversy surrounding James Safechuck’s claim of abuse in the Neverland train station. Thomson asserts that the station had not even been built at the time of the alleged abuses. Is that correct? Did Safechuck just misremember? Or is this evidence that the allegations were fabricated?

Website: www.hiddentruthshow.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/hiddentruthshow
Instagram: www.instagram/hiddentruthshow.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/channel/UC6LplGp0FMkS42uY5NVTOXg

[soulmum]

Wade Robson & James Safechuck: body language part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9X3KCmIo3E





Wade Robson & James Safechuck: body language part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-KRgaLySCg

[soulmum]

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/michael ... -believed/

Michael Jackson’s Attorney Tom Mesereau Explains Why ‘Leaving Neverland’ Accusers Are Not to Be Believed

by John Ziegler | 1:39 pm, April 23rd, 2019



While most of the American news media has either blindly accepted, or quickly moved on from, the horrific allegations made against deceased pop icon Michael Jackson in HBO’s movie Leaving Neverland, I have continued to research the case, do important interviews which the rest of the media seems strangely uninterested in doing, and writing multiple columns for Mediaite strongly questioning the film’s entire narrative. Yesterday, here in Los Angeles, I did the first extensive interview since the release on HBO with the man who secured the acquittal in Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial, famed defense attorney Tom Mesereau.
Mesereau has, until now, been tied up in a trial in Texas since Leaving Neverland debuted, and has therefore been unable to do any extensive in-person interviews. What he had to say in our 45-minute discussion questioned the credibility of both of the movie’s accusers, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, both of whom were involved, either directly or indirectly, in the 2005 trial which resulted in Jackson being found not guilty of all the charges against him.
Much of our conversation centers around Mesereau’s experience with Robson and his immediate family as his star witnesses at Jackson’s trial and why his dramatic flip many years after Jackson’s death is full of inaccuracies.

“He was adamant (at the time) that Michael Jackson had never done anything improper toward him at any time. The mother and sister backed him up,” Meserau said in our interview.

“There’s no doubt in my mind he was telling the truth (in 2005)” Meserau continued, “When I hear these allegations suddenly popping up years after his death, they make no sense to me. I don’t believe them…. I wouldn’t have called this person as my first witness if I hadn’t felt he was really strong, and would start off the defense case in a very compelling manner, and he did!”
The former Jackson attorney also gets into the facts surrounding James Safechuck’s claim in the movie that he refused to testify in 2005, despite attempts by Jackson and his legal team to intimidate him into doing so.

Perhaps the most interesting element comes at the end of the first section of the interview when Mesereau evaluates how the #MeToo movement has dramatically altered the way we evaluate allegations of sexual abuse in a way that is dangerous and not consistent with how our legal system was constructed.

Here is the video of the first half-hour of our discussion, which is completely unedited:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzZklvWIT7o
The entire interview will be released this Saturday on my “World According to Zig” podcast, which can be most easily found at www.FreeSpeechBroadcasting.com

(Photo by Carlo Allegri/Getty Images)

[soulmum]

Pez Jax‏ @Pezjax

So Lynn and Chris sat down with the New York Times. - I’m done with this B.S musical! ”I don’t know I can say one way or the other.” - how about giving it a try Lynn! It’s not about ‘absolutes’, it’s about your BELIEFS based on what you know and see!


Pez Jax‏ @Pezjax

And I’d ask Lynn to be respectful of the facts that are out there and maybe to read a few too

[soulmum]

MJVibe‏ @Mjvibe

Following @Lynnbrooklyn new interview regarding @dontstoponbway & @michaeljackson, MJVIBE has no choice than to delete any support links to the show and will not be promoting the official Broadway show. and we recommend all the fans to not plan trips to see the show either ATM








Damien Shields‏ @damienshields
Replying to @NanRaghav @MeghaSridhara and 6 others

Spoke to him. Mr Ross confirmed that he was the sole and only person charged with the responsibility of serving subpoenas to his witnesses. Only he would/could have served him, and he did not. Therefore Robson is lying, which is no surprise






Verified account @MattFiddesUK

It’s time now to defend a friend @michaeljackson who was always so great to my family and staff. I have sat back and watched the circus which we got used too over the years. People forget… https://www.instagram.com/p/BwnN4glBniT ... 96mqlmzl14 …






Momo‏ @Momo69047214
Replying to @MattFiddesUK @donnajackson204 and 2 others

Im afraid the media still dont want to believe you guys.
They have an agenda.
Of course Michael was heterosexuel we know that but unless there isnt a " proof"
( They didnt need one in leaving neverland
They will talk the same shit as ever.



Verified account @MattFiddesUK

Leave this to myself and Bill @MJBODYGUARDS and you will see a change. If we have to name women we will
Matt





https://www.bet.com/celebrities/news/20 ... rland.html
Michael Jackson’s Family Blasts HBO For Making A Crucial Change To ‘Leaving Neverland’ Documentary

"We WILL hold you accountable."
The controversial HBO documentary Leaving Neverland is continuing to catch major heat from Michael Jackson's family for reviving allegations that the King of Pop molested children. Now, MJ’s nephew Taj is calling the cable network out for making a critical change in the description of the documentary — presumably acknowledging that the heinous claims are not as certain as the film originally implied.

The documentary, which featured two men detailing their alleged accounts of sexual abuse
by the King of Pop during their childhood, received mixed reactions since its premiere.
Most recently, however, Jackson's nephew Taj caught an alteration in the doc's description Most recently, however, Jackson's nephew Taj caught an alteration in the doc's description seemingly change its tone.

"Two men describe the alleged abuse they suffered [by the] hands of Michael Jackson," it now reads, with the addition of the word alleged. Taking to Twitter, Taj wrote, "HBO wants to quietly slip in the word 'alleged' after NUMEROUS LIES have been widely exposed worldwide about Leaving Neverland. Too late HBO. We warned you about the two men's past lies before LN even aired and you gave us the middle finger. We WILL hold you accountable."






Verified account @tajjackson3

So you interviewed Maureen Orth and Diane Dimond as “journalists”. Two women known to make up ridiculous stories about Michael Jackson that so laughable. Yet you don’t even discuss the various lies exposed in Leaving Neverland. Journalism is dead..

[soulmum]

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la- ... story.html
Parents vote on removing Michael Jackson’s name from L.A. school auditorium


Gardner Street Elementary School is undergoing a most unusual soul searching this week, weighing whether to break a symbolic link with pop star Michael Jackson, whose name is on the auditorium of the Hollywood campus.

A man in a white T-shirt and tan shorts said he was conflicted.

“I’ve tried to digest this,” said the man, whose daughter is a fifth-grader at the school. “I’ve grappled with it and I haven’t come to any decision.”

“The documentary was a dark thing,” he said. “And I believe the two men. But his music still lives. My gosh, people love his music. It's a huge joy for them.”

He walked away shaking his head.

The documentary is “Leaving Neverland,” which aired on HBO in March and portrays Jackson through the eyes of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, two men who allege that Jackson sexually abused them when they were children. Jackson was never charged with molesting either.

Still, the broadcast was deeply unsettling for parents and staff at Gardner, who are voting this week on whether to banish Jackson’s name.

The documentary should not convict Jackson in the eyes of the Gardner community, said Howard Weitzman, who represents Jackson’s estate, which has sued HBO.

“It would be a terrible shame to remove Michael’s name from the auditorium based on an intentionally one-sided film,” Weitzman said. “There is no fair consideration when you only hear from one side. Michael Jackson is not guilty and he, like all citizens, is entitled to the presumption of innocence.”

The man in shorts requested anonymity because he knows people who work for the Jackson estate and said he can’t afford to damage personal and professional relationships. Gardner has a sizable contingent of parents in the entertainment industry, who know its dark and light side.

Their presence at Gardner represents something of a middle-class resurgence at the diverse campus, where families speak languages from across the globe and range widely across the spectrum of prosperity.

Outside the campus Tuesday morning, some parents or grandparents replied in broken English that they don't know enough to comment. Others said they wished the school could be left alone to settle the matter out of the spotlight.

Jackson long has been a small but significant piece of the school’s history, starting as an 11-year-old, when he attended the school for several months — before stardom whisked him away and ended any semblance of a normal childhood. He returned to the school in 1989, to celebrate the naming of the auditorium.

It has been a subject of pride or embarrassment and a regular tourist stop for out-of-towners.

The issue has divided the campus, which is nestled on a quiet street just north of Sunset Boulevard in the flats below the Hollywood Hills. For some, the path ahead is clear.

“The name probably should be taken down,” said parent Robert Fitzgerald. “It’s just not appropriate for an elementary school. The documentary painted the picture pretty clearly.”

Fitzgerald, who spoke after dropping off his daughter for kindergarten, found the accusers believable and felt “disgust” toward Jackson.

But Myreon Arslan said he voted to keep the name.

“There are people in this country who have done worse things to the country that have been convicted and that still have their names on buildings,” Arslan said. “The gentleman’s passed away. His name’s been on that building for, God only knows, more than 20 years, I think.”

“We have people like President Trump, who’s assaulted women, and he becomes president of the United States,” Arslan added.

(Trump has denied the numerous allegations of assault and improper conduct levied against him. He has not been charged in connection with any alleged acts.)

Voting among parents began on April 10 and 11 and will resume on Wednesday and Thursday. Staff members have been able to vote by picking up ballots in the office.

One teacher said she did not want a name on the school “that is associated with allegations of pedophilia.” She declined to give her name because she wasn’t authorized to speak. Principal Karen Hollis also declined to be interviewed, but had lots of hugs for students and parents as she waved students across a crosswalk before school.

District officials said Tuesday they would follow the lead of the Gardner community, but school board member Nick Melvoin, who represents the school, said that “the figures whose names adorn our school buildings should be held to the same standard of values that we wish to impart on our students.”

He added: “Many of his alleged victims were the same age as the students who gather in that auditorium daily."

So indeed was Jackson, when he enrolled after his family moved in 1969 from Gary, Ind., to Los Angeles. Family members were staying in the nearby home of famed Motown president Barry Gordy Jr. The youngest Jackson attended school only briefly before the Jackson Five — comprised of Jackson and four older brothers — scored a hit record — and that was it for public school.

His association with a local campus was so brief that Jackson is not included in an authoritative online site of famous students from the L.A. Unified School District. But Jackson attended the 1989 dedication of the spruced-up auditorium in his name.



Jackson, dressed in a tight-fitting black-and-red outfit with silver buckles and a thick silver belt, walked on stage to loud applause and scattered screams. A school chorus performed his song: “We Are the World.”

"I am deeply touched and honored that the PTA, principal and faculty members and students have been so kind as to dedicate the auditorium, where I sat as a child, in my honor," Jackson said. "We must all never forget that the children are our future and without them humankind will become extinct."

After receiving the key to the school, Jackson was escorted by security to Room 8, his former classroom, where he autographed the wall. As he walked, he flashed the peace sign and blew kisses to children.

Since then, Jackson’s evolving reputation has made for an on, off, on and off again love affair with the school. Some parents complained about the name on the auditorium in 1993 — just four years after the dedication — when word leaked that Jackson was under investigation for his conduct with a boy. Jackson settled out of court with his accuser and prosecutors filed no charges.

In 2003, district officials ordered that Jackson’s name be covered with plywood — but not removed — after Jackson was arrested on charges of sexually abusing another boy. He was found not guilty following a criminal trial in 2005.

In 2010, a year after Jackson’s death from an accidental drug overdose at age 50, school district officials ordered the covering removed — amid much celebration from Jackson fans.

The man in the shorts, a longtime area resident, remembers feeling mixed emotions.

“To me it was a little strange when the sign came back up,” he said. “The general feeling was that there was something weird going on here.”

Parent Maria Frank said she’d love to see the end of the association and all the distraction that comes with it.

But another parent, Meredith Patterson Brayley, opposed removing the name. She felt that weight should be given to the fact that Jackson was tried and acquitted in the 2005 case. She felt the documentary was not enough despite content that she agreed was “shocking.”

“It’s a dangerous road we are going down,” she said.

Heather Fox, parent of a kindergartner, supported removing the name from the auditorium but said it was important for people to separate the art from the artist.

She admires Jackson’s music, Fox said. “I still believe he should be recognized for his place in music history.”

Parents were making their way to home and work, and school was getting started when the man in the shorts returned.

“I’ve made up my mind,” he said. “The name needs to come down.”












Brenda Harvey Richie‏ @BrendaRichie

Matt May have defended Michael...That I do not know... What I do know is Matt was NOT CLOSE TO MICHAEL! He was not around Michael that often. Certainly not enough to know anything about Michael’s private life!

[soulmum]

STATEMENT FROM THE ESTATE
Last week, John Branca, along with Estate attorneys, were invited to speak at Harvard University. They used the opportunity to raise issues about how Leaving Neverland violates every notion of fairness, while pointing out the gaping lies and holes in its narrative. They also spoke with members of the media, such as Billboard, who were present at some of the events [https://www.billboard.com/…/michael-jac ... e-hits-bac…]. And you can expect more news from the Estate in the coming weeks.

We also remain focused on long-term projects that we believe will enhance Michael’s legacy moving forward, including the Broadway musical. We can assure you that all those involved in this production, including the Tony Award-winning director, Christopher Wheeldon, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, Lynn Nottage, are devoted MJ fans. That’s why they are committed to bringing this show to Broadway.

If we get this right – which we will – theater audiences will have an even deeper appreciation for Michael’s creative genius, just as they did when they watched This Is It nearly 10 years ago. In fact, we believe this will be as poignant an experience, one that connects the audience to Michael in a way in which he is appreciated both as a person and as an artist. The role for Lynn and Chris, among other things, is of course to entertain, but also to depict the events of Michael’s life and his struggles, both internal and external, that molded him into the person, the artist and the creative genius that this musical celebrates. Simply put, if we didn’t trust Lynn and Chris to do justice to Michael, we would not be working with them.

While we appreciate that, on an emotional level, fans want Lynn and Chris to join the public battle against Leaving Neverland, from an intellectual perspective we believe it is important to understand why Lynn and Chris, to protect the integrity of the musical, should not take a public position at this time one way or another about any issues in Michael’s life. They are biographers who at this stage have been assigned to dispassionately observe their subject’s life and craft their story. Their role is to entertain as well to understand how all of the events and unique personal challenges Michael faced throughout his life shaped him, and molded the character they ultimately present on stage. The story is still a work-in-progress, as they have stated.

As with the two Cirque du Soleil shows and with Spike Lee’s acclaimed documentaries, we are collaborators. We have significant input and say in the final show. But we believe it is important to give all of our creators the freedom to draw upon Michael’s experiences, in this case, to create a well-rounded and in-depth stage character of Michael Jackson. To that end, we have spent a significant amount of time with them sharing our personal knowledge of Michael and our experiences with him as well as introducing them to others who were an integral part of Michael’s life, so they can fully understand the very complicated and talented artist and man that he was.

Michael was constantly judged throughout his life – as he continues to be in death --- by those who never bothered to look below the surface. Lynn and Chris will not do that. They are looking at Michael’s life with the goal of helping audiences understand the challenges and pain he faced away from the spotlight and how it shaped a man who shunned society’s norms to such an extent that 10 years after his passing he still commands the world’s attention. We have asked Lynn and Chris not to give us a superficial Michael, but to delve into his humanity, his goodness and his faults along with the conflicts and difficulties he encountered at different stages of his life, so people can understand what fed the fire of this incredibly unique creative genius. With the benefit of having read drafts of the book, being in the room for readings and being present at labs at which we see the musical coming to life, we see and feel Michael’s presence in a way that we do not think would have been possible with anyone less talented than Lynn and Chris.

A musical of the caliber that we are confident is now taking shape will not only pay tribute to and celebrate Michael Jackson’s genius but take audiences on an emotional journey that will surprise fans and non-fans alike as they witness his magical, complex world. Since we all know it is not possible to judge something that you have not experienced yourself, we hope you will all have the opportunity to sit in the theater and experience this musical for yourselves and we look forward to your reactions once you have that opportunity.

THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL JACKSON

[soulmum]

Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts

LA Unified has schools named after presidents who owned slaves. public officials involved in sex and other scandals. But one auditorium named after #MichaelJackson, who was found innocent by a jury but smeared by @HBO in #LeavingNeverland, is what gets headlines.







RazörFist‏ @RAZ0RFIST

I know @HuffPost and @TheDailyBeast are to Journalism what dolphins are to skydiving, but... is it wise to employ someone who actively threatens the family of a deceased and defamed celebrity who is currently being convicted by media without trial?










@yensid98

I think #MichaelJackson must be the most body shamed person who ever lived on the planet. His voice, his nose, his skin, his weight, his hair, his lips, his eyes and more. A constant barrage of comparison photos, questions, scrutiny, & cruel, derogatory jokes. For decades.






Pez Jax‏ @Pezjax

If like Diane, you can’t seem to tell the difference between an entire building and a shelter, then let’s start with the obvious....one is FUCKING HUGE!







Claudia Almeida‏ @cacaubrazil

#michaelJackson ONE is like almost sold out for this Friday. #muteWho
#amplifyMJ #JusticeForMJ #mjInnocent #oprah try again. #leavingNeverland is a #lie

[soulmum]

Michael Jackson Musical Back on Track as Creators Wrestle With Bigger Issues
“I pray that it isn’t true, and that’s all I can do,” playwright Lynn Nottage says of Leaving Neverland molestation allegations
DANIEL KREPS


The creators of the in-the-works Michael Jackson Broadway musical Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough have defended their decision to remain with the production in the aftermath of Leaving Neverland.
In an interview with the New York Times, Pulitzer-winning playwright Lynn Nottage and director-choreographer Christopher Wheeldon admitted that while they are troubled by the child molestation accusations against Jackson, “We’re not judge and jury.”
“Folks have to remember we’re theater artists that are examining the life of this very complicated artist. We can ask certain questions, but our job is not to answer those questions,” Nottage said.

Nottage – who drew the ire of Jackson fans when she said of James Safechuck and Wade Robson, the subjects of Leaving Neverland, “I think they were telling the truth” – reiterated that their accusations seem “very believable.”
Related

“Do I believe [Jackson] was a pedophile? I don’t know that I can say one way or the other,” Nottage told the Times. “I don’t think any of us can say with absolute certainty, because we’ve been presented with some information, but Michael Jackson is dead, he’s not in a position to defend himself. It does hurt my heart to think about the possibility that it could be true, and I pray that it isn’t true, and that’s all I can do.”

Wheeldon added, “The recent documentary is very believable, but our position in making this show is that we’re trying to make a show that’s balanced.”
The Jackson estate didn’t restrict Nottage and Wheeldon during the creation of the show, and while the jukebox musical might touch on some of the “problematic” aspects of Jackson’s career, “the primary focus of our show has always been focusing on Michael’s creative process,” Wheeldon said.

Originally scheduled to debut on Broadway in the fall of 2019, the arrival of Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough was delayed after its Chicago preview run was canceled by the Jackson estate ostensibly due to a month-long actors strike in February; the cancellation coincided with the then-impending broadcast of Leaving Neverland. However, the musical is now back on track and eyeing a summer 2020 Broadway arrival.


https://www.rollingstone.com/music/m...nd-826567/amp/





Journalism Plus: How Hail Satan?, The Brink, and Leaving Neverland Blend Truth-Seeking With Cinematic Storytelling

For Leaving Neverland, Reed contacted Robson and Safechuck through their lawyers. “I made my request and I think Wade and James discussed it for a while with their wives and their families and with the lawyers, as well,” says Reed. “By the time I got to meet them, I think they had decided in principle to take part. It wasn’t the usual process of convincing a documentary subject.”

The only ground rule Reed set was that neither Robson or Safechuck or their lawyers would have any editorial control.
Reed says it quickly became obvious that Leaving Neverland would require extensive sit-down interviews with the films’ subjects.
Though the interviews span an 18-month period, the bulk of Leaving Neverland was shot during five days in February, 2017: three days interviewing Robson in a log cabin in Hawaii and two days interviewing James in a house in Los Angeles.

“I reserved the right to film observational material. But very quickly, this became a film about the testimony and the human voice and the face, the drama of speech. It’s a film about people speaking a truth that is very difficult to articulate,” says Reed.
Like Klayman, Reed served as DP on Leaving Neverland, partially to put his subjects at ease and partially for practical reasons. “There’s a huge advantage in terms of flexibility and responsiveness. If you have your own equipment, you just pick up and go. You don’t need to worry about a huge crew and when they’re going to have lunch,” he says.

Documentary films rely on many of the same techniques as journalism, but moviemaking is more reliant on the craft of storytelling than breaking news. Still, when making a film about life-and-death issues and topics that are controversial enough to provoke anger (including death threats), there’s a great responsibility for moviemakers to get their facts right.

When a commissioning editor at Channel 4 in England suggested that Reed investigate controversy surrounding Michael Jackson, Reed hired a researcher, who dug into past allegations and scoured the internet, including fan forums, for leads in the story. The researcher came upon references to Robson and Safechuck, which piqued Reed’s interest.

Before taking their stories as fact, Reed interviewed former detectives and prosecutors from the two principal investigations into Jackson. He shot interviews with the LAPD and the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department, which had investigated Jackson, as well as the deputy DA, who was the main prosecutor in the 2005 trial. He considered making a straightforward investigative documentary using the footage, but decided to craft the film primarily out of the interviews with Robson and Safechuck and their families.

When making a film about a controversial subject, Reed suggests that moviemakers record a master interview with their subjects to check for discrepancies in their stories. Reed devoured court records from the trials as well as any statements he could find from people who had worked in the Jackson household at the time of the alleged abuse.
“Try to corroborate everything you can. Spend as much time as you can trying to pick holes in it, trying to undermine it, trying to find cracks in it. If, by the end of that process, your subject’s story still stands up, then you have a winner,” he says. After double-checking Robson and Safechuck’s accounts, Reed says he didn’t find anything that contradicted their descriptions of the sexual abuse.

Though he insisted on fact-checking, Reed felt no compunction to include a response from Jackson’s family or lawyers. Reed says his film isn’t about Jackson, but about the two families whose lives were affected by his behavior.

All three films made sure to have lawyers vetting everything early on. “Most of my films, for better or worse, are legally contentious in some way,” says Reed, whose films include Three Days of Terror: The Charlie Hebdo Attacks and Terror at the Mall. “We always have a lot of conversations with lawyers because often times the films we make piss someone off, since we’re coming out with a truth that someone doesn’t want to hear or a story that someone wants to keep hidden.”

Since a deceased person can’t be libeled (per U.S. and U.K. law), that wasn’t a concern in the case of Michael Jackson. But Reed says they were sure to “cross every ‘t’ and dot every ‘i’ ” to prevent legal issues. Though the film doesn’t feature interviews with anyone from Jackson’s camp, Reed was certain to include rebuttals and statements of his innocence by Jackson and his legal team. Jackson’s heirs have sued HBO, the film’s distributor, demanding $100 million in damages.
Reed was able to use footage of Jackson concerts, videos, and commercials due to fair use law.

Reed says he was sure to let his subjects know they could take a pause for a snack of a bathroom break. But in general, his rule is to keep the camera running and decide what to cut in the editing room.


He recalls one moment where Robson’s brother Shane broke down during an interview.

“He had tears in his eyes and he became very emotional. There was a lot of debate between the editor and me about how long we should stay on that,” says Reed.
Reed acknowledges that “it’s disturbing when people are upset in front of you, but sometimes those are the very times when you need to keep filming and remind yourself that you’re there to witness and your main job is not to co-experience.”

This article appears in MovieMaker’s Spring 2019 issue.

https://www.moviemaker.com/archives/...and-the-brink/

[soulmum]

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/n ... le-2793688

Whether you believe Michael Jackson’s two accusers or not, there’s no denying the Leaving Neverland film is incredibly one-sided.

Not a single person other than Wade Robson, James Safechuck and their families was interviewed, while the Michael Jackson Estate was not even given a right of reply to the claims. This violates all norms and ethics in filmmaking and journalism.

More crucially, director Dan Reed decided not to include a whole host of other important information about the accusers’ past and their behaviour to offer balance.

Why? Because it would have discredited them.
In a court trial, the entire purpose is to get to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Journalism is no different. It’s all about fact-finding. Yet Dan Reed made no attempt to scrutinise and investigate whether the allegations are indeed true, he just took them at face value and recorded them.

In the aftermath of its premiere, the documentary was then embraced by the mainstream media across the world, and the allegations within it were essentially reported as fact.
Viewers of the documentary are essentially the jury – but Leaving Neverland only gives them the prosecution side.

If these accusations had come to court while Jackson was alive, he would have been able to offer a defence.

The chances are, given that at least some of the claims have been proven, with evidence, to be untrue, Jackson would have been acquitted in a criminal trial for a second time.

In a trial the prosecution would have the burden of proof; the obligation to produce the evidence that would prove Safechuck and Robson’s claims are true.

In the UK, juries are told that they should only convict if they are “sure” of the defendant’s guilt.
In terms of evidence, Robson and Safechuck’s claims are based purely on their own oral testimony. There is no other evidence.

That means the jury would have to be certain of Michael Jackson’s guilt based on that testimony alone.

But if you are a trier of fact and sitting on the jury, and you hear that both alleged victims have provably lied under oath and under penalty of perjury in at least part of that testimony, how can you then be “sure” that everything else is true?
If all of the evidence comes in the form of oral testimony based on memory, and some of it is demonstrably false, the validity of that testimony in its entirety must be called into question.

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial.

In any trial, Jackson’s defence would impeach the plaintiffs by introducing prior statements that are inconsistent with current testimony.

In this case, they would include statements given previously by Robson and Safechuck under penalty of perjury in depositions and at a trial.

Both Robson and Safechuck testified under oath in 1993 that Jackson had never abused them, while Robson also went on to testify at Jackson’s 2005 trial, again denying that anything ever happened.
Robson never wavered in the face of withering cross-examination from one of California’s toughest prosecutors.
In the documentary, Wade Robson also described how he and his 10-year-old sister stayed in Jackson’s bedroom the first two nights they were ever at Neverland in January 1990.

Wade then claimed that his family left to go to the Grand Canyon, while he stayed behind with Jackson alone at Neverland for the next five days. Wade said it was then when he was first abused by Jackson, going into graphic detail about what had allegedly happened over the course of several nights.

But I discovered that his mother, Joy Robson, testified under oath in a deposition in 1993/1994 in relation to the Jordan Chandler case, and again in a deposition in 2016, that Wade had actually gone with them on that trip to the Grand Canyon, before the entire family returned to Neverland for the second time the following weekend.

In 1993, she also revealed that the first time Wade stayed alone with Jackson at the ranch without her was actually that year.

When testifying in defence of Jackson in 2005, Wade also testified that the only time he had been at Neverland without his mother was sometime in 1993.
Part only. Please follow the link for the whole story.






Harrison Funk‏ @harrisonfunk

Regarding the lies perpetrated by Danny & his posse of haters and for the record: my comments in the @TheMJCast interview did not contain a date. Reed fabricated a date and spin to suit his agenda. FACT: the photo shoot that I spoke of was of statues at Neverland JUNE, 1994.

[soulmum]

I should point out that Corey now says the article was taken out of context from what he actually said.

https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/corey-feld ... 78283.html
Corey Feldman Speaks On Michael Jackson & Pedophilia In Hollywood
Corey Feldman says he was exactly Michael Jackson's "type" and will never know if he was being groomed.


The controversy surrounding Michael Jackson's alleged history of sexual abuse against minors has been one of the most prominent stories of this entire year. With the airing of Leaving Neverland, a detailed documentary that goes into Wade Robson and James Safechuck's allegations against the King of Pop, all of the old rumours about MJ have been reignited. His family has adamantly denied that he had a sexual history with any children and several loopholes have been found in his main accusers' stories. Corey Feldman, who was close friends with Jackson when he was a young boy, says that he never experienced sexual abuse at the pop star's hands. However, he now understands that it's possible that he was being groomed for it before Jackson decided he wasn't right.

In a new feature for Rolling Stone, Feldman speaks about how rampant cases of pedophilia allegedly are in Hollywood. Going back to his own history with Michael Jackson, the actor says that he now understands that he may have been groomed to become a target for Jackson before he decided against it. "I watched it with my wife and son," says Feldman about the Leaving Neverland documentary. "It caused me to have concerns. It’s the standard grooming process that they describe. Everything was similar [to what happened to me] up until the sexual part. Everything. He bought me gifts, a Watchman TV, a gold watch from Disneyland. So was he grooming me and I just never ended up being his pick? Or was that just who he was? That’s the fucking thing. We’ll never know. But I would have been exactly his type. I was cute, short and blond. You know?"

A few weeks ago, Feldman turned around on his previous defence of Jackson, referring to his alleged history of abuse as "horrendous."

[soulmum]

FallAgainMJ

Addressing Corey Feldman
Hello #MJFam
As you will all be aware, yesterday an interview with Corey Feldman appeared in Rolling Stone, it which it indicated some possible negative content about Michael Jackson.

Many of you will know that I am indeed supportive of Corey in his fight for justice regarding his own CSA experiences. I also acknowledge that there was also some manipulation of Corey's words in order to suit the narrative of Rolling Stone, which Corey himself has addressed via his Twitter account.

That said, however, I do believe that the Michael Jackson accusations and Corey Feldman's cause are indeed two separate issues and should be treated as such. I absolutely do not agree with Corey bringing Michael into the equation when it comes to his own fight. Whilst it seems likely he was pushed into a corner by Rolling Stone, I feel that unfortunately, he said far more than he probably should have done. In my honest opinion, the best course of action would have been to say what he's previously said; that Michael never molested him and leave it at that. It would seem that perhaps Corey maybe let his mouth run away with him a little and Rolling Stone took full advantage of the situation.

At the same time; I think there is a danger of us reading too deeply into what Corey said, and allowing our emotions to cloud our judgement.

Back in March, Corey felt the need to distance himself from the whole Leaving Neverland debacle and said: "I can no longer defend Michael Jackson." This does not mean he believes Michael is guilty. Neither do his comments of yesterday mean he believes Michael is guilty. If you remember; he also said in January, "I'm not here to judge Michael. "

Corey chose to distance himself because he's currently campaigning to get rid of the statute of limitations and is an advocate of CSA victims. This means he has to be seen to believe ALL victims, even fake ones like Wade & James. To pick and choose who he believes would seriously undermine his cause and therefore completely demolish any chance of him getting justice. I for one, am not prepared to take that away from him.

I do believe, however; that if Corey wishes to distance himself from the Michael Jackson allegations, he should continue to do that and not go back and forth when speaking to the media. While it is understandable he needs to be on the fence; I don't think it is helpful to us or to him to sway to and fro on this matter.

In terms of defending Corey from the point of view of a Michael Jackson fan; that's something I feel unable to do 100%. I understand the position he's in, but I don't totally agree with some of the comments he's made. For that reason; I will not condone the words printed in his Rolling Stone interview.

However, from the point of view of CSA survivor, it is my intention to continue to support him, purely because this man deserves to get justice for the abuse he suffered at the hands of those part of the Hollywood Paedophile Ring.

I have done a great deal of research into this matter and yes Corey is right in respect of there are some dangerous child predators in Hollywood. Michael Jackson is DEFINITELY NOT one of them, but the ring does exist, and it is those people who absolutely have a hand in the smear campaign against Michael. It is my belief that those people will be exposed by Corey, with the support of those who want to see an end to child sexual exploitation & abuse in Hollywood. Corey will always have my full support in that sense, by my own volition and choosing, and not as part of my continued defence of Michael Jackson.

Once again, when it comes to Corey & Michael, I believe these are two separate matters and should be treated as such. Corey was careless, even naive perhaps. But I certainly don't feel there was an element of malice in his comments. Foolish yes. Vindictive - no.

While I completely understand many fans are angry, hurt and upset at the comments they read in Rolling Stone, I think we do need to keep our emotions in check right now and maintain cool heads. Back in January, I did advise that we should defend Michael in a polite, logical and rational manner, keeping emotions out of the equation, and that still stands. If we let ourselves get carried away by our feelings, those emotions will boil over and before we know it, our hard work will start to unravel.

This means that however tempted some of you may be, common sense should prevail. It would be extremely unwise to attack Corey right now. We must remember that he is indeed a genuine victim of CSA and if fans attack him through sheer emotion, then we risk proving the haters and the media right. They want people to believe we are a "cult of bullies and victim shamers." If fans go after Corey; it will only confirm that. We're better than that. Let's not sink to the level of those haters. We have all worked so very hard since January - let's not undo that hard work through knee-jerk reactions.

While all signs are positive for a victory, we still have a huge battle on our hands. This June will mark 10 years since Michael passed and so it is likely the media sensationalism will increase the closer we get to that awful date. Our energies are best-reserved fighting that rather than directing our anger at Corey.

Our mission is to ensure Michael is truly vindicated. We should aim to do this in a calm, rational and peaceful manner. Hate doesn't conquer hate. Only love conquers hate. So let's keep our eyes on the goal and ignore all other distractions. We've come so far together and we will see it through to the very end, together - for Michael.






Benjamin Wachenje‏ @aka_Bro_Ben

I now chose believe Michael is not Guilty. Prior to leaving Neverland I wasn't so sure. I believed the media narrative and never once studied court transcripts for myself. I now see a clear trail of extortion and vengeful defamation and no actual evidence of abuse.

[soulmum]

Hypocrite. Okay for her but not for Michael? :???:

[soulmum]

Leaving Neverland Facts‏ @NeverlandFacts

Leave it to an elementary school to show that the concept of innocent until proven guilty still means something today, especially when accusations come from a one-sided televised smear. #LeavingNeverland

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la- ... story.html