By Vivian Lee
Dan Reed is a freelance British film director and producer who specializes in “documentary reconstructions of major terrorist attacks.” He has made numerous TV movies and documentaries, working with HBO, Channel 4, PBS Frontline, the BBC, and, by his own admission, certain intelligence assets that have been instrumental for some of his films. In an interview for his 2008 TV movie, “Terror in Mumbai,” he characterized himself as “a bit of a gun for hire.”
“I tend to make films which go behind a big news story or go behind something that has made headlines, and try to show the more complex side of it, and to try and kind of unpack the hidden truths…I’m hired on a job-by-job basis. And I do the projects that I like and the projects that, for some reason, turn me on.”
Dan Reed on his work with intelligence assets in India for “Terror in Mumbai.” Image: MsFlying Fairy.
Reed has specialized in terrorism-related films, such as “Terror in Mumbai,” and also “Frontline Fighting: Battling ISIS,” “Terror at the Mall,” and “Three Days of Terror: The Charlie Hebdo Attacks,” which serve to promote the official narratives of these staged and otherwise-suspect events and activities. At university, Reed majored in French and Russian and spent quite a bit of time in Russia; his knowledge of Russian, he says, got him a job as a researcher with a documentary series, and he “kind of took it on from there.” He has clearly been hired to take out Michael Jackson.
Reed admits to the directorial and cinematic tricks he uses to push these narratives, using behind-the-scenes stories and intimate, personal details to reveal the “hidden sides, hidden complexities behind stories we think we’re familiar with from the news media.”
“…Telling the inside of these big stories, using very personal accounts. It’s a mode of storytelling I specialize in and have developed…everything from the camera angles, the lighting, the manner in which I interview people. That has all been incredibly useful in “Leaving Neverland.” You see the same techniques being repurposed from one subject matter to another.”
Yes, the same techniques, including the use of scripted text that is made to appear spontaneous, off-camera coaching, multiple takes from which the most convincing are selected, lighting tricks and special camera angles, as well as graphic details of alleged sex meant to stand in for real evidence – all calculated to convince the viewer that Wade Robson and James Safechuck are real victims. The interviews with Wade and James were filmed in one week in February 2017; the families were interviewed later that year, and the “wedding ring” scene was added in July 2018.
“Leaving Neverland” builds on the previous 1993 and 2003/2005 child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson, and returns to the topic to accuse him anew. Reed claims he made the film over the course of two or three years, although what he did all this time is a mystery, as he certainly didn’t research Michael Jackson. Reed has given numerous interviews to promote the film, with few challenges to his authority. This, although he has admitted that he knows little about Jackson.
“…my knowledge of Jackson’s biography is so restricted and my interest in his music and in his career was pretty much non-existent before I began the three-year journey of this film…”
Anyway, according to Reed, not a lot of research was required, because “This isn’t a film about Michael Jackson.”
“It’s a film about Wade Robson and James Safechuck, two little boys to whom this dreadful thing happened long ago. It’s the story of their coming to terms with that over two decades and the story of their families.”
Elsewhere, Reed claims to have done extensive research into the earlier allegations against Jackson:
“You know, I did a huge amount of work, and my team did a huge amount of work digging into the 1993 and the 2003-2005 criminal investigations against Jackson by the LAPD, by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department. We spoke to investigators. We looked at documents. We found nothing that contradicted, and we found quite a lot that corroborated Wade and James’ stories specifically.”
What? Jackson was thoroughly investigated, his body was photographed and his homes raided by the authorities, he was tried in 2005 and declared innocent on all counts, and nothing was ever found to substantiate any allegations of child molestation. And both Robson and Safechuck are on record, under oath and in interviews, saying time and time again that they were never abused by Jackson. One wonders, then, why Reed is so insistent.
Besides his interest in terrorism, Reed also walks the seamy side, with films like “Escorts” and “The Paedophile Hunter,” which tracks a vigilante group in the UK that exposes pedophiles who use the internet to find their victims. So Reed knows a lot about pedophilia. This expertise has allowed him to state with authority that Wade Robson and James Safechuck are telling the truth.
“…In common with many pedophiles out there, [Jackson] believed that pedophilia is a valid sexual orientation and that the world simply doesn’t understand that and they haven’t caught up with it yet. That’s speculation of course, because he never discussed the subject in public, perhaps never articulated it himself. There were so many people around him enabling him and very rarely challenging him that he found it very easy to sneak in little boys, so maybe he thought he had a God-given right to do so…he was so ruthless and manipulative when it came to abusing little children and grooming their families that I can’t really exonerate him.”
Repeated again and again in Reed’s film and interviews is the idea that the pedophilia alleged in “Leaving Neverland” is a “love story.” This harks back to Victor Gutierrez’s pornographic work of fiction and echoes the stance of NAMbLA – the North American Man/Boy Love Association. The group was founded in 1978 and lobbies for the normalization of pedophilia. Due to infiltration by law enforcement, the group no longer holds regular national meetings, membership has declined, and many associates have moved online. All the accusations of Michael Jackson have had this fake “love story” angle, stemming originally from Gutierrez and the 1993 Chandler allegations and fed by the tabloid press. Reed’s obsession with this dubious notion is explored in “Leaving Neverland: Echoes of a Pedophilia Apologist.”
Reed is very sure of himself. He has evidenced a distaste for anyone who criticizes the film or disbelieves his narrative. Such people are now called “truthers.” As for Michael Jackson fans, “One can only compare them to religious fanatics, really,” says Reed. “They’re the Islamic State of fandom.”
“We fact-checked and re-fact checked and re-fact checked and scrutinized. I feel pretty comfortable with the amount of preparation we did and therefore I don’t think there’s anything anyone can say that cast any real doubt on it…Most of the challenges that have come from the Jackson fan community are not valid. They are based on false information.”[11]
In response to the news that Brandi Jackson dated Wade Robson between 1991 and 2000, and has called him a liar, Reed says, “I don’t follow the logic.” Regarding Safechuck’s sex in the train station between 1988 and 1992 (the dates of his alleged abuse given in his second amended complaint), although the station was not built until 1994, Reed has tweeted, “Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse.” With this reckless tweet (which he has since deleted), he has presumed to speak for James Safechuck, effectively accusing him of perjury.
Many in the media have come to Reed’s aid, like Diane Dimond in her article, “‘Leaving Neverland’ and the Twisted Cult of Michael Jackson Truthers.” One exception is Piers Morgan, who interviewed Reed on Good Morning Britain, calling him out for his complete lack of evidence. An even more astounding confrontation appeared on French TV, where Reed was skewered by journalist Olivier Cachin and MJ fan Hector Barjot. Reed’s response to anyone or anything casting doubt on his story is to double down and hit back hard. In fact, part of his job seems to be the discrediting of Jackson with negative publicity, which he spreads unstintingly in interview after interview. Reed is a deep-state lackey of the intelligence services who works as a mercenary for the highest bidder.
Media Mania
“Just because it’s in print doesn’t mean it’s the gospel.”
-Michael Jackson, 2003 (60 Minutes interview)
Wacko Jacko (selection)
The media hounded and vilified Jackson with lie after lie, promoted in the tabloids and then picked up by the mainstream press. These bogus allegations were fueled by The Sun, The Daily Mirror, The National Enquirer and other tabloids, which might pay up to $500,000 for a salacious story reflecting negatively on Jackson.[12] This practice is still continuing, as shown by this notice in The Mirror following an article of April 8 about “Leaving Neverland”:
Jackson experienced many health problems. He had a skin disorder, vitiligo, which caused his brown pigmentation to disappear in blotches, requiring him to wear makeup when he performed. As his skin turned predominantly white, he began to use light makeup, causing the tabloids to scream that he was bleaching his skin. Jackson had also been diagnosed with lupus. He had plastic surgery on his nose, undoubtedly because his father had told him his nose was too big. He was badly burned in an accident on the set of a Pepsi commercial in 1984, which required reconstructive surgery on his scalp and several follow-up operations. He injured his back during a concert in Munich in 1999 when part of the set collapsed – he gamely finished the performance. Due to these accidents, Jackson was on pain medication and became dependent on prescription drugs. Despite these adversities, he continued to write, choreograph, record, and perform, bringing joy to millions. But this was lost on the media, which branded him a freak, a wacko, and, of course, a pedophile.
Michael Jackson after the 1984 accident that led to reconstructive surgery on his scalp. Image CNN.
The press happily bought fake stories from former employees of Jackson and followed the lead of several predatory “journalists” and “investigators” who exploited the star for decades. Chief among these are Diane Dimond, currently still writing fake news about Jackson, Maureen Orth, also still on the scene, and Victor Gutierrez, the author of the fictional “diary” of Jordan Chandler. Gutierrez was the only person who claimed to have “seen” the “diary.” His lies were out and about long before his book was published in 1995/1996, and he was a source for the 1993 Chandler extortion scheme.
It is tempting to dismiss Gutierrez as a sleazy NAMbLA low-life, but that is not recommended. Gutierrez has been lurking in the shadows ever since the Chandler allegations. He reported the existence of a 27-minute video, supposedly captured by a security camera, that was said to show Jackson molesting one of his nephews. This story was passed to Dimond, who announced it on her radio show in January 1995. It developed that no one but Gutierrez had “seen” the “video,” which turned out to be a complete fabrication. Jackson sued Dimond and Gutierrez, won the case against Gutierrez for $2.7 million, but he fled the country and never paid up. (Dimond managed to escape, with the help of Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon.)
Victor Gutierrez and his book were important sources for the prosecution in the 2005 trial, in which Jackson was completely exonerated. Gutierrez has provided false information for numerous documentaries on Jackson, including Martin Bashir’s 2003 defamatory film, “Living with Michael Jackson,” and he is still a source of fake news in the media.[13] Gutierrez and his phony allegations are behind the lies of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, and the NAMBLA man-boy “love” theme that persists in “Leaving Neverland.”
Oprah Winfrey’s special, “After Neverland,” which aired for one hour following “Leaving Neverland,” featured a sit-down conversation with Robson, Safechuck, and Reed. Not a penetrating interview, the Oprah component was a platform for the men to repeat their allegations, unhindered by any demands for actual evidence. Oprah hit the pedophile “love” and “grooming” themes heavily, supporting the narrative uncritically. She had assembled an audience of 100 adults who had been sexually abused as children; sadly, these actual survivors hung on every word of the fake victims.
Oprah, “the most famous survivor of childhood sexual abuse in the world,” who has featured survivors of childhood abuse in 217 episodes of her talk show program, purports to speak out against pedophilia. In 2010 she recruited 200 male sexual abuse survivors as props for two episodes, showing them posed as a group, holding up photos of themselves as children. Back in 2010, “grooming” was on her agenda, but the “love” theme had not yet developed. Now, the message she says she tries to convey is that sexual abuse is not just “sexual abuse” – it is also “sexual seduction.” However, with her prolonged focus on child molestation, “grooming,” and the alleged “love” relationship between abusers and their victims, it can be argued that she is actually popularizing pedophilia and promoting its normalization.
The Jackson family said they felt betrayed by Winfrey, as she had been given unprecedented access in the past for two important interviews: a 1993 interview with Michael Jackson and a 2010 interview with Katherine Jackson and Michael’s children, the first given by the family following the star’s death. The Jacksons are not alone. The movement to #MuteOprah is still going strong, and Winfrey has now removed or buried all references to “Leaving/After Neverland” on her website and social media.
A huge amount of information discrediting the film is available, but it is mainly on YouTube, Twitter, and several major websites (see Resources below). So far, Mike Smallcombe is the only person who has managed to breach the mainstream media firewall. The errors and discrepancies have been picked up by elements in the press, with recent brief articles in Ebony Magazine, Billboard, Vanity Fair, and People, as well as numerous international venues, including The Mirror, The Sun, and The Daily Mail. Still, some diehards are insisting that trauma victims cannot be expected to remember details such as dates (Cosmopolitan), while others pretend that real MJ fans have been dissuaded by “Leaving Neverland” (The New York Times). These approaches may lose ground, however, as the film comes under scrutiny.
Some real journalism has appeared in the British tabloids, in a reversal of their years-long denigration of Jackson, while the US press is more reticent. British journalist Charles Thomson has also spoken out, but his American colleagues are curiously accepting of the stories of Robson and Safechuck. The reasons are outlined by John Ziegler: the short attention span of the US news media (unless we’re talking about “Russian collusion”), the strategic use of Oprah Winfrey to endorse and legitimize the accusers, and the #MeToo movement and its mandate to #BelieveSurvivors – weaponized and heavily promoted. Yet the facts are getting out. Is this the beginning of the end for Reed, Robson, and Safechuck?
Cui Bono?
Many people have benefitted from the “Leaving Neverland” scam, or they hope to in the future. Heading the list are Wade Robson and James Safechuck. Dan Reed has stated unequivocally that neither was paid for the film – they are really interested in “justice” and it’s not about money. Then why are they each suing the Jackson estate and companies for hundreds of millions of dollars? Obviously, it’s about the money. They were apparently hoping for a settlement from the Jackson estate, but this was not forthcoming. Their lawsuits were dismissed in 2017, pending appeal; both men now owe the estate a substantial sum for court costs. Estate attorney Howard Weitzman believes that Wade and James are using the “Leaving Neverland” film to aid their appeals. Perhaps they think that the publicity from the film will help their chances. But this is a long shot, considering the weakness of their claims. So did they think this through? What’s in it for them? Perhaps they have indeed been paid to participate in the film through some indirect channel. If so, by whom were they paid?
In October 2013, the concert promoter AEG won against the Jackson estate in the wrongful death lawsuit filed in 2010. AEG Live was under contract to present Jackson’s tour, “This is it,” which was cancelled after the star’s death in June 2009. AEG had hired Conrad Murray, Jackson’s doctor, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter relating to his administration of the anesthetic propofol, said to have led to Jackson’s death. Some have found it curious that Robson “realized” that he had been abused by Jackson in 2012, during the run-up to the 2013 trial. Attorney Thomas Mesereau has noted this coincidence. The estate had sued AEG for $1.5 billion, based in part on the loss of projected income for Michael Jackson. Certainly, if Jackson’s reputation – and worth – were diminished, then that would help AEG’s case.
One wonders whether AEG hooked up with Robson, who first met with his lawyers in March 2013, just before the case went to trial. If so, did AEG give Robson the idea for his “realization” and hire his lawyers? Or did they hear about it and then decide to provide support? On April 29, 2013, the first day of the trial, AEG’s lawyer, Marvin Putnam, said that AEG had no choice but to “show some ugly stuff” to defend themselves against the estate’s allegations. Two days later, Robson filed his lawsuits, and on May 16 he gave his interview on the Today Show. It looks like that was the “ugly stuff” to which Putnam was referring.
Putnam is a trial lawyer with extensive litigation experience in the entertainment industry. His wife, Keri Putnam, is also in the entertainment industry. She is Executive Director of the Sundance Institute and oversees all programs, including the Sundance Film Festival. Keri Putnam previously held positions at Miramax, founded by Bob and Harvey Weinstein, and HBO. In another curious coincidence, the Robson/Safechuck allegations were the subject of a film shown at Sundance in January 2019 – “Leaving Neverland” – which sought to further diminish Jackson’s reputation. Since the Jackson estate was denied its appeal in 2015, why pursue the denigration of Jackson? Possibly because there were other forces at work in addition to AEG.
Meanwhile, James Safechuck had “realized” he too had been abused by Jackson, after seeing Robson on the Today Show. He had supposedly contacted Robson’s lawyers, engaged them, and filed suit in 2014. However, it seems more likely that it was Robson and his lawyers who contacted Safechuck. As part of their strategy, the team is collecting “victims” and is now on a “manhunt” looking for Jordan Chandler. According to Dan Reed, Wade and James were not in contact and did not meet as adults until the film was shown at Sundance. However, in Robson’s 2016 deposition, he stated that he had spoken to Safechuck in 2014.
According to Reed, he was the one to approach Robson and Safechuck about making the film, which was done through their lawyers in 2016. Luckily, the complaints of the two accusers were already available to serve as the script. Channel 4 supposedly initiated the project. As Reed tells Rolling Stone:
“I was having breakfast with a guy called Daniel Pearl, who ran a series called ‘Dispatches,’ which is like a current affairs show on Channel 4 News. And he said, ‘What are the big, unresolved stories that everyone’s heard of?…What about Michael Jackson?’…I didn’t know much about Michael Jackson, to be honest. And I didn’t know much about his music. I was approaching this as a cultural phenomenon.”
Then, supposedly, Reed “stumbled across” Wade and James in a footnote. Channel 4 and HBO, partners that Reed had worked with previously, launched the project and hired Reed to produce and direct. This was a good deal for Reed, who would get paid a substantial amount for a very high-profile film that would (he thought) enhance his reputation. Who then was behind the idea for the “documentary”?
The AEG – Sundance – Harvey Weinstein – Oprah connections. Image: MJMedia09 Returns.
Oprah Winfrey’s special, “After Neverland,” was a love fest for the alleged victims. Her support for “Leaving Neverland” was instrumental for the promotion of an otherwise-bogus film. Oprah celebrated her birthday on January 29 with Gayle King and David Geffen aboard Geffen’s 450-foot yacht, “Rising Sun,” with a private viewing of “Leaving Neverland.” At the time of the HBO broadcast, King promoted the film in interviews with Dan Reed, Robson and Safechuck, and also members of the Jackson family. In addition to Winfrey and King, Geffen is also a person of interest. He and his friends were once heavily involved in Jackson’s career and his contract with SONY; Geffen ousted John Branca and installed Sandy Gallin as Jackson’s manager in 1990. Jackson and Geffen had a falling out, however, and Geffen reportedly topped a list of Jackson’s “enemies.” Jackson had said that Geffen had sunk his career. Geffen is famously vindictive, and some have tied him to the 1993 allegations against Jackson. Considering Geffen’s proximity to “Leaving Neverland,” it looks like he may be a part of this latest smear campaign too.
Oprah has long been a friend of disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. The scandal over Weinstein’s pattern of assault and abuse began to unfold in October 2017, but this was no trade secret. Weinstein, who had abused many women over the years, was too big to fail until October 5, when The New York Times published a detailed article in which some of his accusers went on record. But Harvey had seen it coming, and in the fall of 2016, he hired several private security firms to collect information on women and journalists he thought were trying to expose him, in order to suppress the allegations. In a New Yorker article of November 2017, Ronan Farrow revealed that Weinstein had hired Kroll, one of the world’s largest corporate investigation companies, and Black Cube, run by former Israeli intelligence officers. The contracts were routed through law firms, so that the activities could be kept secret under the cover of attorney-client privilege.
On December 6, The Times published an article on Weinstein’s “complicity machine” of “enablers, silencers, and spies,” which included David Pecker, publisher of American Media Inc., Dylan Howard, editor of The National Enquirer, and A. J. Benza, former gossip columnist for The New York Daily News. As far back as 2003, Benza was engaged in writing fake stories particularly for the tabloids about several celebrities to divert attention from Weinstein. One of these celebrities was Michael Jackson. Benza was selling defamatory articles about Jackson already at the time of the Chandler allegations, claiming he had a hand in breaking the story in 1993. Benza is still slandering Jackson on Twitter.
Harvey Weinstein and Oprah Winfrey with Kadian Noble.
Oprah was not only Harvey’s good friend, but allegedly his procurer. Kadian Noble, shown above looking apprehensive, filed suit against Weinstein for sexually assaulting her in the bathroom of his hotel room in Cannes in 2014 – and for destroying her dreams of acting. The actress said that Weinstein used Winfrey to dupe her into believing that he would advance her career. The Weinstein scandal spawned #MeToo, of which Oprah is a big supporter. You can sign a petition telling Oprah to “disavow Harvey Weinstein” at change.org started by Paul Joseph Watson.
Weinstein was closely associated with Sundance for much of its history. In 2018, he reportedly missed “his first Sundance in memory,” but he was spotted hanging around in 2019. How interesting that a film about Weinstein was showing at the festival: “Untouchable,” with colleagues and accusers detailing “the method and consequences of his alleged abuse.” By another coincidence, I am sure, the Weinstein film aired on January 25, 26, 27, 31, and February 2. “Leaving Neverland” was a last-minute entry that aired on January 25 and 26, obliterating “Untouchable,” which got no media buzz whatsoever. Has anyone heard of this real documentary, “Untouchable”?
To sum things up: Did AEG Live team up with Wade Robson to promote his story and file his complaint – to diminish the reputation of Michael Jackson and defeat the estate in its civil suit? Did AEG bring on the lawyers to research possible victims and manage to recruit James Safechuck? Have Robson and Safechuck been paid for their services? Did AEG team up with Weinstein, Channel 4, HBO, and Sundance, and hire Dan Reed to make the fake documentary? Did Oprah jump on the train leaving Neverland to help David Geffen undermine his “enemy” Michael Jackson – and help Harvey Weinstein divert attention away from the screening of “Untouchable” at Sundance? Is Victor Gutierrez still driving the narrative? The attempt to normalize pedophilia, using Michael Jackson as a vehicle, began in earnest in 1993 and continues up through the present with “Leaving Neverland.” Meanwhile, no one is really listening to the real victims of child sexual abuse, conveniently for the perpetrators. Quite the conspiracy theory, this scenario looks plausible, and there’s something in it for everyone.
Who was Michael Jackson?
In this age of fake news and identity politics, the media merchants don’t appreciate Jackson’s lyrics: “Just because you read it in a magazine or see it on a TV screen don’t make it factual” (Tabloid Junkie) and “It don’t matter if you’re black or white” (Black or White). And certainly not his outlook: “Lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons.” His millions of fans, however, do. Much has been written about Jackson, including several books; one can start with his 1988 autobiography, Moonwalk.[14] So much is now available online that the truth is easily found. In relation to “Leaving Neverland,” some brief comments are in order.
Certainly, Jackson was not a pedophile. As the facts prove, he is completely innocent of all allegations of child sexual abuse. But don’t believe me – you can do your own research. The documentation is available and can be accessed through the List of Resources following this article.
Jackson with Diana Ross, Lisa Marie Presley, Debbie Rowe, and his three children.
Michael Jackson was heterosexual, and he loved women. One of his best friends was Elizabeth Taylor, and he was in love with Diana Ross. He was married twice, to Lisa Marie Presley and Debbie Rowe, and had three children, Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. (Prince), Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson (Paris), and Prince Michael Jackson II (“Blanket”). Both marriages were derided by the press, said to be stunts, but this was not true. Lisa Marie was interviewed in 2003 by Diane Sawyer, who was dismissive of Jackson and surprised by Presley’s response:
“It’s unfortunate that not a lot of people know who he really is – he doesn’t let anybody see it. And he has some idea about how he should represent himself to the public that he thinks works for him…which is not anything like how he really is…
When he wants to lock into you, and he wants to intrigue you or capture you, or whatever he wants to do with you, he can do it. He’s very capable of doing that. He was very quick to, the first time I met him, sit me down and go, listen, I’m not gay – I know you think this, I know you think that – and he started cursing and he started, you know, being a normal person, and I was like, wow…
I fell in love with him, I did…Everything I said was the truth.”
Jackson was a wonderful father, according to everyone who knew him, and he loved children:
“They notice everything. They aren’t jaded. They get excited by things we’ve forgotten to get excited about any more. They are so natural too, so unselfconscious. I love being around them. There always seems to be a bunch of kids over at the house and they’re always welcome. They energize me – just being around them. They look at everything with such fresh eyes, such open minds. That’s part of what makes kids so creative. They don’t worry about the rules. The picture doesn’t have to be in the center of the piece of paper. The sky doesn’t have to be blue. They are accepting of people too. The only demand they make is to be treated fairly – and to be loved. I think that’s what we all want.”[15]
He built an amusement park to entertain the hundreds of children he invited to Neverland, many of them poor or sick, and he worked with numerous children’s charities worldwide. He loved animals and kept a zoo at Neverland that children could visit. Something of his private life was revealed in his TV special, “Michael Jackson’s Private Home Movies” (2003).
The Jackson 5 on the Ed Sullivan Show, 1969.
Michael Jackson was born in 1958 in Gary, Indiana, and raised a Jehovah’s Witness. He and his eight brothers and sisters lived in a two-bedroom house with his parents. The boys all slept in one room, as they did when they were on tour. He was performing with his brothers by 1964. Starting with The Jackson 5, Michael sang and danced through 16 concert tours, including his world tours “Bad,” “Dangerous,” and “HIStory.” His musical achievements are legendary. He is the first and only artist to have five albums selling over 30 million copies worldwide. He won a vast number of awards, including 13 Grammy Awards, 26 American Music Awards, 16 World Music Awards, and he holds 39 Guinness World Records, including one for “Most Successful Entertainer of All Time.” Jackson is credited with supporting 39 charities, more than any other artist.
He was highly intelligent and an avid reader who owned more than one million books. He was an expert on photography, a talented designer and draftsman, and well versed in the history of art. An astute businessman, he acquired ATV Music Publishing, which included the Lennon-McCartney song catalogue; the company later merged with Sony Music Publishing, and Jackson retained half. Vilified by the press for alleged mismanagement of his finances, Jackson has reportedly made $2 billion for his estate since the time of his death. And, of course, he was The Greatest Entertainer of All Time, a phenomenal musical genius, spectacular singer, dancer, composer, choreographer, and poet, magnetically attractive, with a legion of fans worldwide.
The whole story cannot be told here; many readers will know it already. For those still in doubt, I urge you to click on the links, and investigate the full range of Michael Jackson’s accomplishments and activities. Ask yourself if Jackson – with a packed schedule of meetings, charity events, rehearsals, and performances, while writing songs and making videos, arranging and choreographing, working with musicians and dancers, designing his concert sets and wardrobe, keeping up with trends in film and music, and attending to his business – had the time and inclination to devote years to the “grooming” and romantic pursuit of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, molesting them at every opportunity.
Michael Jackson, his legacy, and his estate are again under siege by unscrupulous grifters and their promoters in the press. In a sense, Wade Robson and James Safechuck are the worst of the lot – former friends who were mentored and supported by Jackson, turning on him after his death. Regarding the attempts to cancel MJ or mute his music, that is unlikely to happen. The more one listens (and watches), the better it gets. But things may get rough for Reed, Robson, and Safechuck. To quote Evan Chandler, “The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight.” In this case, not Jackson, but the fake accusers of “Leaving Neverland.” In the opinion of many, it’s just a matter of time. At least Jackson himself is now safely out of reach – unless you believe he is still alive.[16]
For Part I, click here.
Full Article, click here.
VIVIAN LEE is the nom de plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university.
NOTES
[1] The last airing on HBO is scheduled for April 17, although the film was originally set to run until September. The films can be streamed at HBO NOW, which requires subscription but offers a free 7-day trial period, after which a subscription can be cancelled.
“Leaving Neverland,” Part 1: https://play.hbonow.com/feature/urn:hbo:feature:GXGWJ6gVz-62uAwEAAAAH.
“Leaving Neverland,” Part 2: https://play.hbonow.com/feature/urn:hbo:feature:GXGWJ6gPGWavDPQEAAAAF.
“Oprah Winfrey Presents: After Neverland” (taped February 27 at The New York Times Center): https://play.hbonow.com/extra/urn:hbo:extra:GXHf4KAuyP8IFwwEAAAAD
[2] Alan Dershowitz, “Should Michael Jackson Have the Right to Protect His Reputation?” The Hill, March 4, 2019. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/432524-should-michael-jackson-have-the-right-to-protect-his-reputation
[3] The Jordan Chandler inquiry is discussed in detail in “The 1993 Allegations” at The Michael Jackson Allegations. https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/the-1993-allegations/
[4] “Did Jordan Chandler’s Description of Michael Jackson’s Penis Match the Photographs Taken of the Star’s Genitalia by the Police?” The Michael Jackson Allegations (e-book), 118-128. https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/the-michael-jackson-allegations-chandler-arvizo-faq.pdf
[5] The changing accusations and credibility of the Arvizo family, as well as the 2005 court proceedings and acquittal, are covered in detail in “The 2005 Allegations.” The Michael Jackson Allegations (e-book), 177-259. https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/the-michael-jackson-allegations-chandler-arvizo-faq.pdf
[6] Testimony of Wade Robson. Court transcript 5 05 2005. The Michael Jackson Allegations. https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/the-court-transcripts/
[7] Wade Robson fourth amended complaint (filed September 9, 2016), ¶5. https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/2016-09-09-robson-fourth-and-third-amended-complaint-motion-to-amend-third-amended-complaint.pdf.
James Safechuck second amended complaint (filed September 19, 2016), ¶5. https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/safechuck_v_mjj-second_amended_complaint-conformed.pdf.
See also Supplemental declaration of claimant/creditor James Safechuck in support of amended petition for order to allow filing of late claim against estate (filed on March 18, 2015). https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/safechuck-declaration-march-18-2015.pdf
[8] Victor Gutierrez, Michael Jackson Was My Lover: The Secret Diary of Jordie Chandler (1995/1996), 53, 134-144, 190-191.
[9] Gutierrez, Michael Jackson Was My Lover, 139, 144-146.
[10] Gutierrez, Michael Jackson Was My Lover, 72.
[11] Joshua Encinias, “‘Leaving Neverland’ Director Dan Reed on Refuting Michael Jackson Defenders, the Psychology of Child Sexual Abuse, and a Potential Sequel.” The Film Stage, March 17, 2019. https://thefilmstage.com/features/leaving-neverland-director-dan-reed-on-refuting-michael-jackson-defenders-the-psychology-of-child-sexual-abuse-and-a-potential-sequel/
[12] “The Media’s Role in the Allegations against Michael Jackson.” The Michael Jackson Allegations (e-book), 168-176. https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/the-michael-jackson-allegations-chandler-arvizo-faq.pdf
[13] “Victor Gutierrez and His Role in the Allegations against Michael Jackson.” The Michael Jackson Allegations (e-book), 160. https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/the-michael-jackson-allegations-chandler-arvizo-faq.pdf
[14] Michael Jackson, Moonwalk, (1988; re-issued 2009 with an introduction by Berry Gordy). Also the following: Damien Shields, Michael Jackson: Songs & Stories from the Vault (2015, 2018); Richard Lecocq and François Allard, Michael Jackson – All the Songs: The Story behind Every Track (2018); Mike Smallcombe, Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson (2016); Bill Whitfield and Javon Beard with Tanner Colby, Remember the Time: Protecting Michael Jackson in His Final Days (2014); Michael Bush, The King of Style: Dressing Michael Jackson (2012); Joseph Vogel, Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson (2011); Jermaine Jackson, You Are Not Alone: Michael, through a Brother’s Eyes (2011); J. Randy Taraborrelli, Michael Jackson: The Magic, the Madness, the Whole Story, 1958-2009 (1991, 2003, 2004, 2009); Aphrodite Jones, Michael Jackson: Conspiracy (2007); Geraldine Hughes, Redemption: The Truth behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations (1997, 2004).
[15] Michael Jackson, Moonwalk, 274.
[16] For problems and anomalies surrounding Jackson’s death, autopsy, and burial, see “Alive 1: Is Michael Jackson Really Dead?” and “Alive 2: The Great Xscape” (Pearl Jr). https://vimeo.com/191251878
LIST OF RESOURCES
WEBSITES
-Michael Jackson official website: https://www.michaeljackson.com/
-The Michael Jackson Allegations: https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/
-The Michael Jackson Innocent Project: https://www.themichaeljacksoninnocentproject.com/
-MJ Innocent: https://www.mjinnocent.com
-MJJJusticeProject: https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/about/
-Michael Jackson – Fact or Fiction: https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/
-Vindicating Michael: https://vindicatemj.
-Leaving Neverland Facts: https://leavingneverlandfacts.com/
-Daily Michael: http://dailymichael.com/
-True Michael Jackson: https://www.truemichaeljackson.com/accusations-and-trial/
-Reflections on the Dance: www.reflectionsonthedance.com
ARTICLES – VIDEO – AUDIO
-A Critical Analysis of “Leaving Neverland”: https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2019/02/25/a-critical-analysis-of-leaving-neverland/
-What the Media Refuses to Tell You about Michael Jackson, Leaving Neverland & the Allegations of Child Molestation: http://www.damienshields.com/what-the-media-refuses-to-tell-you/
-What You Should Know about the New Michael Jackson Documentary: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about-the-new-michael-jackson-documentary/#71acebc640fa
-Neverland Firsthand: Investigating the Michael Jackson Documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4trDbeFWTY
-Leaving Neverland: The Aftermath FULL DOCUMENTARY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUNO-MygJOQ
-Leaving Neverland: Take Two (Full Documentary HD) | Michael Jackson 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a08plX6P3Ls
-Michael Jackson Docudrama Leaving Neverland Has Major Credibility Issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09lRWfZ8lqw
-Leaving Neverland – the Inception: Fake News and the Involvement of Actual Predators in the Media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VfzYlVWZfg
-Leaving Neverland and Michael Jackson: The Media Octopus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i5Bja9B2Bs
-Debunking Leaving Neverland: The Gutierrez Factor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf7eVryHPm4&feature=youtu.be
-Michael Jackson and Wade Robson: The Real Story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgSbSotJgUY
-Wade Robson Montage: Every Time He Said Nothing Happened!!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPSv_ejCraE
-Leaving Neverland: How & Why Safechuck’s Civil Case Was Dismissed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djiYfyRTWGY
-Debunking Leaving Neverland ‘Lie by Lie’ ~ Lie #4: “Sex at the Train Station: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsZc9vXhTk8
-Leaving Neverland! The Billion Dollar Lie!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_kQgPXlNdY
-Leaving Neverland: Liar Liar Junk on Fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nfwgbSQjYE
-Leaving Neverland: Echoes of a Pedophilia Apologist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=qb5UVMwTC5g
(can also be watched here: https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/)
-Leaving Neverland – The Truth Behind Lies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l6VJgyjwbU
-Who Could Be Behind Leaving Neverland and Why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5C4dGFjXSI
-WOW! Oprah/HBO/AEG/Harvey Weinstein TIES to Michael Jackson Leaving Neverland FAKE NEWS DOC!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db7v40RwUnQ
-Michael Jackson’s Family on “Leaving Neverland” Accusers: “It’s All about Money” (CBS): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLhX5ETjs1g
-Exclusive Interview with Brandi Jackson (John Ziegler): https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/2019-03-09-1-exclusive-interview-with-brandi-jackson
-Exclusive Interview with Taj Jackson (John Ziegler): https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/2019-03-09-2-exclusive-interview-with-taj-jackson
-Nicole’s View Livestream: Exclusive Taj & Brandi Jackson Discuss “Leaving Neverland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ8PUNP8FkA
-Michael Jackson’s Blackness [MJ Unmasked]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwNtIz1px5Y
-A Film Makers View on Leaving Neverland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FbxHL69RPw
-Leaving Neverland: Magic Tricks on Screen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBboNtCBJyg
-Leaving Neverland – Evidence of Multiple Interview Takes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TQ9Tpc_-NU
-Leaving Neverland – Robson & Safechuck vs Real Abuse Victims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFdnhmRpdFE
-Wade Robson – My Body Language Analysis. The Today Show. Michael Jackson. Part One: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpTcU1bjkk4
-Wade Robson – My Body Language Analysis. Part Two. The Today Show. Michael Jackson. CJB: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w_QbTglW3E
-Michael Jackson’s Innocence [MJ Unmasked]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BetCnNjN3k
-Michael Jackson: A Case for Innocence (Larry Nimmer, 2009/2019): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llLQEi4NMxI
-Michael Jackson – Entering Neverland (2019 Documentary): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW7sco5AnyA
-Michael Jackson: Leaving Lies – The Truth about the Allegations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30bIAE5gCUY
-Dan Reed confronted on French TV, “Leaving Neverland” debate M6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W93E8jlzivg
-Mesereau on AEG trial, Wade Robson and Debbie Rowe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ5lY-O85UM&index=3&list=RDbmt-wh5fqnU
-Michael Jackson: Invincible (Full Documentary) (February 2019): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU2yQZW8oFk
INTERVIEWS WITH MICHAEL JACKSON
-Oprah Winfrey interview, 1993: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UlI9eV0hfg
-Oprah Winfrey interview, 1993, outtakes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktOYjorEWYA
-Michael Jackson Statement Live from Neverland 1993: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QubCz_N196w
-Diane Sawyer interview (with Lisa Marie Presley), 1995: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIn8P3VJYFE
-Barbara Walters interview, 1997: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNkXLTw_yPw&list=RD0Q1TrMzYIm8&index=3
-Living with Michael Jackson (Martin Bashir, 2003): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z34BKlCr9o
BUT the Martin Bashir film should be watched with the following rebuttal:
-Michael Jackson, Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLGjaxWv20s
-Ed Bradley interview (60 Minutes, 2003): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9fDJeu4G5s
INTERVIEWS WITH LISA MARIE PRESLEY AND THE JACKSON FAMILY
-Diane Sawyer interview (Lisa Marie Presley), 2003: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrVLbP8uyEE
-Oprah Winfrey interview (Lisa Marie Presley), 2005: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd1Etq56AsA
-Oprah Winfrey interview (Jackson family), 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMtY3JJo1CE
-Oprah Winfrey interview (Lisa Marie Presley), 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4myDozki74
-Oprah Winfrey interview (Paris Jackson), 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxXhZsAHk64
-60 Minutes interview (Katherine Jackson), 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8cIOCeWDwo
GO FUND ME INITIATIVES
-Taj Jackson’s GoFundMe: “Untitled Michael Jackson Documentary Series”: https://www.gofundme.com/untitled-michael-jackson-documentary-series
-Michael Jackson Innocent Campaign GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/MJ-INNOCENT
Michael Jackson with James Safechuck, on of the subjects of ‘Leaving Neverland.’
Attachment
Just my opinion and all, but remember how Michael Jackson used the video for ‘The Way You Make Me Feel’ as part of his crusade to establish his hetero creds? ‘Cause nothing says ‘not gay’ like grinding it in front of your boys.
Go to youtube and paste this into the search bar:
HzZ_urpj4As
Then compare it to this earlier song because here’s the outrageous part: genius Michael Jackson ripped off Becker and Fagen to make his hit.
Definitely go to youtube and search:
Swsnol-2AmA
Not to mention that Jackson ‘borrowed’ the vamp from Do It Again for his song Billie Jean, a fact that club mixsters in the eighties were hip to. Guess the astute businessman was a fan of Steely Dan.
Toni asked me to post this on her behalf. I suspect it was too long, so I recommend cutting down on post length:
Sorry for the late response, but I wanted time to give the article due consideration as suggested by the
author. This gave me the opportunity to see just how wide and uniform is the army of Jackson
defenders.
I’ll try to keep this brief. First, there are three misconceptions in the online pages of the Jackson defense
that are repeated by the author.
One, the observations about the production of ‘Leaving Neverland’ are naïve in the extreme. Normal
actions taken by the film crew for myriad reasons are considered manipulative and revelatory of the
sinister intent of the documentary. Only ignorance of what really happens on a set, and before and
after, could lead one to these conclusions.
Two, there is a common protest that Michael Jackson is innocent because charges against him have
been proven untrue. Charges are not proven untrue; they are proven true or they are dropped. They
were dropped in Jackson’s case because people, as featured in the documentary, lied in court to defend
him. Hardly a vindication.
A third prominent notion is that Michael Jackson is innocent because of the stories of people who slept
in his bed and claim he never molested them. Seems obvious but just because Michael Jackson did not
molest all kids everywhere at all times, does not mean that he molested none.
These three misconceptions undergird the author’s argument that the men in ‘Leaving Neverland’ are
lying. They are lying because they are interested in money. As the law allows for airing of facts in cases
that may result in monetary restitution, this seems a moral complaint and one that can easily be turned
against the other side. Isn’t it money that the Jackson Family and Estate are interested in? Isn’t in the
Jacksons’ et al self-interest to discredit the documentary in order to protect the Jackson brand name and
future earnings?
The author’s other charge, that the men are lying because they are of bad character, can reflect on the
family in a similar way. Without dissecting the Jacksons’ own questionable family dynamic, it’s
observable that bad events don’t only happen to those of impeccable reputation. Misfortune feeds on
damaged character. And who would expect an abused child to grow up without issues anyway? See the
documentary to observe how money and fame seduced these families, and then extrapolate that out a
thousand fold and imagine its effect on the Jackson family.
Lastly, the author contends that Michael Jackson is and was the victim of a conspiracy to slander him
and ruin his career, and now his reputation. This is true of a vicious press that made fodder of him and
their motive is monetary and not in question. And of course the
Hollywood/IntelligenceServices/Government conspiracy is real; we can see it all around us and besides
they brag about it. Even the ‘gun-for-hire’ director of ‘Leaving Neverland’ has colluded with these
entities in his past documentaries. What is not made convincing is the reason Jackson would be
targeted. Immensely powerful people wanted to take him out because… King of Pop?
The documentary narrative remains much more plausible to me than this rear-guard defense.
.
*Also, just wanted to add that the author’s assertion that the article is not her opinion is undercut by
the continual judgments riddling it from title to summation. “…this extravaganza” “lurid effect” “schlock
journalism at its most abhorrent and sensational” – I won’t list them all. I’ll just leave it at this:
‘schlockumentary’ is a definite viewpoint, and pseudo-documentary is already a genre which the author
does nothing to redefine.
Page 1 of 2Sorry for the late response, but I wanted time to give the article due consideration as suggested by the author. This gave me the opportunity to see just how wide and uniform is the army of Jackson defenders. I’ll try to keep this brief. First, there are three misconceptions in the online pages of the Jackson defense that are repeated by the author. One, the observations about the production of ‘Leaving Neverland’ are naïve in the extreme. Normal actions taken by the film crew for myriad reasons are considered manipulative and revelatory of the sinister intent of the documentary. Only ignorance of what really happens on a set, and before and after, could lead one to these conclusions. Two, there is a common protest that Michael Jackson is innocent because charges against him have been proven untrue. Charges are not proven untrue; they are proven true or they are dropped. They were dropped in Jackson’s case because people, as featured in the documentary, lied in court to defend him. Hardly a vindication. A third prominent notion is that Michael Jackson is innocent because of the stories of people who slept in his bed and claim he never molested them. Seems obvious but just because Michael Jackson did not molest all kids everywhere at all times, does not mean that he molested none. These three misconceptions undergird the author’s argument that the men in ‘Leaving Neverland’ are lying. They are lying because they are interested in money. As the law allows for airing of facts in cases that may result in monetary restitution, this seems a moral complaint and one that can easily be turned against the other side. Isn’t it money that the Jackson Family and Estate are interested in? Isn’t in the Jacksons’ et al self-interest to discredit the documentary in order to protect the Jackson brand name and future earnings? The author’s other charge, that the men are lying because they are of bad character, can reflect on the family in a similar way. Without dissecting the Jacksons’ own questionable family dynamic, it’s observable that bad events don’t only happen to those of impeccable reputation. Misfortune feeds on damaged character. And who would expect an abused child to grow up without issues anyway? See the documentary to observe how money and fame seduced these families, and then extrapolate that out a thousand fold and imagine its effect on the Jackson family. Lastly, the author contends that Michael Jackson is and was the victim of a conspiracy to slander him and ruin his career, and now his reputation. This is true of a vicious press that made fodder of him and their motive is monetary and not in question. And of course the Hollywood/IntelligenceServices/Government conspiracy is real; we can see it all around us and besides they brag about it. Even the ‘gun-for-hire’ director of ‘Leaving Neverland’ has colluded with these entities in his past documentaries. What is not made convincing is the reason Jackson would be targeted. Immensely powerful people wanted to take him out because… King of Pop? The documentary narrative remains much more plausible to me than this rear-guard defense.
Page 2 of 2. *Also, just wanted to add that the author’s assertion that the article is not her opinion is undercut by the continual judgments riddling it from title to summation. “…this extravaganza” “lurid effect” “schlock journalism at its most abhorrent and sensational” – I won’t list them all. I’ll just leave it at this: ‘schlockumentary’ is a definite viewpoint, and pseudo-documentary is already a genre which the author does nothing to redefine.
Find in document
Comment for MJ-part-II.docx
Page 2 of 2
Thanks. One need only read it once.
My apologies for the mangled comment above. This is a repost of my review of the ‘Leaving Neverland’ documentary, previously posted in the comment section of Part I:
I used to suspect that Michael Jackson was being railroaded with child molestation charges. I thought that he genuinely liked kids and that this, along with his weird lifestyle, made him an easy target for the ‘tabloids.’ I used to point to the famous actor kids who said that they slept in Michael’s bed and nothing ever happened. He’s like a child himself, they said.
Then I saw Leaving Neverland.
Now I think the famous kids were cover for the ones he molested.
In my opinion, the documentary is devastating. The lives of two of the boys upon whom Jackson preyed are detailed separately by the now-grown men themselves. As they each describe their lives with Jackson, their stories begin to corroborate in theme and behavior, as well as mirror the activities with Jackson of other boys seen in the periphery of the documentary. The most incriminating sequences are when the two men’s descriptions of Jackson’s sexual behavior dovetail into the exact same details.
Contrary to the #MeToo zeitgeist, testimony is not true simply because it is given. Testimony can be construed as credible by evaluating the supporting evidence, including material details and patterns of behavior over time. The two men’s stories are supported by the recollections of their families and Jackson staff, as well as continuous audio and visual evidence recorded throughout their lives with Michael Jackson. The accretion of evidence describes the lavish lifestyle of Jackson’s wealth, power and prestige that backgrounds the emotional entanglement these men had with Jackson when they were boys. It elucidates the troubling behavior of the boys themselves as they lie to defend Jackson against charges they knew to be true. It sheds light on the alarming choices made by the families to let themselves and the boys be engulfed in Jackson’s celebrity, to the extent that they could not see the abuse.
Outside of the damage done to people, Michael Jackson’s cultish Veneration of the Child, including his own childlike impersonation, is the most disturbing angle on the story to me. He used it doubly: to cover for his abuse of children and to delude himself into believing that he was loving them.
Try emailing Fetzer or the webmaster
jm
at
stateless
nation
dot
com
Just my opinion and all, but remember how Michael Jackson used the video for ‘The Way You Make Me Feel’ as part of his crusade to establish his hetero creds? ‘Cause nothing says ‘not gay’ like grinding it in front of your boys.
https://youtu.be/HzZ_urpj4As
Then compare it to this earlier song because here’s the outrageous part: genius Michael Jackson ripped off Becker and Fagen to make his hit.
https://youtu.be/Swsnol-2AmA
Not to mention that Jackson ‘borrowed’ the vamp from Do It Again for his song Billie Jean, a fact that club mixsters in the eighties were hip to. Guess the astute businessman was a fan of Steely Dan.
I begging you to publish my long response to this article before it disappears off the page.
Toni…The webmaster Jack helped me…maybe he can be of assistance…jmatstatelessnationdotcom
Did you email Fetzer or the webmaster?
I sent an email for you.
Thanks, bud.
Tried to post the webmaster address, but no go…so I sent it myself….have no idea where he is, so it may take a bit for a response
Glad to help
Several posts did not make it because I think I used the wrong words….like a spiders house master.
Jim contacted me last night by email, but I stupidly didn’t see it till now. I sent him my comments as attachments and maybe he can get them up. I don’t know where comments go if they don’t go to the site.
I’m grateful to both of you.
One question, what is the ‘spiders house master’ reference?
I thought the use of the word, “webmaster” may have stopped comments from posting…hence “spiders house master”.
Giving up for today…nothing posting now.
Toni..I cannot get anything done here…emailed Jack again. Unlikely even this will post.
Oh, well. I’ll just say good morning then.
Good morning. Beautiful day here in Florida…and a great day for burning leaves.
Heard from the Doc this morning and he and Jack are apparently still working on it.
Hope this posts.
Rebooted. Maybe this will post. Good morning!
Great day in north FL….good leaf burning weather.
Btw, spiders house master was code for webmaster.
OK..I am done…will try again tomorrow.
Life is too short.
What if the site was rebooted and all the lost comments came flying back in from all directions? We’d spend weeks reading old posts, like “oh, so that’s what you meant!”
I have to go out now. I expect this all to be fixed by the time I get back. 😉
Here’s Jack”s (webmaster) message:
Can you ask Toni to send me the comment she was trying to send .. I tried putting comments long and short – they were accepted, but there was no feedback .. just boom and it was gone, that appears to be the default behavior of the Wp comment system (built in) — If I can find an example of a non working comment it may be useful in debugging this.
jmatstatelessnationdotcom
Here’s Jack”s (webmaster) message:
Can you ask Toni to send me the comment she was trying to send .. I tried putting comments long and short – they were accepted, but there was no feedback .. just boom and it was gone, that appears to be the default behavior of the Wp comment system (built in) — If I can find an example of a non working comment it may be useful in debugging this.
jmatstatelessnationdotcom
Here’s Jack”s (webmaster) message:
Can you ask Toni to send me the comment she was trying to send .. I tried putting comments long and short – they were accepted, but there was no feedback .. just boom and it was gone, that appears to be the default behavior of the Wp comment system (built in) — If I can find an example of a non working comment it may be useful in debugging this.
jmatstatelessnationdotcom
Willy, I am narrowing down the problem here. I have found that some comments get thrown into the trash folder. I posted Toni’s long comment and the page refreshed and then noticed it was in the trash folder… I’m not sure why yet, but Jack and I are looking into it and hopeful that we will find the problem soon. Meantime, if you can’t reach Jack you can email me at infoatmatrixwebdesigners com or em at nexusrt com
Thank you for your patience as we work through this 🙂
Eric
Update as of 355 am EST
I believe I fixed it. Please let Jack or myself know if there is any issues.
Thanks,
Eric
Eric, Jack and Dr. Fetzer….all is working great with a few extras…thanks for what you have done.
Thanks Willy, Jack and I are working hard to keep up with everything. Sometimes things slip through the cracks and we thank you for helping to keep us informed of issues.
I was thinking of adding a comment voting up and down type thing, but that might be overboard for the basic needs here.
Also, the report comment link is so user can help us fight the spammers. It’s hard to sort through all of them when you get about 200 or so 🙂
But, I’m glad you like the way things are now. My next task is to get the comment threads to format right on mobile.
Thanks,
Eric
You guys are doing a wonderful job….if there is a way to add an edit function or an email notification, that would be sweet icing to an already great cake….!
What a difference now!
Sorry for the late response, but I wanted time to give the article due consideration as suggested by the author. This gave me the opportunity to see just how wide and uniform is the army of Jackson defenders.
I’ll try to keep this brief. First, there are three misconceptions in the online pages of the Jackson defense that are repeated by the author.
One, the observations about the production of ‘Leaving Neverland’ are naïve in the extreme. Normal actions taken by the film crew for myriad reasons are considered manipulative and revelatory of the sinister intent of the documentary. Only ignorance of what really happens on a set, and before and after, could lead one to these conclusions.
Two, there is a common protest that Michael Jackson is innocent because charges against him have been proven untrue. Charges are not proven untrue; they are proven true or they are dropped. They were dropped in Jackson’s case because people, as featured in the documentary, lied in court to defend him. Hardly a vindication.
A third prominent notion is that Michael Jackson is innocent because of the stories of people who slept in his bed and claim he never molested them. Seems obvious but just because Michael Jackson did not molest all kids everywhere at all times, does not mean that he molested none.
These three misconceptions undergird the author’s argument that the men in ‘Leaving Neverland’ are lying. They are lying because they are interested in money. As the law allows for airing of facts in cases that may result in monetary restitution, this seems a moral complaint and one that can easily be turned against the other side. Isn’t it money that the Jackson Family and Estate are interested in? Isn’t it in the Jacksons’ et al self-interest to discredit the documentary in order to protect the Jackson brand name and future earnings?
The author’s other charge, that the men are lying because they are of bad character, can reflect on the family in a similar way. Without dissecting the Jacksons’ own questionable family dynamic, it’s observable that bad events don’t only happen to those of impeccable reputation. Misfortune feeds on damaged character. And who would expect an abused child to grow up without issues anyway? See the documentary to observe how money and fame seduced these families, and then extrapolate that out a thousand fold and imagine its effect on the Jackson family.
Lastly, the author contends that Michael Jackson is and was the victim of a conspiracy to slander him and ruin his career, and now his reputation. This is true of a vicious press that made fodder of him and their motive is monetary and not in question. And of course the Hollywood/IntelligenceServices/Government conspiracy is real; we can see it all around us and besides they brag about it. Even the ‘gun-for-hire’ director of ‘Leaving Neverland’ has colluded with these entities in his past documentaries. What is not made convincing is the reason Jackson would be targeted. Immensely powerful people wanted to take him out because… King of Pop?
The documentary narrative remains much more plausible to me than this rear-guard defense.
.
*Also, just wanted to add that the author’s assertion that the article is not her opinion is undercut by the continual judgments riddling it from title to summation. “…this extravaganza” “lurid effect” “schlock journalism at its most abhorrent and sensational” – I won’t list them all. I’ll just leave it at this: ‘schlockumentary’ is a definite viewpoint, and pseudo-documentary is already a genre which the author does nothing to redefine.
Sorry for the late response, but I wanted time to give the article due consideration as suggested by the author. This gave me the opportunity to see just how wide and uniform is the army of Jackson defenders.
I’ll try to keep this brief. First, there are three misconceptions in the online pages of the Jackson defense that are repeated by the author.
One, the observations about the production of ‘Leaving Neverland’ are naïve in the extreme. Normal actions taken by the film crew for myriad reasons are considered manipulative and revelatory of the sinister intent of the documentary. Only ignorance of what really happens on a set, and before and after, could lead one to these conclusions.
Two, there is a common protest that Michael Jackson is innocent because charges against him have been proven untrue. Charges are not proven untrue; they are proven true or they are dropped. They were dropped in Jackson’s case because people, as featured in the documentary, lied in court to defend him. Hardly a vindication.
A third prominent notion is that Michael Jackson is innocent because of the stories of people who slept in his bed and claim he never molested them. Seems obvious but just because Michael Jackson did not molest all kids everywhere at all times, does not mean that he molested none.
These three misconceptions undergird the author’s argument that the men in ‘Leaving Neverland’ are lying. They are lying because they are interested in money. As the law allows for airing of facts in cases that may result in monetary restitution, this seems a moral complaint and one that can easily be turned against the other side. Isn’t it money that the Jackson Family and Estate are interested in? Isn’t in the Jacksons’ et al self-interest to discredit the documentary in order to protect the Jackson brand name and future earnings?
The author’s other charge, that the men are lying because they are of bad character, can reflect on the family in a similar way. Without dissecting the Jacksons’ own questionable family dynamic, it’s observable that bad events don’t only happen to those of impeccable reputation. Misfortune feeds on damaged character. And who would expect an abused child to grow up without issues anyway? See the documentary to observe how money and fame seduced these families, and then extrapolate that out a thousand fold and imagine its effect on the Jackson family.
Lastly, the author contends that Michael Jackson is and was the victim of a conspiracy to slander him and ruin his career, and now his reputation. This is true of a vicious press that made fodder of him and their motive is monetary and not in question. And of course the Hollywood/IntelligenceServices/Government conspiracy is real; we can see it all around us and besides they brag about it. Even the ‘gun-for-hire’ director of ‘Leaving Neverland’ has colluded with these entities in his past documentaries. What is not made convincing is the reason Jackson would be targeted. Immensely powerful people wanted to take him out because… King of Pop?
The documentary narrative remains much more plausible to me than this rear-guard defense.
.
*Also, just wanted to add that the author’s assertion that the article is not her opinion is undercut by the continual judgments riddling it from title to summation. “…this extravaganza” “lurid effect” “schlock journalism at its most abhorrent and sensational” – I won’t list them all. I’ll just leave it at this: ‘schlockumentary’ is a definite viewpoint, and pseudo-documentary is already a genre which the author does nothing to redefine.
Admin, please find and post the comment I just submitted. I spent some time on it.
So much for the “cookie monster”.
Right? This one just went ‘whoosh.’ I didn’t get the moderation notice which is why I posted to the Admin.
I’d feel better if I knew it was in moderation. But lots of ‘whoosh’ is never seen again.
I’ll be more satisfied when we go to a members only site and a better system with notification.
I know they are on it and I appreciate what they are doing, but I think it’s good to keep it in the foreground. More than anything, we need consistency.
Of course, all the shills and trolls get published.
Admin?
I am sorry you are still having problems….so far, my postings are showing up with more frequency…but not 100%.
Toni…Doncha ever wonder where all these disappearing posts go? Is it the same place socks go? Or that little kitchen timer I cannot find for the life of me.
…Or maybe to the same place the four planes went on 9/11/2001? Wherever that is, it sure must be one helluva crowded space.
I want to go there. I bet the conversation is vibrant.
Takes “Origin of the Species” to another level.
Sorry for the late response, but I wanted time to give the article due consideration as suggested by the author. This gave me the opportunity to see just how wide and uniform is the army of Jackson defenders.
I’ll try to keep this brief. First, there are three misconceptions in the online pages of the Jackson defense that are repeated by the author.
One, the observations about the production of ‘Leaving Neverland’ are naïve in the extreme. Normal actions taken by the film crew for myriad reasons are considered manipulative and revelatory of the sinister intent of the documentary. Only ignorance of what really happens on a set, and before and after, could lead one to these conclusions.
Two, there is a common protest that Michael Jackson is innocent because charges against him have been proven untrue. Charges are not proven untrue; they are proven true or they are dropped. They were dropped in Jackson’s case because people, as featured in the documentary, lied in court to defend him. Hardly a vindication.
A third prominent notion is that Michael Jackson is innocent because of the stories of people who slept in his bed and claim he never molested them. Seems obvious but just because Michael Jackson did not molest all kids everywhere at all times, does not mean that he molested none.
These three misconceptions undergird the author’s argument that the men in ‘Leaving Neverland’ are lying. They are lying because they are interested in money. As the law allows for airing of facts in cases that may result in monetary restitution, this seems a moral complaint and one that can easily be turned against the other side. Isn’t it money that the Jackson Family and Estate are interested in? Isn’t in the Jacksons’ et al self-interest to discredit the documentary in order to protect the Jackson brand name and future earnings?
The author’s other charge, that the men are lying because they are of bad character, can reflect on the family in a similar way. Without dissecting the Jacksons’ own questionable family dynamic, it’s observable that bad events don’t only happen to those of impeccable reputation. Misfortune feeds on damaged character. And who would expect an abused child to grow up without issues anyway? See the documentary to observe how money and fame seduced these families, and then extrapolate that out a thousand fold and imagine its effect on the Jackson family.
Lastly, the author contends that Michael Jackson is and was the victim of a conspiracy to slander him and ruin his career, and now his reputation. This is true of a vicious press that made fodder of him and their motive is monetary and not in question. And of course the Hollywood/IntelligenceServices/Government conspiracy is real; we can see it all around us and besides they brag about it. Even the ‘gun-for-hire’ director of ‘Leaving Neverland’ has colluded with these entities in his past documentaries. What is not made convincing is the reason Jackson would be targeted. Immensely powerful people wanted to take him out because… King of Pop?
The documentary narrative remains much more plausible to me than this rear-guard defense.
.
*Also, just wanted to add that the author’s assertion that the article is not her opinion is undercut by the continual judgments riddling it from title to summation. “…this extravaganza” “lurid effect” “schlock journalism at its most abhorrent and sensational” – I won’t list them all. I’ll just leave it at this: ‘schlockumentary’ is a definite viewpoint, and pseudo-documentary is already a genre which the author does nothing to redefine.
Jim I’m still studying this article, but after reading the conclusion I am a bit mortified you have this on your site-he concludes that because he is a successful artist that has numerous achievements and is on the road a lot-he couldn’t possibly have time to groom children!!! This is the most RIDICULOUS statement I have heard yet trying to exonerate a PEDOPHILE that represents the most dangerous class of pedophiles-PEDOPHILES WHO EVOKE SYMPATHY FROM PEOPLE
This is an incredible, and highly detailed piece. Knowing as much as I do about these cases and MJ, I still found myself learning a few things. A big thank you to the writer for committing to truth and justice; it is very much appreciated and inspiring.