Michael Jackson’s Trial in the Court of Public Opinion
‘The Michael Jackson cacophony is fascinating in that it is not about Jackson at all. I hope he has the good sense to know it and the good fortune to snatch his life out of the jaws of a carnivorous success. He will not swiftly be forgiven for having turned so many tables, for he sure grabbed the brass ring, and the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo has nothing on Michael. All that noise is about America, as the dishonest custodian of black life and wealth;the blacks, especially males,in American;and the burning,buried American guilt;and sex and sexual roles and sexual panic; money,success and despair’ ~James Baldwin
James Baldwin’s prophecy about the Michael Jackson cacophony was indeed correct, especially today as we witness the current hysteria surrounding Michael Jackson and the 4 hour movie ‘Leaving Neverland’ (if we go by the definition, it doesn’t qualify as a documentary), directed by Dan Reed in which two men Wade Robson and James Safechuck make detailed and graphic allegations of sexual abuse, that they had allegedly faced at the hands of the star when they were of age 7 and 10 respectively, and they now claim continued for years.Mainstream media and the press yet, got another opportunity to finally convince the world that they were right, for the last two decades in their assertions that Michael Jackson was undoubtedly a pedophile and that Leaving Neverland is the ultimate proof. HBO and every media outlet went to great lengths to promote the documentary days after days since it’s screening at the Sundance Film Festival this year; referring to it as ‘powerful’ and ‘shocking’. Indeed, it is shocking given the explicit and graphic accounts of sexual abuse depicted in the documentary.Dan Reed said to the LA TIMES,”We agreed that the sexual abuse had to be described exactly as it happened.We had to go graphic,because there’s no point making a film like this and just saying well,then the bedroom door closes and we skip ahead”.
But does it necessarily mean that the accusations are true? Such detailed descriptions may be psychologically triggering for many viewers, specially for child abuse victims.We must agree,at least with the fact that Leaving Neverland is mainly built on shock factor but no incriminating evidence and is glaringly one sided. We’re expected to rely on the words of Wade Robson and James Safechuck only. Basically, this a trial which is being tried in the court of public opinion and the accused in this case cannot defend himself; also any argument or evidence in his defense is simply ignored, be it the mainstream media or the advocates who push the record ‘believe the victims’ or it won’t be wrong if we take it to be synonymous to ‘believe the accusers’, without even looking at both side of the cases.
Both defended Michael Jackson under oath that they were never molested. Wade Robson was the first witness for the defense during the 2005 criminal trial where Jackson was found innocent. He testified as an adult that he was never abused, but only now that he has made a complete 180 degree turn around. Why would a molester put one of this victims on the stand and expose him to a withering cross examination by the prosecutors? Shouldn’t we carefully examine the accusations rather than readily accepting them at face value?
Journalists and writers are quick to express their opinions regarding the allegations. The instant knee jerk reaction is what astounds me.These two men have their allegations in the public sphere since 2013,as they’ve sued Jackson’s estate and the companies for millions of dollars which they didn’t mention in the documentary. Their cases were dismissed by the court twice. In fact, the judge disregarded Robson’s sworn statements on a summary judgement motion that ‘no rational fact-finder could possibly believe Robson’s statements.’
Safechuck’s complaint too was dismissed way too early because of provable inconsistencies, in his sworn declaration in support of his multi-million dollar lawsuit. The current frenzy in the media and among the public just because the two men now appear in a documentary is inane. The sudden need to mute Michael Jackson and his music,in the wake of this documentary only now, is not justified and absurd. It only puts forth the question that why is there such a concentrated effort to annihilate his legacy and portray him as a ‘predator’ when he was vindicated in a court of law.
He was vigorously investigated by the FBI and all the law enforcement agencies of the country for years and they found nothing against him. Sheriffs thronged to the residence of Jackson during multiple unannounced raids but they found no incriminating evidence.His offices too were illegally raided, confiscating his medical records and documents,which too led to no evidence. He was stripped searched in 1993,in the wake of the Chandler’s allegations. The photographs of his genitals did not match Jordan Chandler’s description, contrary to popular belief that it was a match. Had it been a match, Michael would have been immediately arrested and Sneddon could have easily brought charges against him. Larry Feldman filed a motion to bar the photographs from the civil trial. In fact, Michael Jackson’s autopsy reports too proved that Jordan’s description with the photos; in reality was a ‘mismatch’. Child protection agencies investigated Jackson,only to clear him of any wrong doing. The LAPD tried to prosecute and convict him under the White Slavery Act in 1993. In life, he was scrutinized and investigated.The FBI files,court transcripts, depositions and testimonies are already available for us to read and examine. Except no media expert consider these crucial sources before jotting down their opinions about the allegations but based on their insinuations and biases. No efforts are really put in investigating the cases from their end.
Recently, Hadley Freeman wrote an opinion piece titled ‘Michael Jackson’s life showed us the journey from abused to abuser’ which was published in The Guardian. Except the piece was devoid of any facts but included only her views labeling Michael Jackson as ‘the most notorious abuser in modern times’. It’s unethical, as a journalist to make such assertions because there exists no evidence to support her outrageous statements. She mentioned Jackson being treated strictly by his father Lt. Joseph Jackson,in his childhood. Her lack of empathy and sensitivity is evident as she wrote about Mr. Joe Jackson’s demise, that he ‘FINALLY’ passed away last year. As we go through her article, she writes about Michael Jackson being accused by Gavin Arvizo and two other boys (the two other boys turned out to have never even met Jackson),who received financial payouts, which is a blatant lie. Jackson was charged for allegedly molesting Gavin Arvizo, in 2005 and the case was exposed to be nothing but ‘fabrications’ by overwhelming evidence.The Arvizos were proven con artists who admitted under oath that they had previously accused JC Penny guards for molestation to earn a settlement. There were no financial payoffs to anyone. It’s very irresponsible on her part to delude her readers with such misinformation. She fails to mention that Michael was acquitted of all 14 counts and was exonerated of both the 1993 and 2005 allegations, as Tom Sneddon had also requested to present evidences of alleged prior acts.
There are some who like to dehumanize Michael Jackson so much that they don’t hesitate to even glorify Conrad Murray,who was found responsible for his untimely demise and was convicted for involuntary manslaughter. Isn’t it exhilarating how they refuse to accept the ‘not guilty’ verdict in the case of MJ but revere a ‘convicted’ physician instead?
Maureen Orth’s Vanity Fair article which states 10 UNDENIABLE FACTS about the allegations was widely shared as an evidence of Jackson’s guilt. Let us consider Orth’s history in joining the media delirium against him. In 2003, Vanity Fair published an article by Orth titled ‘Losing His Grip’,where she wrote that Michael Jackson bathed in sheep blood, sacrificed 42 cows as a ritual hiring a voodoo priest to put a death curse on David Geffen, Steven Spielberg and his enemies and to be blessed. Except,there’s no evidence to suggest this to be true and it’s rather dubious if an individual with rational thought-process will ever buy such an outlandish story. In another 2004 article,titled ‘The Neverland’s Lost Boys’, she implied that Jackson intoxicated Richard Matsuura when he was 13 years old. Richard denounced her claims to be ‘completely false’. He confirmed that neither he or his father were contacted for verifying the allegations.She never retracted her words or issued any apology. Matsuura’s name was quietly removed from the online versions of the article.
Similarly, her recent article stating 10 UNDENIABLE facts comprises no evidence but misleading and unverified hearsay, which have already been debunked during the years,given her credibility is tarred when it comes to Michael Jackson.
A defamation lawsuit was also filed against Maureen Orth this month for her book ‘The Vulgar Favors’. The plaintiff claimed in the lawsuit that they had sued Orth in 2000 for invasion of privacy and defamation and reached a confidential settlement. It stated that Orth violated the agreement with the show ‘The Assassination of Gianni Versace:American Crime Story’, which aired on FX and is also available on Netflix, where the plaintiff is being falsely implicated as an alcohol abuser. The suit also mentioned that Maureen Orth ‘has personal knowledge that the defamatory matter was false because she fabricated it herself.’ It’s therefore prominent that Orth doesn’t seek for fairness of facts.
The most perpetuated logic used by media gurus and Dan Reed in order to make us believe Wade’s and Safechuck’s claims is that their stories are parallel. This is what makes the documentary powerful,according to them. Reed, in several interviews asserted that despite the fact that Wade and Safechuck had never met each other until the Sundance festival, the individual accounts of their alleged abuse are so similar. In his interview to the Rolling Stones,he said that both men were kept apart for legal reasons and Sundance was the first time, they had met as adults. So, there’s no way these two men could have exchanged their stories.
But only if he would take time to read Robson’s deposition in 2016 where he specifies that they both met and had spoken sometime in 2014, while they were pursuing their cases against the estate. Moreover, both men are represented by the same law firm; by the same lawyers.
This is not the only claim of Reed. Since January, he has appeared in several interviews and talk shows, supporting their allegations. He repeatedly asserts that Wade and Safechuck have no financial interests which sounds ironic as they both have filed lawsuits against the estate, demanding millions for damages and is still under appeal. Robson was secretly shopping for a book deal in 2012 in which he called himself ‘a master of deception’ ,before filing his lawsuit in 2013 and was assisted by his long time friend and lawyer Helen Yu, helping him to contact several publishers. Eventually, no publisher picked it up. He initially tried to hide the book draft from the legal team representing Jackson’s companies. They only discovered it after they were granted a Motion to Compel. It was also revealed that Robson had exchanged a string of emails with a literary agent called Alan Nevins and Helen Yu, discussing his book, to be able to sell it. Nevins stated that Wade had asked for a large amount of money for his book. The estate found a note written by Robson during the discovery process that stated,’My story of abuse and it’s effects will make me relatable /relevant. It’s time for me to get mine!’
He sold valuable MJ memorabilia such as the Smooth Criminal Hat, Bad Hand Gloves and the Motown anniversary shirt to Juliens Auctions in 2011,although Reed maintains his version that Robson destroyed the original memorabilia after he recognized that he was being molested as a child. Juliens Auctions confirmed this in a reply to a user on Twitter,’Wade asked to remain anonymous and said that he did not want anyone to know that it was him selling the items in 2011. But we did not agree to that and listed it as the Wade Robson collection. He consigned multiple items and wanted us to sell all items of his that had value.’ In another reply they wrote,’Wade consigned his collection to us directly. He was the person who we paid when we sold his collection. He needed the money.’
Also, the last scene in Leaving Neverland where Wade is seen burning memorabilia are not the authentic ones. His sister, Chantal too sold Jackson memorabilia on eBay after Wade’s allegations were public.
In his depositions,Robson was caught committing perjury on multiple occasions. He deliberately lied to get around the statutes of limitations.
In his probate case, Robson claimed that he had no knowledge of the Michael Jackson estate before March 4,2013. In reality, he not only knew about Jackson’s administration but had also negotiated with the estate executive John Branca in 2011, as he was yearning to direct and choreograph the MJ ONE CIRQUE DU SOLEIL SHOW in Las Vegas. He also discussed about the estate with Cirque in one of his emails dated 22 February 2011. He was ‘passionate to do the show’ and wanted to ‘make it amazing for Michael’.
In 2009, his tribute to Jackson titled ‘My Mentor’ was included in the ‘Official Michael Jackson Opus’ which was endorsed and authorized by the estate.
The judge ruled out on May 2015,’ the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the administration of the estate in February 2011 (or at the latest, sometime in the last quarter of 2011).’
He wasn’t hired by the estate at any point as confirmed by John Branca. You will hear Dan Reed in his interviews claim that Wade was hired for the MJ ONE show and it was him who decided to remove himself from the project but neither he or Reed could produce any email or contract to prove that he was indeed hired for the job. Also, it again contradicts Robson’s own declaration that he had no idea about the estate’s administration before 2013.
Both Robson and Safechuck portray the companies MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures as ‘sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organizations’ to be able to sue them.But, Joy Robson obliterated Wade’s claims as she clearly said in her depositions that it was her who tried to sought contact with MJJ Productions in 1990, not the other way round. Safechuck wasn’t related to the companies in any way during the period of his alleged abuse but nevertheless, tries to inflict the responsibility of his alleged abuse on the companies.It was also confirmed by Joy Robson that Wade was unable to fulfill the financial needs of the family. His gig at directing films wasn’t a success. James Safechuck too was sued for $1 million. He realized about his alleged sexual abuse when he saw Robson on the Today Show with Matt Lauer, just two days after the papers were filed in court and decided to hire the same lawyers as Robson, filing a million dollar lawsuit against the estate seeking monetary compensation for his alleged abuse.
So it’s really unfathomable to accept Dan Reed’s assertions that the allegations made by these two men are not guided by a money driven agenda when its distinct that both men were in financial distress at the time when they started making allegations against Jackson, suing his estate for millions of dollars and went to great lengths to get around the statutes of limitations. Surprisingly, none of it is mentioned in the documentary. On Good Morning Britain, Reed told Piers Morgan that they’re suing for justice.Both men claim that it’s for raising awareness among victims of sexual abuse.But Robson initially filed his lawsuit under seal, in hopes of reaching a financial settlement with the estate, without going public with the accusations but it had to be unsealed as the estate refused to settle with him and the case was taken to court which was finally dismissed in 2017. Hence, it was not really about justice or awareness to begin with.Reed, on the other hand has smeared the Jackson family ever since the release of the documentary, that they’re only defending Michael for financial profit from the estate. The Jackson family has nothing to do with the estate, nor do they receive any royalties. Taj Jackson too is a survivor of sexual abuse, except he’s not given the platform to share his story and that he knew his uncle more than anyone else, who he says helped him combat his traumatic experience, he had suffered at the hands of his uncle, on his mother’s side.
Is it wrong to question the fact that why these details were intentionally left out from the documentary? Why is it so that anyone who dares to point to these grave inconsistencies are branded as either ‘truthers’ or ‘pedophile apologists’? Unfortunately, no mainstream journalist has taken note of these.
After Leaving Neverland aired in the US and various countries,several other inconsistencies have come forward. Wade and Safechuck presented the umpteenth version of their alleged abuse that they were in love with Michael Jackson and were groomed to believe that the sexual acts were expressions of love. Dan Reed has comfortably put forward this narrative that both men experienced a ‘sexually fulfilling relationship’ as boys and it was pleasurable for them. Not only is it very disturbing but also a disgrace at the same time,that people don’t even battle an eye lid at Reed making such statements, referring to the alleged abuse as ‘consensual love’. Remember when Barbra Streisand faced a huge backlash for repeating the same narrative as Reed? Ironic. It’s a dangerous myth that this documentary has created with its depiction of child sexual abuse as mutual love as it might give incentives to real predators;the illusion that children find such activities pleasant. Both men claim,they enjoyed their alleged sexual experience with a weird smirk on their faces.
Their main wrath over Jackson, as proposed in Leaving Neverland, is that they were replaced by another boy, when they reached puberty. It is insinuated that Brett Barnes was the boy who had replaced them, implying he was being molested. Macaluay Culkin, too is implied as a potential victim. But, both Barnes and Culkin have nothing but respect for Jackson and defend him to this day. They also vehemently defended him in the 2005 trial. Brett Barnes has also threatened to sue HBO and demanded his name be withdrawn from the film. Reed never approached either of them, before even mentioning their names.
That’s not all. It has been noticed that Dan Reed has included manipulated footage in the film. A video of Mark Geragos, who represented Michael Jackson in 2005 was taken out of context, to make it appear as if Geragos was discouraging and threatening accusers from coming forward at a press conference. He took to Twitter and clarified that the conference and his statements had nothing to do with accusers but was aimed at MJ’s lawsuit against Xtrajet, as two men were found guilty of secretly filming the private conversations between Geragos and Jackson while they travelled on board from Las Vegas to Santa Barbara after an arrest warrant was issued against him. The actual footage shows the remarks made by Geragos and he did mention about Jackson’s privacy being compromised by intruders. This remark was omitted from Leaving Neverland.
Another segment in the documentary where Wade Robson explained about his family dinner with Jackson before the trial. According to him, it was after this event that he was motivated to testify for Jackson in order to prevent him from going to jail and protect his ‘friend’.Robson was apparently worried about MJ’s children, being separated from their father. This however is another contradiction in Robson’s story as he had initially stated that he did not think that sexual abuse was wrong at that point of time. But, again why was he worried about Michael going to jail if he didn’t know, even as an adult that child abuse was wrong? Taj Jackson confirmed, after the documentary aired in the US that his anecdote cannot be true because the dinner had taken place after Wade had testified in court. Brett Barnes with his family along with Taj Jackson too were present that night but the director chose not to incorporate their names or their testimonies. Surprisingly, this particular scene from the documentary was removed when it aired in other countries afterwards. Coincidence?
Both the families claim that Michael Jackson groomed them to be able to molest Robson and Safechuck. Simple faxes and letters by Jackson are made out to be sinister claiming it was a part of his grooming mechanism. He wrote letters and notes to everyone including his hair dressers, sound engineers, body guards, his wives and those who were in touch with him. Was he grooming them?Was Michael Jackson trying to groom an entire country or city during his visits as he expressed his love for the people there?
It got more ridiculous when Al Jean in his article theorized that MJ’s voice in one of the episodes of The Simpsons,could have been a possible tool for grooming young boys. Laughable, taking into account the fact that the episode was not even written by Jackson in the first place.
Whom did Michael Jackson try to groom when he paid for the life saving surgery of Bela Farkas, a Hungarian boy or when he arranged for 93,700 pounds of relief supplies for strife stricken Sarajevo and never bragged about it?
Every act of generosity is being twisted against him. It says a lot more about us and the court of public opinion that loves jumping onto conclusions. Nobody had ever thought, 2019 would be the year, when humility and kindness finally would be adjudged as ‘grooming’. This is what I consider to be a sheer embarrassment and the doom of mankind.
Safechuck made some astounding claims that he had a mock wedding with Michael Jackson in his bedroom where they had allegedly exchanged rings and also signed ‘wedding vows’. He revealed a bleak jewelry box consisting of rings which were allegedly given to him by Jackson for sexual favors. He lamented,’I don’t like looking at the jewelry’. Then why has he retained possession of the rings for over two decades? Why didn’t Safechuck preserve the wedding vows? Wouldn’t it be a more damning evidence? Also, no such document or vows were ever found in Michael’s possession during the multiple raids and searches. There’s no evidence either to prove that the rings came from Jackson but only his words. The scene of Safechuck with the rings was also shot months after the actual shooting for the documentary was over as he suddenly discovered and remembered those rings.
Safechuck’s allegations are based on the contents of the book,’Michael Jackson was my Lover’. The author of the book Victor Gutierrez was a NAMBLA member who admitted, attending their conference. His book was supposedly based on the secret diary of Jordan Chandler. The book was entirely fictional,as Jordan never kept a diary as verified by his uncle Ray Chandler. The idea of marrying Jackson,signing vows, watching porn are elements of Gutierrez’s book. The eminent theme of the book was to normalize pedophilia. Michael Jackson sued him for slander and won the defamation suit in 1997.Gutierrez was asked to pay Jackson $2.7 million in damages which he never did, and fled to Chile.
Coming to Safechuck’s insistence that Jackson contacted him at the end of the trial in 2005, forcing him to testify and made threats to charge him for perjury, after he refused to do so. This is another big lie because Judge Rodney Melville had already ruled, that James was a non entity and no testimony related to him would be allowed;let alone be made to testify at the end of the trial. Private investigator Scott Ross affirmed that it was not in Jackson’s hand, to call witnesses but his. Safechuck had declared in 1993 that he wasn’t abused and no employee had alleged that he was being molested, and Ross never approached him. It’s also vague to assert that MJ threatened to get him for perjury with the best lawyers,as that would have been an indication of him being guilty! Last thing, a molester would do.
A very crucial detail about Wade’s life was excluded from Leaving Neverland (also in his court documents) — that he dated Michael’s niece Brandi Jackson for 7 years. He first met Brandi in May 1990 during the LA Gear photo shoot and had developed a crush on her. It was Michael Jackson who hooked them up. Brandi in her recent interviews mentioned that Joy Robson called her up after Michael’s death and tried to take custody of his children. The Robsons aren’t even their legal guardian but being the guardian of the children meant they were to be paid by the estate.
Dan Reed once again was quick enough to slam Brandi’s statements and denounced them as illogical saying,’It is conceivable that Jackson had other relationships and Wade could have had as well. The fact that we was boyfriend with Brandi at the age of 12 or 13 doesn’t mean he wasn’t seeing Jackson too.I don’t really follow the logic.’ He claimed, Wade had most of his alleged sexual encounters with Michael between age 7 and 9, calling it the ‘honeymoon’ period. He guessed that Robson would have been in a sexual relationship with Brandi when he was of age 12 or 13.It’s alarming how Dan Reed romanticizes such dreadful acts and even insinuates that Brandi and Wade were already in a sexual relationship at such a young age although she has clearly stated that they had sex only when she was 18. Wade was already 9 by the time, he permanently shifted to America in September 1991. He was still living in Australia when he was 7 and they only visited the US sometimes. In 2016, Joy Robson stated in her deposition that they mostly interacted with Jackson by means of letters and faxes. It was her who initiated contact with Jackson’s personal secretary Norma Staikos before moving to the States. She also mentioned that Michael would not spend much time with Wade and once had cut off with him for six months as well because he didn’t receive much calls from MJ.
It thus, forms a big loophole in their story that Wade was deeply in love with Michael Jackson but at the same time was attracted to Brandi Jackson. The claim that Michael was obsessed with Wade is also not plausible according to Joy Robson’s own words. Queer, if Jackson didn’t call or spend time with Wade, they refer to it as ‘abandonment’ and ‘emotional abuse’ but again, they deliberately misinterpret his letters as ‘grooming mechanisms’. Safechuck claimed in his lawsuit that Jackson hated women and taught him to do the same. Then why would he hook up Wade with his own niece if he disliked women?
Things simply don’t add up.
Robson and his wife Amanda have also established the ‘ROBSON CHILD ABUSE HEALING PREVENTION FUND’. The foundation page of their website initially mentioned Amanda as a survivor of child sexual abuse. However, in Leaving Neverland she was wailing, while she explained that she had no idea about child sexual abuse or its psychological effects. Her name has been removed from the page after being called out on social media for this major contradiction.
Their claims are not only inconsistent but have repeatedly altered the versions of their alleged molestation with questionable timelines and dates.
For example, Safechuck claimed to be molested during his trip to New York in 1989, where Michael Jackson performed at the Grammys, but it was held in Los Angeles that year,which he didn’t attend at all. It was in March 1988, that he performed at the Grammys in New York. Safechuck’s abuse could not have taken place then because he himself alleged that he was first abused during the Paris leg of the Bad Tour in June 1988.
He cited almost every corner of Neverland, where he was allegedly molested such as the jacuzzi (which had surveillance cameras) and in the rooms of the train station. His abuse stopped in 1992, as he claimed, but the construction of the Disneyland inspired train station didn’t even start before late 1993 and was completed in 1994. Can one remember or at best be confused about being molested at a non existent location?
The permit to construct the Neverland train station was approved on Sept 2, 1993 as clearly shown-
Dan Reed was keen on discrediting and covering up for this disparity, but ended up contradicting the version of Safechuck, yet again. He had to admit that James was wrong about being molested at the train station between 1988–1992. However, this time he argued that James got the year and the age of his alleged abuse wrong and that it continued even after 1992.
This finishes off the complete portrayal of Jackson in the documentary, who supposedly discarded them on reaching puberty. Safechuck was already 16 in 1994. He maintained, in the documentary as well as in his sworn declaration that the abuse had stopped in 1992!
These details go unnoticed as the media never consider these discrepancies. The ones who actually have looked into the cases are dismissed as ‘apologists’. We’re surviving in a dangerous era where presumption of innocence is no more a fundamental human right, as if we’re taken back to the ages of witch hunting. The media propaganda against Michael Jackson is nothing more than a modern day witch hunt. All these years, the tabloids and the press have efficiently fabricated myths about him and is commonly used by detractors as reasonable arguments. ‘He paid off families’,’he was weird’,’ or ‘freak’. He was different and unique, but that definitely doesn’t make him a criminal,but in the eyes of a conformist society. Talking about his civil settlement in 1994, with the Chandlers was to preserve a criminal trial and was not an admission of guilt by any means. It was not even for claims of molestation. A civil settlement doesn’t hinder the criminal proceedings.Real irony is when people refer to the legal settlement as some evidence of guilt and complain that Jackson should have taken it to court but at the same time refuse to accept the NOT GUILTY verdict where he was exonerated of the 1993 allegations as well. We see people comparing it to the OJ Simpson case,’OJ was found innocent too’. The cases are absolutely dissimilar and people tend to forget that he was found liable in a civil trial. Facts from legal documents and transcripts are forsaken but opinions built on falsehoods and delusion are readily accepted.
The notion that an individual can be capable of fabricating false allegations of sexual abuse is appalling, but the reality definitely doesn’t abide by our perceptions.
Men who had never even met Jackson concocted lurid accusations of sexual abuse. In a 1995 scam, a Canadian boy made false allegations against him. The boy was able to articulate a coherent story of molestation in graphic details, as well as the exact description of the Neverland ranch and his Hayvenhurst mansion. During media interrogation the boy broke down into admitting that he was actually being coached by a pedophile Rodney Allen who’s now behind bars, for crimes against children!
Daniel Kapon, in 2003, accused Jackson in the wake of the Arvizo allegations of sexual abuse, claiming he was too abused as a child. Kapon’s father confirmed, when contacted by authorities that he had never even met Michael Jackson. He sold his story to the tabloids for hefty sums and they went on further sensationalizing it, even though the police had closed their investigation declaring that no charges would be sought. A man called Joseph Bartucci filed a civil lawsuit against Jackson in 2004, alleging to have been kidnapped and abused in 1984, in New Orleans which again turned out to be absolutely untrue as he never got a chance to meet Michael to begin with. Also, Michael Jackson was in California at the time of the alleged abuse. Bartucci had a history of accusing people of sexual abuse and was also reportedly arrested in 1996, for stalking women.
People were paid to lie about their children being molested by Jackson. Ron Newt revealed that he was being offered a sum of $200,000 by the National Enquirer to accuse him of assaulting his sons Robert and Ronald. He turned down, the offer. That’s how the propaganda has worked against Jackson for decades.
In the era of #MeToo, it is of no doubt that the movement has empowered many survivors to come forward and seek justice for the trauma and neglect, they’ve endured.We sincerely support and stand by them. But our emotions that automatically lead us to believe accusations without considering the due process must not constrain our ability to think critically, while we form our opinions. Sadly, we don’t acknowledge the existence of false allegations unless its us or our loved ones, who too may face serious accusations but often cheer lead the condemnation of a human being just on the basis of unproven claims. In a society, we cannot let this travesty of justice to negatively influence our lives. It is not only a disgrace to victims of false accusations but the real survivors who may find it extremely difficult to speak up. Leaving Neverland, by just representing one side of the story and that too by leaving out significant facts and witnesses, with manipulated details is deplorable.
A case must not be tried in the court of public opinion where ignorance,misinformation and meagre knowledge on the situation plays a big role in distorting our judgement. Recall, how we criticized Johnny Deep for we believed Amber Heard while evidence proved that it was him who was the victim of domestic abuse and false allegations.
Michael Jackson was proven innocent by a mountain of evidences after being investigated for years, beyond any doubt. Facts prove that Robson and Safechuck are not telling the truth.Leaving Neverland is not rooted to the truth. It’s a sheer mockery of something as horrifying as child abuse and its victims,which is not tolerable by any means.
Dan Reed might stick to his version that it’s not about Michael Jackson, but it’s known by now that it’s all about Michael Jackson; and it’s all contrived.
Before you condemn, make sure you’re aware of the facts.
It was Michael Jackson who was and still is abused by the ongoing media slander. He was a victim of our ignorance,gullibility and incapability to relentlessly search for the truth.
‘Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.’
~ Albert Einstein