Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.

Only $3 USD/month
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Leaving Neverland

Leaving Neverland 04 Mar 2019 17:06 #1

  • annabelle
  • annabelle's Avatar
  • Online
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2150
  • Likes received: 1524
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW before watching ‘Leaving Neverland’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robson’s email to Cirque du Soleil imploring to let him direct the Michael Jackson tribute show. “I am passionate to do this show. I want to make it amazing for me, for you, the Cirque and of course, for Michael”

However as soon as the job went to another director his story made a U-turn and in 2012 Robson was already offering to publishers a book portraying MJ as a monster. When no one accepted the book (they say he demanded too big a fee) he filed a lawsuit for hundreds of millions in 2013 and even since that moment his story has been amended at least three more times.

The emails sent to his mother tell us of a long and winding road his tale has taken. It began at a point when he didn’t remember a thing and asked his mother dozens of questions why, how and when and ended by him remembering every minute of it in its most disgusting detail.

He claimed that his memory “evolved”, but even if we believe this pseudo science phenomenon it still didn’t prevent him from including into his story the old media lies to which even his mother replied: “Wow, none of it is true”.

And we are not even going into the absurdity of him been “raped but not realizing that it was sexual abuse”. Back in 2005 at the age of 23 he was asked simple questions whether he was ever touched, and he laughed off the whole idea of it – so telling us now that he “didn’t realize” and “thought it was consensual love” and had to “live in fear” because of his secret is no use.

As a quick recap here are just a few quotes from his then testimony showing how easy and relaxed this intimidated “victim” was:

Q. Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever touch you in a sexual way?

A. Never, no.


Q. And at no time has any sexual contact ever occurred between you and Mr. Jackson, right?

A. Never.

Q. Has anything inappropriate ever happened in any shower with you and Mr. Jackson?

A. No. Never been in a shower with him.


Q. You’ve been following these reports that somehow Mr. Jackson was seen inappropriately touching you?

A. Yes.

Q. What do you think of them?

A. I think it’s ridiculous.


A. I’m telling you that nothing ever happened.

Q. Mr. Robson, when you were asleep, you wouldn’t have known what had happened, particularly at age seven, would you have?

A. I would think something like that would wake me up.


Q. When you were a young child, did Michael Jackson ever show you any sexually explicit material?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see Michael Jackson show sexually explicit material to any child?

A. No.

And these are my favorites – they show Robson’s easy state of mind during his testimony and even look like jokes on his part:

Q. Go ahead and turn the page, if you would.

A. I never thought I’d have a room of people watching me do this.


Q. Mr. Robson, when did you first learn that Michael Jackson possessed material of the nature that’s before you right now?

A. Right now I did.

Q. Assuming this comes from Michael Jackson’s residence.

A. Assuming it does, this is the first I know.

Q. All right. And you had never, ever known that Mr. Jackson collected sexually explicit material?

A. No.

And fourteen years later Robson makes a sad face and woefully recollects that he was shown “porn”.

In other words a meticulous study will overturn practically every element of Robson’s current story and there can’t be any doubt whatsoever that one day his wall of lies will fall with a big bang with no stone left to it.

But Safechuck’s tale impresses me as something different. To tell you the truth previously I didn’t give it enough attention and now that I reread his lawsuit and supplemental declaration (the first was made when Safechuck joined Robson’s probate case in 2014, but that one is unavailable to me), I realize that his lies can do more damage than Robson’s tale, for the sole reason that they have what Robson’s fabrication lacks – inspiration and drama, some elements of which betray Safechuck’s lifelong attachment or even love for Michael Jackson.

The thing is that behind all the mud he is now dragging Michael through you can clearly see that Safechuck’s had a sort of a fixation on Michael Jackson. His desire was to always stay by Michael’s side and the fact that one day he was supposed to live a separate life of his own became his biggest drama, if not tragedy.

This led him to drugs and constant psychiatric therapy, to doubts in his sexuality and fears that he was gay, and when a son was born to him even to worries that he would have pedophilia urges, which started a new wave of psychiatric treatment, and so it went on and on, again and again.

Safechuck’s Supplemental Declaration of March 18, 2015 indeed reads like a psychiatric diagnosis.

This reminds me of the words of June Chandler said at the 2005 trial.

According to Tom Sneddon (and his 1108 motion to include “prior bad acts”) June Chandler “accused” Michael of being a magnet, to which Michael replied that the excessiveness would die down with time:

Excerpt from the prosecution #1108 motion

When cross-examined by the defense June Chandler already couldn’t remember calling him a magnet but admitted that everyone indeed wanted to be around Michael Jackson 24 hours a day:

Q. Okay. Do you remember telling Michael Jackson, “You’re like a magnet?”

A. I don’t recall.

Q. Do you remember telling Michael Jackson, “You’re like Peter Pan. Everybody wants to be around you and spend 24 hours”?

A. Yes.

Like many other Michael Jackson’s fans Safechuck obviously also wanted to stay by his side 24 hours a day and for years too, and it is very unfortunate that his excessiveness was not so easy to die down.

When you see Safechuck’s problem you also begin to understand what Anthony Pellicano meant when he was interviewed by some crook of a journalist who twisted his words and made him look like an accuser of Jackson, though he never was, and who dropped a somewhat enigmatic remark about Jackson:

Later in the interview, Pellicano reveals that when he agreed to work for Jackson during the star’s 1993 child-molestation case, he warned Jackson that he’d better not be guilty. ‘I said, ‘You don’t have to worry about cops or lawyers. If I find out anything, I will f–k you over.’’ The detective took the assignment, but says, … ‘He did something far worse to young boys than molest them.’ But he refuses to say anything more about it.

Michael Jackson did something far worse to young boys than molest them?

So molestation was absolutely not an issue, especially since Pellicano always asserted Michael’s innocence:

“In no way, shape or form does my resignation indicate that Michael Jackson is guilty,” Pellicano said. “Michael Jackson is not guilty, and all the things I said in the past I reaffirm.”

“I have maintained Michael Jackson’s innocence from the very start, and I still maintain that he is innocent,” Pellicano said. “Obviously, there has been an exchange of money to settle this case. It all boils down to money.”

The same was repeated by Pellicano many times over, so even if the media tells you otherwise you may be sure that Pellicano found Michael completely innocent of what he was accused. But at the same time he considered him responsible for something “far worse” than molestation. What could that be?

Pellicano was on Michael Jackson’s team in early 90s, right at the time when Safechuck was around, and he could be a direct witness to what was happening to the boy, so this strange far-worse-than-molestation idea could easily refer to Safechuck.

Same as everyone else around Michael Jackson, Safechuck was drawn to Michael like a magnet, but his difference was that his friendship with Michael turned into a sort of an obsession and at the first signs of Michael’s attempts to take the boy’s life back on its usual course the impressionable boy started losing his mind out of his grief and frustration.

So whether Pellicano meant it or not, Safechuck is the example of this far-worse-than-molestation phenomenon. Judging by his declaration he couldn’t imagine his life without Michael Jackson, had a constant urge to see him, could not understand his emotional attachment and suspected that he was gay, and was later afraid that something of the kind would happen between him and his own son. Even today he is overwhelmed with emotion when he hears Michael’s music and needs constant therapy to cope with it.

Well, sometimes sh** happens, but it doesn’t mean that Michael is responsible for it.

Another bad thing about Safechuck’s fixation on Michael Jackson is that it could easily lead to his fantasies about the man. Especially when Safechuck was on drugs and by his own admission “increased the use of them” for several years. And also when he constantly read about all those things that Michael allegedly did with other boys which the jealous and intoxicated Safechuck could even half believe. Why them and not him? Was he any worse?

Safechuck’s poor mental health is actually not an invention of mine. It is a documented fact and is the real reason why even Tom Sneddon and the police were hesitant about involving Safechuck in a trial.

We know that the police considered Safechuck’s testimony unreliable from Victor Gutierrez whose pedophilia opus has uncharacteristically scarce information about Safechuck. The only thing Gutierrez says is that at the time he wrote the book in 1995/96 the 17-year old Safechuck was “a little screwed up in the head” as was clear from the police and court files:

“Currently, according to the police and court files, Jimmy Safechuck ‘is a little screwed up in the head’ because the singer had given him an incredible amount of attention only to leave him when he had grown up.”

By the way it is partially correct that Michael limited the circle of his child friends after the 1993 Chandler scandal. From then on he tried not to entertain friendship with anyone else except his closest friends who grew up by his side – the Cascios, Macaulay Culkin, Tito’s three sons, his other nephews and nieces and probably Wade Robson who also seemed to be a friend. So Safechuck was not much different from Jonathan Spence, Brett Barnes (who went to Australia), Dave Dave, Ryan White (who died in 1990) and many other, less closer friends.

But on the other hand Michael Jackson actually never “left” any of them – including Safechuck, as his own complaint shows it. Michael gave Safechuck an occasional job in the film industry when he was 17 and older, called to find how his musical band was doing and offered his help with the music, and even paid for Safechuck’s film-making hobby.

“I worked with the Decedent and saw and spoke to him all the time. I knew that we had a very special relationship. That never changed even when I got older. The last working experience I had with the Decedent was in 1995 when he and /or DOES 2 and 3 employed me as an intern/shadow director for Decedent’s “Earthsong” video. I was also a wardrobe double for the Decedent, and I was actually in the video – my hand appears in the video punching the ground” (Declaration, March 2015).

Oh my God, his hand appears in the video…

Okay, by giving Safechuck those little jobs Michael wanted to show him the process of making films from the inside. Besides that on-set experience Michael also paid for the several films Safechuck made in high school and arranged for his weekly sessions with film makers who taught him to direct movies. Some of these people came to Safechuck’s house on weekends, during his free time, however now the grateful Safechuck presents it as if Michael was diverting him from scholastics.

53. “Once he reached puberty, and the sexual abuse stopped, Plaintiff would speak to Decedent less frequently. Decedent remained active in his life, however, and paid for the Plaintiff to direct several movies in high school. The Decedent turned Plaintiff’s focus away from scholastics and towards becoming a director. Decedent hired a professor from NYU to teach Plaintiff on the weekends how to direct films. Decedent told Plaintiff that “one day, we’re going to make movies together”.

…Decedent arranged and paid for John Lugar to spearhead Plaintiff’s filmmaking and planning; hired Gretchen Sommerfeld to teach directing to Plaintiff and also hired Craig Thorton to teach script writing to Plaintiff. Decedent arranged for Ms. Sommerfeld and Mr. Thorton to go to Plaintiff’s house on weekends to teach him about the filmmaking process. (Complaint, July 2015)

With every new line Michael’s alleged monstrosity grows thicker and now we are told that it was due to Michael Jackson that Safechuck never received university education:

7. In the years after 1995, my relationship with the Decedent and our constant contact began to taper off. In 1997, when I was 19, I enrolled in Moorpark Community College because I thought a community college would be easier for me to try to get good enough grades so I could try get into USC. I was never able to do that, and was never able to get the university education I had always wanted, because of the Decedent’s overpowering influence over me and my parents. (Declaration, March 2015)

Wade Robson speaks to Matt Lauer on Today show, May 16, 2013

The major part of Safechuck’s complaint is about all the years he lived in fear and anxiety until he saw Wade Robson on television on May 16, 2013, and surprise-surprise, it was then that he also realized that he had been “abused”.

Safechuck says that it wasn’t an “ahah” moment, but he “began to sense something”, his anxiety heightened and three days later he was already with a new psychiatrist.

It was not until I saw Wade on television talking about the Decendent’s molestation of him, that I began to sense something.

I first met with a psychiatrist, Dr.Merrill… on May 20, 2013. Dr. Merrill …is actually a psychiatrist who specializes in treating women suffering from post-partum depression.

Dr. Lindsay Merrill obtained her degree from David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. Her specific interest is “in working with women suffering from issues related to the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, postpartum, infertility and menopause.”

(The School was renamed in 2001 in honor of media mogul David Geffen who donated $200 million in unrestricted funds. See David Geffen and Bryan Singer sexual abuse allegations)

According to MJ’s haters it took her 13,5 hours in four sessions to determine that Safechuck’s life-long anxiety was due to his abuse as a child.

Dr. Lindsay Merrill is a psychiatrist in Los Angeles, California. She received her medical degree from David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and has been in practice for 6-10 years.

As a way to prepare you for what you are going to see in the film (if you ever watch it) let me explain the core of both guys’ complaint.

They claim that they “always knew” of those alleged sexual practices, but they didn’t consider them abuse because they thought it was “love” and “their” idea, and that it was “normal” and “consensual”. They thought it was their guilt, so were ashamed and kept silent about it.

As to Safechuck he always attributed his anxiety to just being a “part of who he was”, but only recently he realized it was due to “the abuse”. In both cases the therapists who heard their patients’ revised stories explained to them that it couldn’t be consensual, which freed their mind from psychological imprisonment and this is why they are relieved to talk now.

“Plaintiff never thought the feelings of panic and anxiety he had been suffering were the result of the sexual abuse by the Decedent. Rather, he thought they were just a part of who he was.”(Safechuck’s complaint, July 2015)

Throughout the film you are going to hear it again and again, enveloped in some “scientific talk”, in the same way it is repeated in almost each point of Safechuck’s complaint:

4. I have also finally come to know and appreciate that what the Decedent did to me and made me do with him was not “love,” was not my idea .

I continued into adulthood not understanding that what he did and what we did together was wrong.

I now realize, which I did not know then and did not begin to understand until my therapy began in 2013

The long-term psychological consequences of Decedent’s threats, sexual traum and mental manipulation imprisoned Plaintiff’s mind

Yes, genuine victims of childhood sexual abuse often take their secret to the grave – but only in the circumstances when they know that no one will believe them and is not willing to listen. Or when they are confused about their feelings and there is no one to explain to them that what they have gone through was not “consensual” love.

But it is not true for the circumstances when the media and prosecution were rubbing into their heads that a mere friendship between a boy and Michael Jackson was already an abnormality, not to mention anything else.

In contrast to those who really have to suffer in silence Safechuck and Robson found themselves in exactly the opposite situation and didn’t even have to prove that they were “victims”, because no matter whether they kept silence or not, everybody thought of them as victims anyway. So the exposure of “abuse” is exactly what they didn’t have to fear – in their situation it was taken by everyone around almost as a given.

Of course they did have their fears and anxiety to suppress, but it was the fear of going against the trend, of having to muster courage to defy other people’s expectations and say “no, he didn’t” when the whole world was telling them “yes, he did”.

No, there is a decided difference between them and genuine victims. And it is a big tragedy that by telling their lies now these two guys are discrediting real victims of sexual abuse and are effectively working for silencing their voices. After their melodramatic performance in that movie people will simply not be able to tell liars like Robson and Safechuck from genuine victims and this will greatly diminish their chances of ever getting justice for themselves.

In the context of the ridiculous “consensual rape” claims Robson’s lies are more obvious and easier to discredit. Even if he thought that it was “love” he still testified under oath as a grown-up man and said that he was never touched, so even if you believe his current version you will also have to agree that he is a perjurer. And then decide whether you are ready to believe the word of a liar or not.

But Safechuck’s lies are not that obvious. At the 2005 trial he didn’t testify. He testified in 1993 when he was 15 and was deposed by Chandler’s attorney Larry Feldman and withstood a harsh cross-examination from lawyers on both sides. Safechuck was adamant that nothing happened, and this even despite the fact that by his own admission his friendship with Michael was “tapering off” at the time.

And though now he claims that he was coached his testimony under oath still remains an argument in favor of him telling the truth then.

But on the other hand Safechuck’s medical records show that he indeed lived his whole life in anxiety and fear, and now he explains it by the secret he had to keep from the world.

Well, a secret he did have, only it wasn’t abuse, but his unusual and somewhat unhealthy fixation on Michael Jackson and his frustration at the first signs of Michael trying to distance himself from the boy. Safechuck was indeed in (platonic) love with Michael, and the fact that it was not shared by the other side, at least to the degree the boy expected it, was a huge stumbling block for carrying on with his own life.

This attachment had nothing to do with pedophilia. Safechuck was simply an impressionable boy who was lucky to become a bosom friend of the biggest celebrity in the world, with whom everyone wanted to be friends, and in whose orbit he wanted to stay forever. But since that was impossible, it created a nightmare of a problem for Michael – but a no less problem for the boy.

Safechuck grew jealous of every other Michael Jackson’s child friend and sobbed so much at hearing that Michael spent his time with Brett Barnes (who was working with MJ at the Jam video shoot where Brett danced) that they had to put him on a plane and fly him back home.

Even despite Safechuck’s current sinister interpretation of it you can see how extremely jealous he was and how big a problem it created.

As Safechuck was growing up he continued to besiege Michael, but even when Michael gave him some little jobs on the set where his videos were made or paid for his lessons in film directing, it was never enough.

When Michael didn’t call Safechuck was mad, and when he did make calls Safechuck was mad again because “when Decedent asked how his musical band was doing” he regarded Michael’s offer to help him with music as a “way to induce him to testify for him”.

Could Safechuck’s obsession with Michael Jackson take place without any Michael’s involvement in it and certainly not a fraction of abuse on his part?


Numerous female Michael Jackson’s fans also suffer from their undying love for their idol. To understand the intensity of that feeling and the fantasies these girls are capable of it is enough to read their fan fiction where they write so elaborate accounts of their intimacy with Jackson that you don’t know what to think of it – all of it sounds so true to life that makes you wonder…

Or remember the other type of fan fiction, written by a certain German author (don’t remember her name) who narrated of her numerous philosophical conversations with Michael Jackson when they used to sit together under a tree while he lived in exile outside the US. That novelette sounded so much like the real Michael that it was a true shock to find that she never met him and all of it is just her fantasy and fantasy alone.

Or take the case of Michael Jacobshagen who met Michael Jackson on one occasion only and then bombarded everyone with stories about his many years of alleged friendship with him. Dieter Wiesner who was Michael’s manager at the time knew that it wasn’t the case, but he also saw Jacobshagen believe his own fantasies and said that an expert is needed to figure out how that strange phenomenon is possible (incidentally, recently Jacobshagen also made a U-turn, and now claims he was “abused for many years too”).

Or look at Daniel Kapon, another so-called “victim” of Michael Jackson. At the age of 18 this young man was a complete nervous wreck and a bundle of emotions. Looking like a scared little bird, he submitted to the judge a graphic account of various abuse at Neverland and other places.

However all of it turned out to be the fruit of his imagination only – his psycho mother contacted her son around the age of 18 and indoctrinated him with those tales, while his father who raised the child since age 3 said that the boy had never been to Neverland and had certainly never met Michael Jackson.

Even Tom Sneddon said that the story was “pure voodoo” and called Kapon “that poor, poor kid”. However the “poor kid” was insistent and paranoid, and after “being in therapy” he recalled “more details of the molestations” (a familiar situation) and filed a lawsuit which dragged for years and was thrown out only when the plaintiff didn’t attend the court hearing and the case died out on its own.

Now what are we supposed to do with all these obsessed guys around Jackson, who flocked to him in unusual numbers together with thousands of other people?

And what can we do when these guys sense that there are hundreds of millions of dollars awaiting them if they spill their fantasies on the media and the judge? Especially when they are sure they will receive every possible publicity and will enjoy the limelight in contrast to real victims? Films will be made about them, festivals will seek their interviews, violins will play to accompany their stories…

It seems that the only way to handle them is 1) to review their medical records and make some of the details known to the general public and 2) examine their cases for errors which will be made one way or another, even despite extremely thorough work they do before making their claims.

In this respect James Safechuck’s complaint is almost perfect in its design and ‘quality’. Its major part is about his thoughts, emotions and ‘what Michael said to him’ none of which can be fact-checked in principle. And the rest of it is almost free from the obvious inconsistencies that abide, for example, in Robson’s story.

Let us not forget that despite being a ‘little screwed in the head’ Safechuck has a talent for mathematics and is now said to be working as a computer programmer. And that his complaint is also their latest and upgraded work of fiction about Michael Jackson – the lawsuit was filed in 2015 (the probate case was a year earlier but its text is unavailable, and could be a simple copy paste of Robson’s), so Safechuck had all the time in the world to prepare and clean the story of possible factual errors, study the “sources” and incorporate everything he found to make his complaint as elaborate as it was only possible.

However despite all the effort, the lawyers for the Estate did spot some errors in Safechuck’s smooth narration. Howard Weitzman’s letter to the HBO was already published in the previous post, so let me recall just two episodes from it. Both illustrate not only Safechuck’s grave miscalculations, but also the hard work that went into his complaint in an effort to make it credible.

Before citing those episodes let me first introduce you to the timeline of the events, based on Safechuck’s complaint and some dates of Michael’s tours added to it (for details see this post). Please note that the complaint makes all of it sound much more sinister than this neutral list presents it.

*Safechuck was born in 1978. At age 7 he started working on TV and two years later, when he was 9 he took part in a Pepsi commercial with Michael Jackson. This was sometime in early 1987.

*For a couple of months Michael did not have any communication with the family, and then the 9-year old boy sent him a letter.
On March 10, 1987 Michael gave him a polite reply. He asked him to “keep writing” and said that one day they would probably work together again.

*In September 1987 Michael went on a “Bad” tour to Japan [his companion was the 24-year old Jimmy Osmond]. Safechuck continued writing letters to Michael and when Michael came home during a break in late October he invited the family to dinner at Hayvenhurst. On November 13 he resumed his tour in Australia.

*On Thanksgiving Day (November 26, 1987) the family called Michael in Australia, probably to thank him for the wonderful dinner at Hayvenhurst, and invited him to their home.

After the first leg of the tour in Japan and Australia Michael had a two months break before the tour resumed in the US.

*In early December 1987 Michael visited the Safechucks in Simi Valley.

*At Christmas time in 1987 the family came to Hayvenhurst and had dinner there. MJ took Jimmy on a drive along the city streets to hand out $100 banknotes to the homeless.

*In January 1988 the family visited Michael’s recording studio at Hayvenhurst. His brothers were recording there at the time.

*In the first half of February 1988 Pepsi invited both Michael and Safechuck to Hawaii to their official convention where their joint 1987 commercial was shown. Safechuck says that he got to know Michael much better during those three days and recorded an interview with Michael. He and his mother stayed in a separate hotel room in Hawaii.

*In the second half of February 1988 the family attended Michael’s rehearsals in Florida. Safechuck claims that he stayed in MJ’s house there and the parents didn’t object to it.

On February 23, 1988 Michael left for the American leg of his tour. On March 3, 4 and 5 he performed in New York.

*On March 11, 1988 the family was invited to see the Phantom of Opera in New York. Safechuck wanted to stay in Michael’s room, but his mother “didn’t allow it”. The next day, March 12 Michael was already performing in St.Louis.

*May 6, 1988 was Michael’s last concert in the US. During the two weeks break before the European leg of the tour Michael moved to Neverland. Safechuck says he was the first guest at Neverland to “stay overnight”.

On May 23 Michael went on the European leg of his tour.

*On June 28, 1988 Safechuck and his family joined Michael in Paris and this is when he claims the alleged “abuse” began.

*From June 28 to December, 1988 Safechuck says he spent six months with MJ on a tour, but it contradicts his other statement that he returned to the US to study at school “for several months” right at the same time.

*In December 1988 (during his school holiday?) Safechuck accompanied MJ in Japan.

The Japanese leg lasted December 9-26. In January 1989 Michael returned to the US where the tour ended.

*Safechuck claims that after the tour, in February 1989 Michael flew him to New York where he performed at Grammy’s and where the alleged abuse “continued”.

The end of the Bad tour is actually the point where the Estate lawyers prove that Safechuck’s story is made up. This is what they say:

“…Safechuck claimed in his sworn declaration that he was first abused on the Paris leg of the Bad Tour, which he correctly identifies as taking place in late June 1988 (as a simple Wikipedia search would reveal). He later says that after the Bad tour ended, Michael flew him out to New York “in February 1989” where Michael was performing at the Grammy’s. Safechuck states in his declaration that he was abused on this New York trip for the Grammy’s.

However, the Grammy’s were not in New York in 1989; they were in Los Angeles that year (and in 1990). And Michael did not perform at the Grammy’s in 1989. However, Michael did perform at the Grammy’s in New York in February 1988, i.e., before Safechuck claims he was first abused in June 1988. Yet he somehow claims that he was abused on a New York trip to the Grammy’s that occurred before he claims he was first abused. Safechuck’s “error” here is obviously reflective of an effort to create a story of abuse out of whole cloth. Or in other words, Safechuck is just making it up as he goes along.”

Here is the very short of it:

*In 1989 the Grammy’s were not in New York, but in Los Angeles; and in 1989 Michael Jackson didn’t perform at the Grammy’s at all.

*Michael Jackson did perform at the Grammy’s in New York, but it was a year earlier, in February 1988.

*The alleged molestation could not “continue” in New York because according to another paragraph in Safechuck’s story in February 1988 it had not even yet started.

So in an effort to make a smooth-running story Safechuck overdid himself and by giving it the final touch about “him being flown to Grammy’s in New York after the tour ended” he ruined the whole laborous construction of it.

To be more precise, The 30th Annual Grammy Awards were held on March 2, 1988, at Radio City Music Hall, New York City. On March 3, 4 and 5th Michael performed at the Madison Square Garden , also in New York. He invited Dominic, Connie, Frank & Eddie Cascio to the concerts and he spent time with them at the Helmseley Palace.

And here is another example of Safechuck’s lies as stated by Howard Weitzman:

In the “documentary” and in his declaration for the litigation, Safechuck spins a tale about how he refused to testify for Jackson in 2005, despite threats from Jackson and his legal team. Setting aside the absurdity of Jackson and his sophisticated legal team trying to convince an unwilling and unstable witness to testify on such a sensitive issue, Safechuck’s story is demonstrably false.

In particular, Safechuck declares that Michael and his legal team called him “towards the end of the criminal trial” trying to pressure him to testify. But this statement cannot be true. Early on in the trial, the Judge precluded the prosecution from allowing evidence regarding alleged molestation of Safechuck and others because the “evidence” of such molestation was unreliable. The exceptions were that the Judge did allow testimony from certain disgruntled workers that they had heard that Michael had molested Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes. That is why those three specifically testified, and all of them denied the molestation (including Robson of course), and were subject to cross-examination by prosecutors but did not waver. And that is why Jackson and his attorneys would not have ever tried to pressure an unwilling and unstable Safechuck to testify, particularly “towards the end of the criminal trial” as Safechuck so falsely claims in the documentary and under oath.

Let me also add that in his claim Safechuck describes Michael as very angry and even threatening, which “created a new level of fear and intimidation” for the poor 27-year old Safechuck:

“I felt that his offer to assist with my music was a way to induce me to testify for him. I told him that I wouldn’t testify because I didn’t want to be in the public eye and just wanted a normal life. Decedent became very angry and began to overtly threaten me, saying that he had the best lawyers in the world and that they would get me for perjury on my testimony from the 1993 Jordan Chandler case. I had never experienced the anger of the Decedent before this. When I told him I couldn’t testify, the Decedent said that he was going to call my parents and ask them to testify. I tried to calm Decedent down by telling him that I wasn’t going to reveal anything about our relationship, I just didn’t want to be a part of a trial in front of the whole world. Because this was the first time I had experienced such anger on Decedent’s part, it created a whole new level of fear and intimidation.” (Declaration)

Even if you haven’t read the reply from the Estate you can still compare the above fabrication with Michael’s real behavior in a similar situation, described by Frank Cascio in his book “My Friend Michael”.

“The truth is that I was eager to testify. I of all people knew exactly what had happened during the Arvizos’ visits to the ranch, and I wanted to see justice served. I was never called by the prosecution; after all, I would have been a hostile witness. Originally, the plan had been for me to be one of the last people who would be called to the stand for the defense, near the end of the testimony. But as the date for me to appear approached, Joe Tacopina called me and told me that he and Tom Mesereau no longer thought that having me testify made sense for the case.

The problem was that Michael hadn’t heard it that way. He had been told that I refused to testify. I was furious that someone was lying about me to Michael again, but even worse than the lie was the fact that Michael believed it. … how could he believe something that was so totally antithetical to my character? He had raised me, for heaven’s sake. He knew everything about me….”

Years after the trial when Michael returned to the US, Frank demanded Michael’s answer why he hadn’t called him himself:

I looked at Michael … and simply broke down crying. “How could you let this happen?” I demanded. “You know me better than anyone else. You know where my heart is. How could you let these people come between us? Why did you believe them?

Michael was calm. “Well, I was told you didn’t want to testify. You weren’t going to testify in my time of need. That hurt me, after all I’ve done for you,” he replied.

“Who told you that?” I asked angrily. “It’s not true.

“I don’t remember who told me. That’s what I was told.”

“By whom?” I insisted.

“I don’t remember. It was said.” As he spoke, Michael was lying down on the bed, feet up, chilling out while he let me vent.

I was pacing, like I do, back and forth in front of the bed. “That wasn’t the case. […] Why didn’t you just call and ask me for yourself instead of letting your imagination run away with you?”

At this point I was feeling like my impassioned words were finally beginning to sink in. Michael got teary, stood up, and gave me a hug.

“I’m sorry,” he said. “You know I love you like a son. I’m sorry that I made you feel this way. Let’s just move on from this.” (p.444)
What I mean by this example is that even when Michael did need a friend’s testimony he still shied away from handling the matter personally, so it was highly unlikely that he would call Safechuck several times during the trial, and even threaten him with perjury in case he didn’t support him. In fact, perjury could be invoked as in 1993 Safechuck testified to Michael’s innocence – however it was absolutely not Michael’s style to “threaten” Safechuck with it.

And given that Safechuck’s testimony in 2005 was not even required his fabrication about Michael Jackson sounds all the more crazy.

Or look at Safechuck’s lies about Michael Jackson dissuading him from going to college. Anyone who knows Michael’s views on education will find it totally ridiculous:

Decedent told Plaintiff’s parents that he did not need to go to college, and convinced them to remove Plaintiff from his Advanced Placement (“AP”) courses. At the time, Plaintiff was very knowledgeable and skilled in mathematics. Nevertheless, he was taken out of his AP classes, and instead re-focused on directing by the Decedent. Because Plaintiff’s own parents had not attended college, they were ill-equipped to guide their son in his scholastic endeavors, and were persuaded by the Decedent to steer the Plaintiff away from school and into directing.

Doesn’t Safechuck remember that it was his own parents who took him into the film industry when he was only 7 and surely wanted for him a career in the movies? So why blame Michael Jackson for it now?

It is true that film-making was always Michael’s passion and he even introduced his son Prince to it, but it never interfered with Prince’s education, even though he was schooled at home.

Decedent told Plaintiff to de-prioritize school, focus on movie-making, and not to worry because the Decedent could get Plaintiff into college if he still wanted to go. (Complaint)

And Margaret Macdonaldo tells us something different. Margaret, Jermaine’s former wife, wrote an unflattering book about the Jacksons, but noted that the only male Jackson she trusted completely was Michael. She portrayed Uncle Michael as the kindest heart who always helped even when he wasn’t asked to and who paid for his nephews’ education when he got wind of Tito’s financial problems:

“It was bad enough when Tito … decided to stop funding his sons’ tuition to Buckley School, where fees run upward of $10,000 a year. Tito’s sons are extremely bright and were getting straight A’s. DeeDee was frantic that her sons were going to have to leave school. Then Uncle Michael got wind of what was happening, and paid for all of them to go through Buckley and is now funding their college education.

Margaret Macdonaldo’s own sons Jeremy and Jourdynn travelled with Michael Jackson and when they returned from their trip their schoolwork was perfectly done – and again it was Uncle Michael who took care of it.

“The only Jackson who inquires about Jeremy and Jourdynn’s welfare is Michael, the busiest Jackson of them all. He has a new album, a new wife, and his own ready-made family but has expressed a desire to help my sons. He didn’t do it out of a sense of responsibility or legal commitment; he did it out of love. The King of Pop has the kindest heart of all

“Michael arranged a train trip to Minneapolis via a private Amtrak coach car. With Tito’s three sons on their way back to California, Jeremy and Jourdynn were alone with Michael. I knew they would be safe and well taken care of with him.

The most incredible detail of the trip wasn’t revealed until it was over. When Jeremy and Jourdynn came back home, armed with some new toys, I asked to see their schoolwork. As promised, it was completed and perfect. When I asked who helped them with their papers, they replied in unison: “Uncle Michael!

The same was with the Cascios’ brothers. Frank Cascio says that Michael encouraged them to study and taught them to pursue knowledge:

He taught me to pursue knowledge. He encouraged me to study. He told me to be humble and to respect my parents, especially my mother. He warned me away from partying and using drugs and cigarettes, saying, “Have a drink, enjoy yourself, but if you can’t walk out of a place on your own two feet, you’re a bum.” He inspired me to be the best that I could be.

Back at the hotel, Eddie and I had to do the schoolwork that we’d been sent. We were supposed to complete the assignments and return them to the school. The teachers were under the impression that we had been provided with a tutor, and we did, in fact, have one … but we kept his identity under wraps. We were pretty sure that the school wouldn’t buy the idea of Michael Jackson as a traveling tutor. The truth was, he was genuinely committed to the job. Sure, we didn’t exactly keep regular school hours—lessons happened in the middle of the night sometimes— but Michael was the one who regularly sat down with me and my brother and went through our assignments with us. When we had to read books, he would read chapters of them aloud to us, then have us recap what we had heard, asking: “So who were the main characters? What did they want? What does it mean?” In the same way that he opened our minds with the movies he had us watch, he also encouraged us to think about our homework differently than we were used to and to take it seriously (p.84).

In addition to the assignments our school gave us, Michael insisted that we keep journals of our trip. “Document this trip,” he’d keep telling us, “because one day you’re going to love to look back on it.” In every country he had us take pictures of what we saw, do some research about the customs, and put what we’d seen and experienced in our books. We explored the different cultures. We visited orphanages and schools. Eddie and I started to have a greater awareness of our place in the big, wide world. (p.85)

Isn’t it a decidedly different story from Safechuck’s and told by two different people at that? And what if many more other witnesses had a chance to speak in Dan Reed’s film to challenge those two liars?

Since Frank Cascio also mentioned the movies, it would be interesting to see what films they watched with Michael and what music they listened to:

Back at the hotel, Eddie and I hung out with Michael in his room, distracting him, giving him support, and watching old movies on laser disc. As we watched the Bruce Lee movie Enter the Dragon, Michael got up and began mimicking Bruce Lee’s karate movements. He talked to us about every detail of the film—commenting on technical details about specific shots and explaining exactly what it was he worshipped about Bruce Lee. As he was doing now with Bruce Lee, Michael had a unique gift for incorporating the tricks of his heroes into his dancing. The hat, the glove, the walk—he got all that from Charlie Chaplin. There’s one move that he used when he performed “Billie Jean,” where he slid his neck forward and sideways, then bent over and did a strange walk—he got that from watching the movements of the Tyrannosaurus rex in the movie Jurassic Park. (p.67)

“Michael had an incredibly silly side to him and we were always playing jokes on each other, which is why I am giving him rabbit ears in this photo.” Photo from Frank Cascio’s book

We sat rapt, listening for hours as Michael played DJ, saying, “You have to listen to this song. Now you have to hear this group”. He introduced me to all types of music—country, folk, classical, funk, rock. He even turned me on to Barbra Streisand. I fell in love with her song “People.” Michael liked to go to sleep to classical music, especially the works of Claude Debussy. (p.79)

And Safechuck tells us that he spent his free time with MJ watching “porn”:

“When Decedent was alone with Plaintiff at The Hideout, Decedent served pink wine to him to drink, which was sweet, and together they would watch porn films. Some of the porn films were heterosexual in nature as were the pornographic books that Decedent showed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was told by Decedent that these books were “foreign” books. Decedent also showed Plaintiff movies in which children were masturbating, and told him that they were “not really porn.” The movies that Decedent referred to as “porn” involved adult sexual activities, whereas the films where children engaged in sexual activities were “not porn”. (Complaint)

The claim about porn is a big fat lie, but it is exceptionally interesting in very many other ways.

Look at the timeline first. Safechuck’s complaint is the latest in its chronology, but as a “victim” he is supposed to be the earliest one. Porn and wine were alleged only by Arvizo and though Safechuck was friends with MJ when Arvizo had not yet even been born, his tale mysteriously incorporates everything the Arvizos claimed at the 2005 trial – wine, porn and books.

Mind you that Jordan Chandler, who also belongs to the 90s, never alleged anything like that. At the time Michael was known to drink only water and was “very prissy and proper and prim, and the very essence of the proverbial Victorian old maid” as Macauley Culkin’s father called him, so alleging wine and porn about him at that time would have been too inconvincing and not even an option.

But now it is an option, because in the year 2019 no one really remembers the proper and prim guy Michael really was thirty years ago.

However any sensible person will agree that this strange totality of Safechuck’s complaint, which spans all periods and incorporates every lie ever told about Jackson, is evidence enough that before making his story Safechuck studied all the “sources” inside out and included into his early story things that could be claimed about MJ only decades later.

“Porn” is also a lie because in the 90s there was no porn in Michael’s home and certainly not a single piece where “children were engaged in sexual activities” as Safechuck describes it.

Even Michael’s haters have to admit that “police found hundreds of videocassettes in Jackson’s film library in 1993 (and in 2003), but they were unable to recover any movies — even legal ones — showing children engaged in sex acts.”

However they find an explanation for this disappointing fact:

“Jackson’s devoted chauffeur Gary Hearne had ‘confiscated’ a suspect briefcase and suitcase from the singer’s Hideout apartment under the orders of Jackson and his private investigator Anthony Pellicano”. Bill Dworin said of the 1993 Neverland raid: “We knew they had time to prepare. And our feeling was — it’s a strong possibility that something was removed.” Diane Dimond wrote in her book Be Careful Who You Love that sources informed her the items inside the briefcase and suitcase confiscated by Gary Hearne were “pornographic magazines and videos”.

All you can say on the above is: “Wow, none of it is true.”

No, they didn’t have time to prepare. Michael’s maid Adrian McManus testified in 2005 that when the police raided Neverland in 1993 no one had a clue.

Q. Was there a search that was conducted at Neverland by Los Angeles Police Department?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you present at the time that happened?

A. I — yes, but I — yes, but I had called in sick that day and I had to go back to the ranch.

Q. By coincidence, or you knew there was going to be a search?

A. No, I didn’t know. I did not know. I just was sick and I called in sick.

Q. And had anybody heard of anything in advance of that search?

A. No.

Q. There had been no talk about that at all?

A. No.

(from McManus’s testimony, April 7, 2005)

Adrian McManus, Jackson’s personal maid who, as mentioned, was the only person who had access to his bedroom, remembered the scramble the day before the raid.

Victor Gutierrez

Adrian McManus, Jackson’s personal maid who, as mentioned, was the only person who had access to his bedroom, remembered the scramble the day before the raid.

“…I took sheets stained with dried semen and excrement most definitely from Jackson and Brett Barnes [the Australian boy]. They also hid suitcases with photos, videos and documents, video cameras, photo equipment and tripods. The guards took furniture and Michael’s spring mattress, which most definitely carried evidence of sexual activity.”

Security guards also told of hiding evidence.

“I was in charge of taking more private things like the bottle of Vaseline, pants and traces of excrement, not stains, but excrement that he put in a bag so that Adrian could wash it at another location,” said Ralph Chacon accusingly. “I also took bottles of alcohol from Michael’s bedroom, alcohol that was drunk by Brett and other boys that would come to visit.”

How can a simple “No, no one heard in advance of that search” from Adrian McManus compare with the above elaborate scene produced by Gutierrez’s sick imagination? There is simply no comparison. It is a complete lie from beginning to end, but it is so powerful, you know.

The Century City condo was raided the next day, August 22, 1993. At the time Anthony Pellicano was on the Dangerous tour with Michael in Europe and learned about the raid post-factum. And though he did ask the driver to bring a portfolio with documents from the condo, it was only after the police search.

The instant the phone call arrived, Anthony Pellicano knew there was trouble–possibly big trouble. The caller told him there had been a raid. Police had confiscated photos and videotapes from the homes of the private investigator’s top client, pop superstar Michael Jackson.

For Pellicano, who was accompanying the singer on the Asian leg of a world concert tour, the bombshell was sufficiently jarring to prompt his own phone call moments later to Los Angeles, where it was not yet dawn.

And Hayvenhurst was stormed by the police on November 8, 1993 without any warning either. Margaret Macdonaldo writes about her shock at discovering the invasion army of 16 policemen at their house when the whole family was away for a funeral.

Every day seemed to bring new drama, none more unexpected than the surprise incident that occurred on November 8, 1993, while the family was in Phoenix, Arizona, for the funeral of Joseph’s lather, Bud. Without warning, the gates were opened and sixteen undercover police officers stormed the Hayvenhurst house, armed with a search warrant.

The men proceeded to tear through his belongings, which Katherine had carefully preserved exactly as Michael had left them. The search was in full swing when I returned from picking up the kids at school to discover the invasion army. They went through my closets and even Jeremy and Jourdynn’s toys. The police went about their business and carted away four dozen boxes of family possessions. Michael heard about the search while he was in Mexico. (p.172)

So they didn’t have time to remove anything prior to the police raids.

But despite that the police found nothing, except the two art books with photos of half-naked boys on the beach that were strategically put by someone into a locked filed cabinet in Michael’s closet. I will be forever intrigued how come Michael Jackson’s former maid Blanca Francia, who by the time of the raid hadn’t worked at Neverland for two years, appeared with a key of her own to open that cabinet.

Knowing that all Michael Jackson’s homes were clean, Victor Gutierrez, the author of that pedophilia book about MJ claimed that Michael Jackson rented those “controversial” movies and this is why they were not found there.

Victor Gutierrez has been to that video rental, spoke with an anonymous employee there and the way he describes the renting process is hilarious:

“…where had he seen them? The themes were without a doubt too controversial (an adult’s love for a minor) to have seen them in commercial theaters or have rented them from your average video store. The answer is “Video West,” a video store in West Hollywood, where much of the local population and the vast majority of clients were homosexuals. The store has a great variety of videos with sections on homosexual pornography, other gay themes and cult films, among them various foreign films dealing with the subject of pedophilia. Films such as The Flavor of Com’, You Are Not Alone (also the name of a song from “HIStory” which Jackson dedicated to Jordie) and A Special Friendship’ were personally rented by Jackson in this store.

Michael would arrive five minutes before we closed [midnight] to choose his films,” declared a store employee. “The Larrabee recording studios, where Michael records some of his songs, are in front of our business. He told us ‘since I’m already here I’m going to rent these films.’ The movies that Michael rented could only be rented in this store. They always dealt with loving and sexual relations between an adult and a boy.” Some of the other films which Jackson rented were ones in which young boys appeared nude or half-nude in more than a few scenes. Most of these were European films such as ‘Rohby’ and ‘ Pelle the Conqueror.’ There were also liberal historic and foreign themes about minors who prostituted themselves, some who were abused and ran from their homes wearing only underwear, and others who ran around naked and masturbating, in such films as: ‘Vito and the Others’, ‘The Decameron’, ‘Ada’, ‘Lakki’, ‘The Orphans’, and ’Freedom is Paradise’.

“Although Michael never rented movies in his own name,” an employee of the store said, “he was registered under the name of one of his assistants. On occasions, his assistant would come to rent films for him. We all knew her.” In some of these films, the theme of sexual relations between an adult and a child was seen as normal, showing how the minors blindly fall in love with their mate. These films showed graphic scenes of love and sex.”

Anyone who thinks that Michael Jackson could regularly visit some shady video store and rent films “dealing with the subject of pedophilia” without the paparazzi, Tom Sneddon and FBI never knowing about it, is a moron – plain and simple.

And it would be equally idiotic not to realize that Gutierrez’s vast knowledge of the subject speaks to his own sexual preferences and relishing this kind of films. By giving us a detailed list of their titles the only thing Gutierrez revealed is that he is an avid watcher of them himself.

But there is one more thing we discover by comparing those texts. This is a fact that Safechuck also read Gutierrez’s book and when describing those “foreign” movies with boys “engaged in sexual activities” Safechuck drew his inspiration from no other but Gutierrez.

‘Victor Gutierrez and the NAMBLA connection’

Is there anything else we forgot about Safechuck’s claims?

Oh, he spoke about some chimes that rang in the hallway to Michael’s bedroom and were a signal to stop “the sexual activities”:

“Decedent eventually installed chimes in the hallway to his bedroom so that he could hear and be warned when people approached.“

This allegation comes from Bill Dworin, a former investigator at the LA District Attorney office, who claimed that during the 1993 raid they discovered a warning system that set off a musical tone when someone approached the door of Michael’s bedroom. However even Robert Wegner, Michael’s former security guard who wrote a silly 90-page book about MJ, says that at that time there was no such alarm.

Wegner, who was at Neverland on the day of the 1993 search, said he recalls no such alarm. In fact, he said, Jackson sometimes expressed almost childlike concerns about his safety, at one point calling security because he heard noises on the roof.

“I said, ’Michael, it’s just raccoons. We have raccoons out here,”’ he said. “He still wanted somebody to sit there all night.”

Safechuck also describes two closets at Neverland where he was allegedly abused.

“Decedent had a secret closet in his bedroom at Neverland which required a secret passcode to open. Decedent kept jewelry inside the closet, and would often abuse Plaintiff there.”

The “secret closet” is a very old lie which doesn’t have a leg to stand on, but if anyone thinks that it is possible to engage in the above activities inside a safe – well, let them if they so much want it.

Some viewers of the film were greatly impressed by a certain box of rings Safechuck allegedly received from Michael in reward for the alleged “activities”.

However it is equally easy to assume that those rings were presented to Safechuck’s mother – as Christmas gifts, for example. I cannot imagine Michael Jackson coming to Safechuck’s home or entertaining them as guests in his house at Christmas time without presenting them with some gifts. After all he used to give $100 banknotes even to homeless people…

This crazy list of lurid allegations can go on forever, but those who wanted to know the truth already know it.

It is enough to hear at least one lie from guys like Robson and Safechuck to see what they are up to. If somebody chooses to believe their current version despite all the facts to the contrary and listen to more and more of their lies – well, let them. It is their choice.

After all, “If somebody deceives you once – shame on him. If somebody deceives you twice – shame on you.” ©

Last Edit: 04 Mar 2019 17:25 by annabelle.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy, Flare

Leaving Neverland 05 Mar 2019 17:39 #2

  • Flare
  • Flare's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 14000
  • Likes received: 5493
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy, Rocco

Leaving Neverland 05 Mar 2019 22:08 #3

  • Lizzy
  • Lizzy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 4888
  • Likes received: 2984
I watched both Leaving and After Neverland last night , now totally convinced Jackson was indeed a pedophile , well versed in the dark arts of grooming . I freely admit that several yrs ago when this topic came up for discussion on the DIF I naively believed him to innocent , not as a fan , I wasn't but for believing the story of a lost childhood and 'emotional' security with children rather than money grubbing adults - how wrong I was.
Everything these two men said , felt , processed into self hate and now healing through 'confession' and exposure of both themselves and Jackson ran perfectly true. The Jackson Estate are suing HBO for 100 Million .
Star crazed mothers going against maternal instinct shoulder the blame.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Leaving Neverland 05 Mar 2019 22:31 #4

  • Lizzy
  • Lizzy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 4888
  • Likes received: 2984
hi annabelle - :)
off topic but wanted to say regarding your thread about the thrill seeking traveler guy who died in India , I think your deduction that he was bi-polar / manic depressive was probably right . I had reasons for thinking he was just an extreme life seeking individual , having lived with a bi-polar husband for 18yrs during which time he had 3 major psychotic breaks that had him on lock-up wards , which this guy didn't seem to exhibit , along with the fact that the labeling of ''bi-polar' has in recent yrs been wrongly / liberally inserted to many thousand of diagnosis ( got to keep big pharma happy and guns out of as many peeps as possible ) - but I remembered my ex's cousin who was never hospitalized with any chronic episodes but still had the disease manifest in risky behavior , diagnosed over 35 yrs ago . The two stunts my ex pulled before diagnosis 45 yrs ago were outrageous - he was lucky to have a family with the means to get him out of trouble
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Leaving Neverland 05 Mar 2019 22:47 #5

  • Lizzy
  • Lizzy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 4888
  • Likes received: 2984
Flare wrote:

I think ' they' killed him .
So much detail in the Leaving Neverland documentary . hard not to believe it but what if it IS another jew hoaxed set-up.- got to admit it has me somewhat back sitting on the wall .
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Leaving Neverland 05 Mar 2019 22:52 #6

  • annabelle
  • annabelle's Avatar
  • Online
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2150
  • Likes received: 1524
Lizzy wrote:
I watched both Leaving and After Neverland last night , now totally convinced Jackson was indeed a pedophile , well versed in the dark arts of grooming . I freely admit that several yrs ago when this topic came up for discussion on the DIF I naively believed him to innocent , not as a fan , I wasn't but for believing the story of a lost childhood and 'emotional' security with children rather than money grubbing adults - how wrong I was.
Everything these two men said , felt , processed into self hate and now healing through 'confession' and exposure of both themselves and Jackson ran perfectly true. The Jackson Estate are suing HBO for 100 Million .
Star crazed mothers going against maternal instinct shoulder the blame.

Too bad you have fallen for the manipulations and lies and have not done your research on the backgrounds, histories and motivating factors of the accusers involved.

THE MESS of Jimmy Safechuck’s Civil Suit
Wade Robson’s Emails: ‘A MASTER OF DECEPTION’
David Geffen Sank My Career

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

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

Dan Reed claims that his movie is not about Michael Jackson, yet by his own admission the film would not have been made had it not been about Michael Jackson.

Dan Reed owed it to the subject of his film to go beyond the surface of these allegations and to vet his sources.

He owed it to the public legacy of Michael Jackson, to his orphaned children and elderly mother, to fully investigate the stories of Wade Robson and James Safechuck before committing them to film, and moreover, to examine and analyze all exculpatory evidence (of actual, inculpatory evidence, the film offers surprisingly none).

But just because the film was made does not mean we have to be obligated to embrace or enable it. That so many prominent journalists and media talking heads have displayed the willingness to accept this film blindly at face value, without raising the much needed questions that need to be asked about its veracity, is a bigger unforgiveable travesty than the film itself.

But this is exactly what Dan Reed, HBO and Channel 4 are counting on, that the current zeitgeist of MeToo and its “don’t question victims” mentality will create the tunnel vision needed to willfully blind viewers.

Dan Reed and Richard Plepler, as well as the executives of Channel 4, are certainly not naïve. They knew that this was the kind of smear campaign that would result from their film. It has been a carefully orchestrated strategy from the outset, with the clear end goal of diminishing the lucrative power of Michael Jackson’s brand.

The logic and obvious modus operandi remains the same as it has been for Robson and Safechuck from the outset: To force a shakedown for the Michael Jackson Estate.

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

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

The FBI after Michael's death, released their FBI file on him, they had been investigating him for 15 years and they came up with NOTHING..NADA..ZILCH

After a long and intricate trial...Michael was declared NOT GUILTY by a jury in a court of law....

Mr.Robson's testimony:

As a quick recap here are just a few quotes from his then testimony showing how easy and relaxed this intimidated “victim” was:

Q. Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever touch you in a sexual way?

A. Never, no.


Q. And at no time has any sexual contact ever occurred between you and Mr. Jackson, right?

A. Never.

Q. Has anything inappropriate ever happened in any shower with you and Mr. Jackson?

A. No. Never been in a shower with him.


Q. You’ve been following these reports that somehow Mr. Jackson was seen inappropriately touching you?

A. Yes.

Q. What do you think of them?

A. I think it’s ridiculous.


A. I’m telling you that nothing ever happened.

Q. Mr. Robson, when you were asleep, you wouldn’t have known what had happened, particularly at age seven, would you have?

A. I would think something like that would wake me up.


Q. When you were a young child, did Michael Jackson ever show you any sexually explicit material?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see Michael Jackson show sexually explicit material to any child?

A. No.

And these are my favorites – they show Robson’s easy state of mind during his testimony and even look like jokes on his part:

Q. Go ahead and turn the page, if you would.

A. I never thought I’d have a room of people watching me do this.


Q. Mr. Robson, when did you first learn that Michael Jackson possessed material of the nature that’s before you right now?

A. Right now I did.

Q. Assuming this comes from Michael Jackson’s residence.

A. Assuming it does, this is the first I know.

Q. All right. And you had never, ever known that Mr. Jackson collected sexually explicit material?

A. No.

Now Mr. Robson and Mr. Safechuck.... if you go through their histories....have a hundred million reasons to lie about Mr.Jackson when he is no longer here to defend himself in any way.

And Oprah Winfrey is a total hypocrite who deems herself to be judge and jury in a case in which.... she has only decided to listen to the prosecutions side....and not in anything that even smacks of a court room.... but a biased, edited, one sided film.... and speaking to two people who have changed their stories numerous times throughout the years........there is no defendant since he was persecuted to death and it isn't actually a trial but a smear campaign......yet again.

Michael cannot sue for defamation against his character because he is dead and dead people cannot sue for defamation, they know this but who cares..

He pissed The Jews off all right.......and they will never stop trying to destroy him..even long after his death
Last Edit: 06 Mar 2019 00:30 by annabelle.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Leaving Neverland 06 Mar 2019 00:26 #7

  • Lizzy
  • Lizzy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 4888
  • Likes received: 2984
hi annabelle -
I read your post after my first post and I think you have valid concern -
As for 'research' - I've done my time - 15yrs FULL TIME and I'm on total overload now - what happens to this little mess means little to me in the BIG picture - but i will share this with you - it DID cross my mind that they were BOTH jewish families and I NEVER will ever completely trust them esp. in situations like this - to me the mothers were both fame and money grubbers and probably still are - along with their sons - an inverted 'glory' of victimhood fits well.
It's obvious that the two men are raking it in - on lies ? wouldn't surprise me at all - quite happy to stick with my original thoughts on the matter - the deep and dirty global dug heap the jews have created is their money pit.
Last Edit: 06 Mar 2019 01:03 by Lizzy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: annabelle

Leaving Neverland 06 Mar 2019 00:31 #8

  • annabelle
  • annabelle's Avatar
  • Online
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2150
  • Likes received: 1524

JacksonFacts wrote:
Finally someone is talking about Gutierrez's role in all this. Virtually all allegations against MJ originated with this creep including Chandlers.

And who is Gutierrez? Victor Gutierrez is a freelance writer who lived in the US in the 80s and 90s. In a 2005 interview given to the German daily newspaper Tagerzeitung he said in 1986 he attended a NAMBLA conference

Bob Hamer, a former FBI agent, talked about how he infiltrated NAMBLA. He was not allowed to attend a conference until he had been a member for 3 years and had been sponsored by another active duty member.

Victor Gutierrez was a NAMBLA member whose book 'Michael Jackson was my lover' - published in 1996 - promoted NAMBLA's sick agenda trying to normalize sex between adults and minors

He made his attitude clear in the Author's Notes

He also dedicated a chapter to explain why pedophilia was no big deal, sex between adults and minors can be "loving", as he and his NAMBLA friends believe

On page 208 he wrote:

Gutierrez has pictures of Jordan Chandler looking drugged up and shirtless in his perverted book.

He also put in random pictures of Michael as a little boy.

Michael Jackson wins $2.7 million in lawsuit against Victor Gutierrez

Michael Jackson won $2.7 million in his slander suit against a freelance writer who claimed to have a videotape of the pop singer having sex with a teenage boy.

"Jurors told us that they not only wanted to compensate Jackson and punish Victor Gutierrez, but to send a message that they are tired of tabloids lying about celebrities for money," Jackson's lawyer, Zia Modabber, said after a jury decided against Victor Gutierrez on Thursday.

They projected their perversion onto a man who openly expressed his genuine love and compassion for children and was often seen with them publicly. They hoped given his status if they can convince the world he was a pedophile society would be more likely accept it.

Overwhelming evidence that James Safechuck pieced together his allegations using Victor Gutierrez's pro pedophilia book proves he is not a victim but a liar and a particularly cynical one

The Robson family testified for Jackson at his 2005 trial. All three were adamant the entertainer never did anything untoward Wade or any of them.

They were overjoyed when Jackson was found not guilty.

They also asked Taj Jackson for tickets for Jackson's memorial.

Here is the FULL 33 second birthday message shown in Leaving Neverland in the highest quality, not the hacked together version shown in the trailer. Transcript included in reply.

view here:

Last Edit: 06 Mar 2019 02:06 by annabelle.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Gaia

Leaving Neverland 08 Apr 2019 10:36 #9

  • annabelle
  • annabelle's Avatar
  • Online
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2150
  • Likes received: 1524
Michael Jackson Rebuttal (Part 3): Skeeving Slumberland

Last Edit: 08 Apr 2019 11:10 by annabelle.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Rocco
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2019 - May 2020, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 270 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 100 - Raised
( £ 80 GBP )
donation thermometer
31st May 2019

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.