summer
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6,097
- Points
- 83
My complaint to Time magazine. I couldn't just sit and watch and do nothing so I had to give them a piece of my mind. No idea if it will have any kind of effect but at least I let them know what I think of them. I sent a complaint to BBC too about an article a few days ago and I got a reply (didn't change a thing ni the article but they did read the complaint and they go through the complaints with their producers every morning so at least I forced them to read what I had to say). If there is anyone with any sense and any morals and ethics sitting at the other end of Time, it should at the very least make them think of what they are doing and take a look at their ethics and their conduct.
Please also write to them and complain. Include the title and date of the article and include a link so they know what you are complaining about. Tell them how appalling you find their conduct and give them examples.
The e-mail to contact them is: editors@time.com
My complaint is long as hell but I had to get it all off my chest once and for all because what they are doing is absolutely REVOLTING. It took me HOURS to write that and I tried to check it for typos before sendng but obviously my eyes were too tired at that point to catch them all so...please forgive me for the typos.
Dear Time,
I am writing to you to complain about the article you published on your website on February 28th, 2019, written by Judy Berman, titled "HBO's Michael Jackson Documentary Is The In-Depth Survivor Story #MeToo Has Been Missing."
http://time.com/5540112/hbo-michael-jackson-finding-neverland-doc/
Leaving Neverland Review: Michael Jackson Doc Devastates | Time
Entertainment Television HBO's Michael Jackson Documentary Is the In-Depth Survivor Story #MeToo Has Been Missing
time.com
The article is biased, unethical and goes against every journalistic standard. It endorses a documentary that ALSO goes against every ethical journalistic standard, as it is grossly one-sided, and neither the documentary nor the article offer any kind of evidence to back up their grave accusations against Michael Jackson but only offer opinions based on hearsay. The article shows no investigation, fact checking or research was done by the author when writing the piece about the case. She either knowingly or ignorantly chose to omit evidence that shows the vast credibility problems on the so-called "victims'" part (Yes, ACTUAL evidence.) and also fails to mention the problematic conduct on the director Dan Reed's part. That way the article is intentionally misleading and inaccurate and tries to influence the public's opinion on Jackson by using their own biased opnions which are not based on facts.
A good, ethical journalist is someone who investigates, fact checks, researches and REPORTS FAIRLY. The public relies on the media to tell them facts so that they can make up their own mind on matters. The mediia conduct we are currently witnessing is appallingly unethical, immoral, irresponsible, incorrect, improper and quite simply....frightening. Even the once respected media outlets, such as yourself, have now stooped to the level of tablod media style of writing and reporting.
The author of the above mentioned article convicts Michael Jackson as a child abuser and writes about the film, Leaving Neverland, as if anything said in the film had in any way been proven true. The author is simply basing her accusations on what these two men said in the film without having taken a second to investigate any of it any further. Her agenda and bias are very clear when she states: "Leaving Neverland doesn’t need to make an airtight case" simply because Michael Jackson is not alive anymore. Really? So because someone is dead, anyone can say anythng they want and we don't have to make sure to fact check to see if any of it is true? Wow.
The author further shows her bias and further misleads the audience by stating:
"Yet it's the absence of that active threat (f not a competing narrative from the Jackson Estate and a few obsessive fans) that frees up Reed on a wider-ranging inquiry nto what it means to be a survivor. "
The author fails to mention and inform the audience that the ACTUAL REASON why Reed, as well as Wade Robson and James Safechuck, are indeed "freed up" to make ANY CLAIMS THEY WANT....LIES...is because the deceased are NOT PROTECTED by defamation laws. Anyone can say ANYTHING THEY WANT about someone who is dead and the family of the deceased is powerless against it. And Dan Reed, Wade Robson, James Safechuck and the media are fully aware of that and are having a field day with that fact. Now they can all finally write anything they want about Jackson and make it as SENSATIONAL as they want to get as many views, clcks and copies sold as possible, without fearing ANY kind of legal consequences and without having to back up their claims with ANY kind of evidence WHAT SO EVER. If someone decided to make a film today saying "Karl Lagerfeld raped me and held me a hostage in a dungeon"--and they paid a few people in Karl Lagerfeld's circle, who wanted to make a quick buck to "corroborate" their story,...they could easily do it. They could make it as graphic as they can with all kinds of disgusting grahic sexual details and they could show photos of themselves with Karl Lagerfeld . It still wouldn't make it all true. But does the fact that the dead can't be defamed mean that it is right to defame them? Does that give the media the right to slander a dead person without doing ANY FACT CHECKING and convict them publicly without "needing to have an air-tight case" as the author's opinion seems to be? Is that in your opinion ethical and fair and demonstrates journalistic integrity? Or do we still...as decent human beings... need to reserve judgement until we have looked at ALL the sides and fact checked again and again to see if the accusations make sense and can be verified? Isn't that just what a decent human being would do? Isn't that why we have the justice system and ethics commitees...to ensure that we won't make judgements based solely on biased opinions and half-truths?
The author also intentionally sends the reader to biased articles to further push her own agenda and bias. Just to make it seem that she is somehow giving" the other side " a voice. Instead of linking the reader to the Estate's 10 page letter to HBO that lists all of the credibility problems in the film, so that the readers could also read that and be informed about it, she instead sends the readers to yet another biased, inaccurate article that is convicting Michael Jackson and defending the documentary by saying how "HBO and the filmmakers have a powerful voice in their corner: Oprah Winfrey" and further tries to influence the readers. The author shows her double standards and bias by calling Michael Jackson's fans obssesive" (and once again links the reader to yet ANOTHER biased, misleading article saying how "only 2 Jackson fans showed up to protest at Sundance" to make it seem like the majority is against Michael Jackson and faiils to menton the online protests and the pettion that over 50,000 people signed, asking Sundance to pull "Leaving Neverland" from their programm.
The media's double standards and hypocrisy are revolting, but not surprising considering the recent tabloid media trend. Anyone who defends Jackson is labeled as an "obsessed, crazy fan"...a "blind follower"...a "cult member". The insults and degrading comments on the media's and the filmmakers' and the alleged "victim's" part against fans and ANYONE defending Jackson are going so far, that it is bordering on defamation, character assasination and slander. And I wonder if fans should indeed collectively sue for defamation. I take degrading comments like that as a personal insult. The mere IDEA that someone would have the AUDACITY to suggest that ANYONE would defend someone who would be a criminal or a child abuser "just because they like the music" is APPALLING and DEEPLY INSULTING and ABSURD. People are not defending Jackson because they are "fans". People are defending Michael Jackson because they believe in JUSTICE and in FAIR REPORTING and there is a huge SMEAR CAMPAIGN going on currently to tarnish Jackson's name for the sake of money and there has not been ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE EVER to show Michael Jackson EVER did anything wrong. And that, believe it or not, is A FACT. Something the media and the filmmakers of Leaving Neverland refuse to mention.
The media keeps spreading incorrect statements and half truths about the 1993 settlement between Michael Jackson and the Chandlers, making people believe that the only reason Michael Jackson never was convicted was "because he paid the boy and settled for millions". The media conveniently leaves out the fact that the settlement NEVER prevented a criminal investigation nor did t ever prevent anyone involved from testifying in a criminal trial. In fact, the judge in the 2005 case allowed ALL PREVIOUS MATERIAL to be included. So all the supposed "evidence" and "witnesses" and ANYTHING ELSE the prosecutor had from 1993....were INCLUDED in the 2005 trial. Jordan Chandler's MOTHER testified in the 2005 trial. So the 1993 case was INCLUDED in the trial DESPITE of any kind of settlement...and Michael Jackson was STILL found INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES because there simply was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, not even with a lot of imagination, that would show Michael Jackson did ANYTHING wrong. The police even asked the FBI to help them to investigate and even the FBI could not find ANYTHING during the 12 years they investigated jackson. And they didn't leave ANY stone unturned. They raided all of Michael Jackson's homes, offices, hotelrooms...and found NOTHING. But yes....let's ignore ALL the court findings, ALL the FBI and police investigations.....and believe two guys who wanted MILLIONS for their accusations but failed and then decided to try their case in the media as a means to a end to get money. Two guys who defended Michael Jackson for decades , even UNDER OATH...and who had no problems bragging about their friendship with Michael Jackson at every chance they got. Two guys, who provide absolutely NO EVIDENCE at all. And yes, let's trust Dan Reed too instead any court findings or the FBI or the police, because....."AWARD WINNING director"!!!! It has been amazing to see the media people simply state: "Dan Reed is an award winning director. I don't need to investigate myself! I trust him!" Tell me...WHO is the "blind sheep" and a "blind follower" in this scenario? The many Jackson supporters who have ACTUALLY gone through all the court documents and every single interview and piece of evidence and have studied every angle of the case and have fact checked again and again....or the media people and other individuals who have not done a second of investigation but readily spill out insults and accusations and opinions on the matter based on a fictional film they have seen because....."Dan Reed is an award winning director. I trust him." And because "the film got a standing ovation at Sundance Film Festival"....as if that was some ethical parameter that would show its accuracy and would therefor release every journalist and viewer from doing their own fact checking. But OF COURSE that is enough evidence to prove that the film is based on facts and is accurate. Right? As if Sundance was some criminal court that was authorized to decide on someone's guilt or innocence? Because they never fail to mention how it got "standing ovations at Sundance". And let's not forget the "powerful ally on their corner: Oprah Winfrey". But it's the Jackson supporters who are the "blind, obsessed, cult members". Right.
Which leads me to what Judy Berman stated in her above mentond article:
"The two-part film, which airs March 3-4 on HBO, offers damning evidence to support the longstanding child molestation accusations against Michael Jackson."
Oh really. Which evidence is that? She doesn't hold back on her allegations and has no reservations in convicting Michael Jackson as a child abuser and she makes bold claims of "damning evidence". Yet, fails to provide any. So let's talk about evidence.
The "award winning director" Dan Reed told the Rolling Stones how Safechuck and Robson haven't met before Sundance "so they couldn't excange their stories" and both Robson and Safechuck also told the Sundance audience the same thing at the Q&A after the film's premiere. What all three, as well as the media, however fail to mention is that Wade Robson said in his deposition UNDER OATH in 2016 that the last time he spoke to Safechuck was in 2014. So either Robson ONCE AGAIN lied under oath. Or he was intentionally lying to people's faces at Sundance. And Dan Reed, who in his interviews have claimed he is "obsessed with factual accuracy" either lied about his "thorough two year research" about the case because if he did indeed investigate thoroughly, he surely would have read Robson's depositions to see for himself what Robson had said previously and surely he would have fact checked their stories before making a film with such bold accusations against Jackson. Or if he indeed did investigate and knew about what Robson had sad under oath....he has intentionally been lying to the media to mislead them and the public on purpose to try to push his agenda and to make the claims in the film seem believable. Ether way....they all have been lying. Again, This is not the 2005 trial. This is 2016 when Wade Robson was interviewed under oath. And no one in the media finds ALL THREE participating in lies troubling and rconcerning and worth mentioning and all refuse to report about it.
Wade Robson sold his MJ collecton to Julien's Auctions in 2011 "because he needed the money" according to Julien's Auctions. Julien's Auctions just confrmed it. They said that Wade wanted to do it anonymously because he didn't want anyone to know that he is selling his MJ memorabilia. Wade asked them to sell anything that was of value. Julien's Auctions refused to do it anonymously and listed it as the "Wade Robson Collection". Robson made TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS from the items that once belonged to Michael Jackson and were given to him as gifts by Jackson. But of course they don't tell you that in "Leaving Neverland" nor in any of their interviews. Instead, they show you a "dramatic" scene of Wade Robson burning "MJ's gifts to him"....when in fact he had already sold anything of value LONG before that for thousands of dollars and the items in the film are most likely fake copies. Long before he had his "epiphany" and "realized he had been abused". But of course NONE of this all has ANYTHING to do with money....
In 2011, Wade Robson was begging to get the Cirque Du Soleil job, after he failed as a director. he wrote in his blog how he couldn't handle the pressure that comes with directing a movie. He even very clearly states that in his e-mail to Cirque Du Soleil saying:
"Look, the directing gig didn't work out. It was consuming me in an unhealthy way that I wasn't ok with being a brand new father, Maybe it just wasn't the right time. Maybe I just wasn't ready to direct a studio film."
He further explains why he COULD handle the pressure of directing the Cirque Du Soleil MJ show by saying:
" Directing a film was a completely new realm that I ended up not being ready for. But dance and choreography is something I have done all my life. I know how to do this. And there are very few subjects I know more about than Michael Jackson."
He says himself how he was not ready to direct because he didn't know quite how to do it but choreography is something he has more experince with. This was in 2011, long before his "realization that he had been abused". His lawyer is now doing the rounds in the media twisting the story saying Wade's career failed because of "dealing with the abuse and being unable to work in entertainment because of how it triggered his memories of abuse" (or something in that vain). And "that's why he was not able to do the film or the Cirque show" and that is how it's "not true that he started the allegations when he didn't get the show". Except that when Wade started mentioning his supposed abuse by Jackson for the first time ever, it was 2012...after he didn't get the Cirque Du Soleil show. As you can see from the letter, in 2011 Wade himself admitted he wasn't ready to be a director because it was too challenging for him but he felt CONFIDENT that he can do the Jackson show because unlike directing a film, he knows how to chorepgraph. Wade was telling TMZ on camera how he's working on the Cirque show, when he hadn't even been hired. But that didn't stop him from bragging about it and he was also telling how EXCITED he was to do it. Once he din't get the job, he all of the sudden came up with the sex abuse allegations.
Wade's letter to Cirque Du Soleil in 2011 asking for the job and telling how he hadn't been ready to de a director and that's why he failed:
https://leavingneverlandfacts.com/wade-robson-email-to-cirque-du-soleil-on-5-21-2011/
Wade Robson email to Cirque du Soleil on 5/21/2011 - Leaving Neverland Facts
A email from Wade Robson to Cirque du Soleil of 5/21/2011 that HBO didn’t mention in Leaving Neverland And there are very few subjects I know more about than Michael Jackson. Wade Robson Read the Letter.
leavingneverlandfacts.com
Wade Robson also LIED in 2013 in his lawsuit that he didn't know of the existance of The Estate and that is why he wasn't able to sue the Estate earlier. What he of course left out was the fact that he had indeed contacted them in 2011 and talked to John Branca about wanting to do the Cirque Du Soleil show. Another example of Wade Robson's lies and how he is ready to lie even to the authorites for his own gain. The judge said that no one can believe he wouldn't have known about the Estate for FOUR YEARS when it has been all over the media afr Jackson's death and and when there was evidence he had been in contact wth them.
Wade Robson also tried to get a book deal FIRST, before suing the Estate. When no one was interested in his book and he failed to make money that way, he sued the Estate for money in a civil suit. He first wanted to do it sealed and in scret because he wanted to get money from the Estate. The Estate refused to pay and it wasn't until then that Wade went to the media and made it public. Wade tried to HIDE EVIDENCE from the court and even from his own lawyers about havig tried to get a book deal. He also tried to hide a note he had written to himself with his booknotes saying "A sex abuse story will make me relatable/relevant." It shows his motive. He was intending on cashing on pretending to be a victim. Too bad for him his note was found despite him trying to hide it. But of course "Leaving Neverland" never mentions the failed book deal nor does anyone mention it in the interviews nor does the media write about it. All they keep saying is how "this isn't about money and the Jacksons are just trying to use that old excuse". Really? Let's not forget both Safechuck and Robson appealed their case when the judge dismissed it in court. They are still waiting to get millions of dollars.
Let's look at their "graphic details". Well...all one has to do is read a book called "Michael Jackson Was My Lover" by Victor Gutierrez and you will have the script to the movie "Leaving Neverland". It's all there. They just changed the characters. That book is fiction based on Gutierrez's own fantasies. Even the whole "sex tape" allegation from Safechuck comes straight from Gutierrez. It's all rehashed lies. Remember that these are things that were found to be UNTRUE decades ago. Diane Dimond and Hard Copy were the ones using Victor Gutierrez as their "source" back in the day and kept spreading false allegations about Jackson in the media. Dimond was spreading a false claim about a "sex tape" that supposedly existed and showed Jackson molesting a child (the rumored child was not Safechuck, he just once again changed the characters in the story to make it about him to sound believable and to try to make like it "corroborates" his story). Michael Jackson then sued Dimond and Hard Copy for defamation and asked them to come out with evidence to prove their allegations. (What child abuser would do that?) Dimond was then ordered to reveal her source and it was Victor Gutierrez. And of course there was no video of anything and no "secret diary by Jordan Chandler" either. Gutierrez was then found guilty of defamation and was ordered to pay 2,7 million dollars to Michael Jackson for defamation. Gutierrez fled the country to Chile and never paid. He continued his crimes in Chile. Victor Gutierrez and the whole story is well known to anyone who has followed the Jackson case. It is widely known. So anyone who claims that the "graphc details" Wade and James provide are proof....sure. If I say I invented the telephone after I read a book about the history of it and describe in great detail how I invented it....does that make it true? Is what I say "evidence"?
Safechuck and Robson also say that Michael didn't want them to have girlfriends and tried to talk negatively about women to them so that they wouldn't be attracted to women. What they of course won't tell you is that Robson was dating *****ns's niece Brandi Jackson for 7 years and it was indeed Michael himself who set them up. And Brandi was dating Wade while all of this "supposed abuse" was going on. Brandi Jackson has confirmed herself that it was Michael who set them up and that none of Wade's clams are true.
And let's not forget all the different versions that both Wade and James have told us during the years that all make no sense and totally contradict each other.
Wade Robson;
Version 1: It was NOT repressed memory. He ALWAYS knew EXACTLY what Michael Jackson did to him, but couldn't tell the truth until now because Michael Jackson threatened him and manipulated him and said they will both go to jail if he tells anyone and he was TERRIFIED so he had to keep it a secret.
Version 2: He didn't "realize" he had been abused until 2012 and that is why he defended MJ all these years.
Version 3: He knew what Michael did to him but he didn't realize it was a BAD thing until 2012. (Because....who DOESN'T have anal sex with children, like they accuse MJ of doing, right? So yeah, how could he not realize what Michael did was BAD and WRONG all these years...right? Especially in 2005 during the trial when he was specifically asked about it in great detail.) This was the version he offered at Sundance during the Q&A.
Version 4: He wasn't afraid or terrified of Michael because it was all very loving and he was in love with Michael and it never seemed wrong and he wanted to protect Michael.
James Safechuck:
version 1: Both him and his mother knew in 2005 that he was abused by Michael Jackson and he refused to testify in the 2005 trial and he was "so terrified" of Michael that Jackson's 'mere voice' gave him panic attacks".
version 2: He didn't realize until after his son was born and he started having pedophilic thoughts himself about his own son that he realized he had been abused. (And again no one finds THAT concerning? Those were his very own words in his civil complaint. But yes, let's call Jackson the pedophile here instead of he guy who admits to pedophlic thought towards HIS OWN SON in a COURT DOCUMENT. But shhh....let's not mention that because....his son's well being is irrelevant because we want JACKSON. Right? Right...? RIGHT? Don't believe me....go read the documents. )
version 3: It was all loving and he was in love with Michael and it wasn't until he saw Wade talking about it on TV that he realized he had been abused.
Please someone explain to me like I am a four year old how all of those scenarios are possible together? Because Wade has told ALL of them in his interviews and depositions. Same goes for Safeechuck. It always depends who is asking him and what he is challenged with what version he will offer you. If Michael Jackson is threatening you to keep quiet and you are "terrified"....and you KNOW about the abuse, as you claim...then tell me why do you volunteerly go barbecue with him and his kids as an adult in 2008? No one is forcing you at that point. You can just refuse to go. And why would you BRAG about it years later? And even AFTER HE DIES.....when that very person who you claim threatened you is DEAD....why would you KEEP PRAISING him VOLUNTEERLY at EVERY CHANCE YOU GET and BRAG about your friendship with him at EVERY chance you get? It's one thnig to "keep quiet" and "be forced to keep a secret"....but no one was forcing Wade to go give interviews and VOLUNTEERLY praise Michael and call him a "good guy, a kind human being, a great father"....AFTER MICHAEL DIED no less!!! And no one was forcing him to go work on TRIBUTES TO HONOR HIS LIFE. the day after Michael died Wade called the So You Think YOu Cna Dance producers to ask them to let him do a Michael Jackson tribute. He called Kenny Ortega to ask for a job in making the This Is It documentary film. He asked janet Jackson to let him dance with her at the MTV tribute Janet did for his brother He makes absolutely NO SENSE and I don't get how the media is failing to see that or refuses to point that out! Wade did a short film called "Within" in 2007 and he filmed it at Neverland and THANKED Michael in the credits for allowing him to use his "sacred land". If someone abused you and THREATENED you to keep quiet...would you REALLY want to go to the very scene of the alleged abuse VOLUNTEERLY to shoot videos there and then THANK your abuser?!! Seriously??!!
When we raise these questions and challenge it the media people defend them with "Well, they were in love with Michael and protected him because they had been manipulated by Michael to believe it was all just loving and not wrong and they were poor little kids who didn't know any better and even as adults they struggled to blame him because they loved him"....Yes, that would make sense and would be believable.....EXCEPT BOTH WADE AND JAMES BOTH HAVE OFFERED A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORY ALSO!! Both have claimed Michael was threatening them and they were "terrified". So HOW do those two scenarious go together? DO PRAY TELL? Or have the media and the rest of the people completely failed in logical thinking? And THAT is the problem we have with all of this. People accept ALL OF THEIR VERSIONS without challenging them, even when they make NO SENSE WHAT SO EVER together and are impossible scenarious when told together. Both Wade's and James's stories have changed so many times, it's hard to keep up with what their latest version of it all is. One time it's repressed memory, then it's not repressed memory..then it's not realizing, then it's not realizing it was BAD...then it was threats and secrets...then it's loving and tender...then it's abusive and manipulative and "terrifying"....WHICH ONE IS IT?! Pick one. Or is this one of those currently popular stories where the audience can pick what version of the story they will go with and then choose the ending based on what story they picked? Is that how justice works these days? Is that how ethics work now?
And let's look at Dan Reed. The "award winning director" who says he didn't know anything about Jackson prior to making the film but claims he did a lot of research for "two years" for the movie and claims that he found "nothing that would contradict the stories" but found that the "witness testimonies corroborated James and Wade's stories" after he read trial documents. Now...let's keep in mind that all of those witnesses that testified at the trial in 2005 were discredited in court and were found unreliable because they had fabricated stories and sold them to tabloids. But of course if we want to omit FACTS and ACTUAL EVIDENCE and pick and choose our stories and omit what REALLY happened and omit the truth and try to rewrite history and rewrite what REALY happened....sure...anything goes I guess. If I read the court transcripts too and read what was said and then come up with same allegations and say exactly what the supposed witnesses had said happened...and just ignore what they said WAS NOT RUE and was proven FALSE in court....of course MY story would also be "corroborated" by those stories because THAT'S where I got it from in the first place but just changed the characters. Would that make my story true, however?
And let's not forget Dan Reed's own remarks on how he didn't think it was important or even necessary to contact anyone on the Jackson side to give them a chance to defend Michael....No family member and no other former child or their families who also were friends with Michael and to this day say nothing happened and defend him....even though every single journalistic standard and guideline demands one to do so. Dan Reed said on CBS Morning that he didn't have to ask the Jacksons because "what could they say about it because they weren't there". (That seems to be the media's mantra also. They can say for a fact Jackson is guilty and convict him but if anyone defends him they say "How can you say he's innocent...you weren't there. Well...they weren't there either so it goes both ways. The double standards and hypocrisy of the media people are insane!) Well....neither Robson's nor Safechuck's family were in the room either based on what they say, so they equally wouldn't know anything more than The Jacksons would know in that case....but that didn't stop Reed from giving THEM air time. So how come they get to say something but the Jacksons don't? Reed further said in an interview that "he did put the horrible comments that Jackson fans have said about Wade in the film to show the other side". Which again shows his agenda and bias. He is not letting anyone have a voice and isn't fair but rather picks and chooses what the other side gets to say and intentionally presents them in a bad light. Just how the author in the above mentioned article did too. There's a word for it: Propaganda. And it is not something any serious journalist with any integrity or ethics or morals would ever do.
I am a registered pediatric nurse and I am a part of our hospital's ethics commitee. I take child abuse VERY SEROUSLY. Children and their well being are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to me. But so is JUSTICE, ETHICS, FACTS and the TRUTH. I have followed the Jackson case intensively since 1993 and I have looked at EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE (or lack there of) to MAKE SURE Michael Jackson isn't guilty. I would NEVER support someone who was a child molester. All I have found, however, is stories of extortion, shady characters and crooks and frauds looking for a pay day....and a media willing to go to sickening lengths for a lie. (The most recent example being the Australian show Sunday Tonight that invited Michael Jacobshagen, a known crook from Germany who has been forging Michael Jackson's handwriting for years and who got caught in selling forged letters and fake Jackson memorablia to fans for thousands of dollars. German television exposed him years ago. Jacobshagen met Jackson for the first time...and only time....in March 1998 in Munich and got to spend a day with Jackson. Yes, that is a fact. Him and his mother were interviewed by German televison about it in 1998. But that didn't stop neither Jacobshagen, nor the Australian televison from airing footage of Jacobshagen showing "lettesr he got from Michael" on Christmas 1997 according to Jacobshagen....and him claiming he went on the HIStory tour with Michael (HIStory tour was in 1996-97). He also showed an art book with pictures of young boys claiming Jackson gave it to him and showed a supposed "dedication written by Michael" saying it was to his "Rubba Rubba" friend and Jacobshagen explained on air how "Rubba Rubba" came from "rubbing the bodies together". The Australian reporter even had a supposed "forensic expert" saying that YES that definitely is Jackson's handwriting in these letters to Jacobshagen and definitely in that book. Again...keep in mind that according to Jacobshagen he was on HIStory tour with Michael in 1996-97 and got the letters in 1997....But fact is he didn't meet Michael until 1998 FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER. If it weren't for the seriousness of the allegations it would be hilarious considering how foolish both the supposed "forensic expert" and the Australian reporter looked when we know the letters are forged, simply because we have Jacobshagen on camera from 1998 telling the REAL story. And "Rubba" comes from "Rubberhead", not "rubbing" and Jackson used to use that nickname with basically anyone who was close to him. He even called Connie Cascio "Momma Rubba" in his thank you notes on the Invincible album booklet. Was he also "rubbing his body" against her. "Rubberhead" later changed to "Applehead" and there was nothing "sinister" involved in it. It was just an inside joke and a nickname. We all have all kinds of funny and weird nicknames we use with people who are close to us. I won't even go into the meda inviting Conrad Murray who KILLED MICHAEL JACKSON to come talk about the allegations and to SLANDER HIS VICTIM on air! How does HE get to have any kind of voice in any of this when he is a convcted criminal who KILLED JACKSON! The media conduct itowards Michael Jackson s absolutely DISGUSTING!
But that demonstrates how the media is willing to go to greath lengths for a lie and to endorse a lie. And shows how dangerous and unethical it is when the media doesn't investigate, fact check and research properly before making serious allegations and publicly shaming and convicting someone. They destroy lives just for ratings. Is that ethical?
It used to be the media's job to investigate and then report to the publc fairly and accurately. Now all that has been left up for the audience to do themselves. It really shouldn't be our job to do your job for you and investigate for you, but since you clearly have failed to do any research.... here we are. Either that....or you are intentionally refusing to post all facts to push an agenda and initentionally deprive the public from their right to have an informed opinion by hiding information from them or by misleading them by only telling one side of the story and half truths.
As I mentioned, I am a member in our hospital's ethics comittee. Imagine if hospitals would start practising the same methods you use? Hide results from patients...ask them to sign consents by telling them that there are absolutely no risks involved in the procedure and hiding the risks...or worse...intentionally give them false diagnoses. Tell them they have cancer when they have none....Or tell them they are healthy when they indeed have cancer. Would that be ethical and moral? Imagine if courts would start also practising the same methods? You would only get to hear the prosecution's side and their "evidence". Defense would not be allowed to speak nor cross examine anyone. Would that be ethical and fair? Please ask yourselves those questions. What kind of human beings do you want to be and in what kind of society would you like to live in?
I agree that it is important that abuse victims are being heard and anyone who abuses another person will be put in jail. What I am not fine with however, is giving false accusations a platform and having trials in the media. We have a justice system for a reason. There used to be a time when people were burned at stakes based only on other people's assumptions. We, as a society, evolved however after the dark ages and created a court system to help us decide who is guilty and who is innocent. But seems we are going back to witch hunts and burning people at stakes. I am willinig to look at every allegation and I think it is our duty, but there also has to be justice and balance. Even my own mother said that she has now reached a pont where she is becoming more worried of MEN'S RIGHTS because of all these false allegations by women using the #MeToo movement for their own gain and as an extortion tool. If we take every allegation as the gospel truth and immediately publically shame people without even giving them a chance to defend themselves and try to mute anyone who "dares" to challenge the allegations, we have created a monster that will only have a disasterous ending by making bullying and extortion acceptable. It leaves ALL OF US vulnerable to false accusations. And it is doing a disservice to the REAL victims. Because while the media and all these filmmakers are using all of their time, money and energy in convicting and shaming Michael Jackson....the REAL predators are still out there. And the real victims are still suffering. Human trafficking is a HUGE problem and especially homeless kids are extremely vulnerable to it. Kids becoming homeless because the foster care system fails them and because some parents throw their kids out just because they are gay is a huge problem. The Covenant House has been doing amazing work for it and is trying hard to help these kids and stop human traficking. But their pleas fall for deaf ears. Why? Because the media is too busy publicaly shaming Michael Jackson. Someone...who even after his death continues to help people by giving 20% of all of the money his Estate makes to charity. So when the media and the "award winning director" Dan Reed keep saying how the Estate is just "trying to protect it's cash cow" and talks about the Estate like it is some business venture, they all forget what the Estate really is and what it stands for: Michael's three children, his mother and various charities. Those are the only ones where The Estate's money will go. It is not some "obscure, greedy business" but was created to protect and represent Michael's children, as well as all the charities it is supporting to help the less fortunate. But OF COURSE the media nor Dan Reed will ever point that out ether because it fits their agenda better to talk about The Estate as some "greedy company wanting to make money". Michael Jackson's children never flaunt their wealth and live in rather humble houses and they all either work (Paris) or go to school (Prince is in college and Bigi is planning on going to college).
I hope the Time will delete the article written by Judy Berman and will choose to keep its journalistic integrity, and its journalistic standards, high. I hope the Time wiil investigate the Jackson case further and will write a piece pointing out all the facts and the problems with the case as mentoned above, the way Joe Vogel did in his Forbes article, because that is what responsible, good journalists with ethics and integrity do. I wish the Time will remind people why it is dangerous and unethical to jump into conclusions and immediately join the public shaming bandwagon without thoroughly investigating and fact checking first. There are currently tons of teenagers either commiting or contemplating suicide, because they are victims of bullying, which is basically done by people with mob mentality endorsing and egging on false accusations without taking the time to look further and either believe it all because "that kid is weird or gay or his family is weird" as if being "weird" to others somehow would justify bullying. Or people just choose to look the other way because they don't care...unless someone commits suicide. That's when everyone suddenly cares and has an opinion and washes their hands out of it and pretend they weren't at all to blame. Or they don't have guts to stand up against it because it's not what's "popular". Much like the media in today's world. It's currently not "popular" to defend Jackson, even when he's innocent. When he died it was fashionable to cry the death of "the greatest entertainer of our time" to sell papers. Ask yourselves once again what you want to endorse and what you stand for? Mob mentality and bullying......or facts, justice and the truth? And keep all those bullied kids in schools contemplating suicide in your thoughts and how it will affect them when bullyng is made acceptable and "fashionable". The blood will be on your hands when they finally decide to release themselves from this earth because their pain became too much to bare. Yes, we must look at allegations but we must do it in a fashion that will NOT endorse bullying and extortion and gives false accusations a platform.
It is my sincere hope that the media, including the Time, will change their conduct and instead of lowering the bar to tabloid media level with sensationalist propaganda pieces, they will raise the bar higher to go back to real investigative journalism with high regard to journalistic standards, integrity and ethics. It can be done. As Michelle Obama said: "When they go low....we go high."
Sincerely,
(me):ranting:
Please also write to them and complain. Include the title and date of the article and include a link so they know what you are complaining about. Tell them how appalling you find their conduct and give them examples.
The e-mail to contact them is: editors@time.com
My complaint is long as hell but I had to get it all off my chest once and for all because what they are doing is absolutely REVOLTING. It took me HOURS to write that and I tried to check it for typos before sendng but obviously my eyes were too tired at that point to catch them all so...please forgive me for the typos.
Dear Time,
I am writing to you to complain about the article you published on your website on February 28th, 2019, written by Judy Berman, titled "HBO's Michael Jackson Documentary Is The In-Depth Survivor Story #MeToo Has Been Missing."
http://time.com/5540112/hbo-michael-jackson-finding-neverland-doc/
Leaving Neverland Review: Michael Jackson Doc Devastates | Time
Entertainment Television HBO's Michael Jackson Documentary Is the In-Depth Survivor Story #MeToo Has Been Missing
time.com
The article is biased, unethical and goes against every journalistic standard. It endorses a documentary that ALSO goes against every ethical journalistic standard, as it is grossly one-sided, and neither the documentary nor the article offer any kind of evidence to back up their grave accusations against Michael Jackson but only offer opinions based on hearsay. The article shows no investigation, fact checking or research was done by the author when writing the piece about the case. She either knowingly or ignorantly chose to omit evidence that shows the vast credibility problems on the so-called "victims'" part (Yes, ACTUAL evidence.) and also fails to mention the problematic conduct on the director Dan Reed's part. That way the article is intentionally misleading and inaccurate and tries to influence the public's opinion on Jackson by using their own biased opnions which are not based on facts.
A good, ethical journalist is someone who investigates, fact checks, researches and REPORTS FAIRLY. The public relies on the media to tell them facts so that they can make up their own mind on matters. The mediia conduct we are currently witnessing is appallingly unethical, immoral, irresponsible, incorrect, improper and quite simply....frightening. Even the once respected media outlets, such as yourself, have now stooped to the level of tablod media style of writing and reporting.
The author of the above mentioned article convicts Michael Jackson as a child abuser and writes about the film, Leaving Neverland, as if anything said in the film had in any way been proven true. The author is simply basing her accusations on what these two men said in the film without having taken a second to investigate any of it any further. Her agenda and bias are very clear when she states: "Leaving Neverland doesn’t need to make an airtight case" simply because Michael Jackson is not alive anymore. Really? So because someone is dead, anyone can say anythng they want and we don't have to make sure to fact check to see if any of it is true? Wow.
The author further shows her bias and further misleads the audience by stating:
"Yet it's the absence of that active threat (f not a competing narrative from the Jackson Estate and a few obsessive fans) that frees up Reed on a wider-ranging inquiry nto what it means to be a survivor. "
The author fails to mention and inform the audience that the ACTUAL REASON why Reed, as well as Wade Robson and James Safechuck, are indeed "freed up" to make ANY CLAIMS THEY WANT....LIES...is because the deceased are NOT PROTECTED by defamation laws. Anyone can say ANYTHING THEY WANT about someone who is dead and the family of the deceased is powerless against it. And Dan Reed, Wade Robson, James Safechuck and the media are fully aware of that and are having a field day with that fact. Now they can all finally write anything they want about Jackson and make it as SENSATIONAL as they want to get as many views, clcks and copies sold as possible, without fearing ANY kind of legal consequences and without having to back up their claims with ANY kind of evidence WHAT SO EVER. If someone decided to make a film today saying "Karl Lagerfeld raped me and held me a hostage in a dungeon"--and they paid a few people in Karl Lagerfeld's circle, who wanted to make a quick buck to "corroborate" their story,...they could easily do it. They could make it as graphic as they can with all kinds of disgusting grahic sexual details and they could show photos of themselves with Karl Lagerfeld . It still wouldn't make it all true. But does the fact that the dead can't be defamed mean that it is right to defame them? Does that give the media the right to slander a dead person without doing ANY FACT CHECKING and convict them publicly without "needing to have an air-tight case" as the author's opinion seems to be? Is that in your opinion ethical and fair and demonstrates journalistic integrity? Or do we still...as decent human beings... need to reserve judgement until we have looked at ALL the sides and fact checked again and again to see if the accusations make sense and can be verified? Isn't that just what a decent human being would do? Isn't that why we have the justice system and ethics commitees...to ensure that we won't make judgements based solely on biased opinions and half-truths?
The author also intentionally sends the reader to biased articles to further push her own agenda and bias. Just to make it seem that she is somehow giving" the other side " a voice. Instead of linking the reader to the Estate's 10 page letter to HBO that lists all of the credibility problems in the film, so that the readers could also read that and be informed about it, she instead sends the readers to yet another biased, inaccurate article that is convicting Michael Jackson and defending the documentary by saying how "HBO and the filmmakers have a powerful voice in their corner: Oprah Winfrey" and further tries to influence the readers. The author shows her double standards and bias by calling Michael Jackson's fans obssesive" (and once again links the reader to yet ANOTHER biased, misleading article saying how "only 2 Jackson fans showed up to protest at Sundance" to make it seem like the majority is against Michael Jackson and faiils to menton the online protests and the pettion that over 50,000 people signed, asking Sundance to pull "Leaving Neverland" from their programm.
The media's double standards and hypocrisy are revolting, but not surprising considering the recent tabloid media trend. Anyone who defends Jackson is labeled as an "obsessed, crazy fan"...a "blind follower"...a "cult member". The insults and degrading comments on the media's and the filmmakers' and the alleged "victim's" part against fans and ANYONE defending Jackson are going so far, that it is bordering on defamation, character assasination and slander. And I wonder if fans should indeed collectively sue for defamation. I take degrading comments like that as a personal insult. The mere IDEA that someone would have the AUDACITY to suggest that ANYONE would defend someone who would be a criminal or a child abuser "just because they like the music" is APPALLING and DEEPLY INSULTING and ABSURD. People are not defending Jackson because they are "fans". People are defending Michael Jackson because they believe in JUSTICE and in FAIR REPORTING and there is a huge SMEAR CAMPAIGN going on currently to tarnish Jackson's name for the sake of money and there has not been ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE EVER to show Michael Jackson EVER did anything wrong. And that, believe it or not, is A FACT. Something the media and the filmmakers of Leaving Neverland refuse to mention.
The media keeps spreading incorrect statements and half truths about the 1993 settlement between Michael Jackson and the Chandlers, making people believe that the only reason Michael Jackson never was convicted was "because he paid the boy and settled for millions". The media conveniently leaves out the fact that the settlement NEVER prevented a criminal investigation nor did t ever prevent anyone involved from testifying in a criminal trial. In fact, the judge in the 2005 case allowed ALL PREVIOUS MATERIAL to be included. So all the supposed "evidence" and "witnesses" and ANYTHING ELSE the prosecutor had from 1993....were INCLUDED in the 2005 trial. Jordan Chandler's MOTHER testified in the 2005 trial. So the 1993 case was INCLUDED in the trial DESPITE of any kind of settlement...and Michael Jackson was STILL found INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES because there simply was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, not even with a lot of imagination, that would show Michael Jackson did ANYTHING wrong. The police even asked the FBI to help them to investigate and even the FBI could not find ANYTHING during the 12 years they investigated jackson. And they didn't leave ANY stone unturned. They raided all of Michael Jackson's homes, offices, hotelrooms...and found NOTHING. But yes....let's ignore ALL the court findings, ALL the FBI and police investigations.....and believe two guys who wanted MILLIONS for their accusations but failed and then decided to try their case in the media as a means to a end to get money. Two guys who defended Michael Jackson for decades , even UNDER OATH...and who had no problems bragging about their friendship with Michael Jackson at every chance they got. Two guys, who provide absolutely NO EVIDENCE at all. And yes, let's trust Dan Reed too instead any court findings or the FBI or the police, because....."AWARD WINNING director"!!!! It has been amazing to see the media people simply state: "Dan Reed is an award winning director. I don't need to investigate myself! I trust him!" Tell me...WHO is the "blind sheep" and a "blind follower" in this scenario? The many Jackson supporters who have ACTUALLY gone through all the court documents and every single interview and piece of evidence and have studied every angle of the case and have fact checked again and again....or the media people and other individuals who have not done a second of investigation but readily spill out insults and accusations and opinions on the matter based on a fictional film they have seen because....."Dan Reed is an award winning director. I trust him." And because "the film got a standing ovation at Sundance Film Festival"....as if that was some ethical parameter that would show its accuracy and would therefor release every journalist and viewer from doing their own fact checking. But OF COURSE that is enough evidence to prove that the film is based on facts and is accurate. Right? As if Sundance was some criminal court that was authorized to decide on someone's guilt or innocence? Because they never fail to mention how it got "standing ovations at Sundance". And let's not forget the "powerful ally on their corner: Oprah Winfrey". But it's the Jackson supporters who are the "blind, obsessed, cult members". Right.
Which leads me to what Judy Berman stated in her above mentond article:
"The two-part film, which airs March 3-4 on HBO, offers damning evidence to support the longstanding child molestation accusations against Michael Jackson."
Oh really. Which evidence is that? She doesn't hold back on her allegations and has no reservations in convicting Michael Jackson as a child abuser and she makes bold claims of "damning evidence". Yet, fails to provide any. So let's talk about evidence.
The "award winning director" Dan Reed told the Rolling Stones how Safechuck and Robson haven't met before Sundance "so they couldn't excange their stories" and both Robson and Safechuck also told the Sundance audience the same thing at the Q&A after the film's premiere. What all three, as well as the media, however fail to mention is that Wade Robson said in his deposition UNDER OATH in 2016 that the last time he spoke to Safechuck was in 2014. So either Robson ONCE AGAIN lied under oath. Or he was intentionally lying to people's faces at Sundance. And Dan Reed, who in his interviews have claimed he is "obsessed with factual accuracy" either lied about his "thorough two year research" about the case because if he did indeed investigate thoroughly, he surely would have read Robson's depositions to see for himself what Robson had said previously and surely he would have fact checked their stories before making a film with such bold accusations against Jackson. Or if he indeed did investigate and knew about what Robson had sad under oath....he has intentionally been lying to the media to mislead them and the public on purpose to try to push his agenda and to make the claims in the film seem believable. Ether way....they all have been lying. Again, This is not the 2005 trial. This is 2016 when Wade Robson was interviewed under oath. And no one in the media finds ALL THREE participating in lies troubling and rconcerning and worth mentioning and all refuse to report about it.
Wade Robson sold his MJ collecton to Julien's Auctions in 2011 "because he needed the money" according to Julien's Auctions. Julien's Auctions just confrmed it. They said that Wade wanted to do it anonymously because he didn't want anyone to know that he is selling his MJ memorabilia. Wade asked them to sell anything that was of value. Julien's Auctions refused to do it anonymously and listed it as the "Wade Robson Collection". Robson made TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS from the items that once belonged to Michael Jackson and were given to him as gifts by Jackson. But of course they don't tell you that in "Leaving Neverland" nor in any of their interviews. Instead, they show you a "dramatic" scene of Wade Robson burning "MJ's gifts to him"....when in fact he had already sold anything of value LONG before that for thousands of dollars and the items in the film are most likely fake copies. Long before he had his "epiphany" and "realized he had been abused". But of course NONE of this all has ANYTHING to do with money....
In 2011, Wade Robson was begging to get the Cirque Du Soleil job, after he failed as a director. he wrote in his blog how he couldn't handle the pressure that comes with directing a movie. He even very clearly states that in his e-mail to Cirque Du Soleil saying:
"Look, the directing gig didn't work out. It was consuming me in an unhealthy way that I wasn't ok with being a brand new father, Maybe it just wasn't the right time. Maybe I just wasn't ready to direct a studio film."
He further explains why he COULD handle the pressure of directing the Cirque Du Soleil MJ show by saying:
" Directing a film was a completely new realm that I ended up not being ready for. But dance and choreography is something I have done all my life. I know how to do this. And there are very few subjects I know more about than Michael Jackson."
He says himself how he was not ready to direct because he didn't know quite how to do it but choreography is something he has more experince with. This was in 2011, long before his "realization that he had been abused". His lawyer is now doing the rounds in the media twisting the story saying Wade's career failed because of "dealing with the abuse and being unable to work in entertainment because of how it triggered his memories of abuse" (or something in that vain). And "that's why he was not able to do the film or the Cirque show" and that is how it's "not true that he started the allegations when he didn't get the show". Except that when Wade started mentioning his supposed abuse by Jackson for the first time ever, it was 2012...after he didn't get the Cirque Du Soleil show. As you can see from the letter, in 2011 Wade himself admitted he wasn't ready to be a director because it was too challenging for him but he felt CONFIDENT that he can do the Jackson show because unlike directing a film, he knows how to chorepgraph. Wade was telling TMZ on camera how he's working on the Cirque show, when he hadn't even been hired. But that didn't stop him from bragging about it and he was also telling how EXCITED he was to do it. Once he din't get the job, he all of the sudden came up with the sex abuse allegations.
Wade's letter to Cirque Du Soleil in 2011 asking for the job and telling how he hadn't been ready to de a director and that's why he failed:
https://leavingneverlandfacts.com/wade-robson-email-to-cirque-du-soleil-on-5-21-2011/
Wade Robson email to Cirque du Soleil on 5/21/2011 - Leaving Neverland Facts
A email from Wade Robson to Cirque du Soleil of 5/21/2011 that HBO didn’t mention in Leaving Neverland And there are very few subjects I know more about than Michael Jackson. Wade Robson Read the Letter.
leavingneverlandfacts.com
Wade Robson also LIED in 2013 in his lawsuit that he didn't know of the existance of The Estate and that is why he wasn't able to sue the Estate earlier. What he of course left out was the fact that he had indeed contacted them in 2011 and talked to John Branca about wanting to do the Cirque Du Soleil show. Another example of Wade Robson's lies and how he is ready to lie even to the authorites for his own gain. The judge said that no one can believe he wouldn't have known about the Estate for FOUR YEARS when it has been all over the media afr Jackson's death and and when there was evidence he had been in contact wth them.
Wade Robson also tried to get a book deal FIRST, before suing the Estate. When no one was interested in his book and he failed to make money that way, he sued the Estate for money in a civil suit. He first wanted to do it sealed and in scret because he wanted to get money from the Estate. The Estate refused to pay and it wasn't until then that Wade went to the media and made it public. Wade tried to HIDE EVIDENCE from the court and even from his own lawyers about havig tried to get a book deal. He also tried to hide a note he had written to himself with his booknotes saying "A sex abuse story will make me relatable/relevant." It shows his motive. He was intending on cashing on pretending to be a victim. Too bad for him his note was found despite him trying to hide it. But of course "Leaving Neverland" never mentions the failed book deal nor does anyone mention it in the interviews nor does the media write about it. All they keep saying is how "this isn't about money and the Jacksons are just trying to use that old excuse". Really? Let's not forget both Safechuck and Robson appealed their case when the judge dismissed it in court. They are still waiting to get millions of dollars.
Let's look at their "graphic details". Well...all one has to do is read a book called "Michael Jackson Was My Lover" by Victor Gutierrez and you will have the script to the movie "Leaving Neverland". It's all there. They just changed the characters. That book is fiction based on Gutierrez's own fantasies. Even the whole "sex tape" allegation from Safechuck comes straight from Gutierrez. It's all rehashed lies. Remember that these are things that were found to be UNTRUE decades ago. Diane Dimond and Hard Copy were the ones using Victor Gutierrez as their "source" back in the day and kept spreading false allegations about Jackson in the media. Dimond was spreading a false claim about a "sex tape" that supposedly existed and showed Jackson molesting a child (the rumored child was not Safechuck, he just once again changed the characters in the story to make it about him to sound believable and to try to make like it "corroborates" his story). Michael Jackson then sued Dimond and Hard Copy for defamation and asked them to come out with evidence to prove their allegations. (What child abuser would do that?) Dimond was then ordered to reveal her source and it was Victor Gutierrez. And of course there was no video of anything and no "secret diary by Jordan Chandler" either. Gutierrez was then found guilty of defamation and was ordered to pay 2,7 million dollars to Michael Jackson for defamation. Gutierrez fled the country to Chile and never paid. He continued his crimes in Chile. Victor Gutierrez and the whole story is well known to anyone who has followed the Jackson case. It is widely known. So anyone who claims that the "graphc details" Wade and James provide are proof....sure. If I say I invented the telephone after I read a book about the history of it and describe in great detail how I invented it....does that make it true? Is what I say "evidence"?
Safechuck and Robson also say that Michael didn't want them to have girlfriends and tried to talk negatively about women to them so that they wouldn't be attracted to women. What they of course won't tell you is that Robson was dating *****ns's niece Brandi Jackson for 7 years and it was indeed Michael himself who set them up. And Brandi was dating Wade while all of this "supposed abuse" was going on. Brandi Jackson has confirmed herself that it was Michael who set them up and that none of Wade's clams are true.
And let's not forget all the different versions that both Wade and James have told us during the years that all make no sense and totally contradict each other.
Wade Robson;
Version 1: It was NOT repressed memory. He ALWAYS knew EXACTLY what Michael Jackson did to him, but couldn't tell the truth until now because Michael Jackson threatened him and manipulated him and said they will both go to jail if he tells anyone and he was TERRIFIED so he had to keep it a secret.
Version 2: He didn't "realize" he had been abused until 2012 and that is why he defended MJ all these years.
Version 3: He knew what Michael did to him but he didn't realize it was a BAD thing until 2012. (Because....who DOESN'T have anal sex with children, like they accuse MJ of doing, right? So yeah, how could he not realize what Michael did was BAD and WRONG all these years...right? Especially in 2005 during the trial when he was specifically asked about it in great detail.) This was the version he offered at Sundance during the Q&A.
Version 4: He wasn't afraid or terrified of Michael because it was all very loving and he was in love with Michael and it never seemed wrong and he wanted to protect Michael.
James Safechuck:
version 1: Both him and his mother knew in 2005 that he was abused by Michael Jackson and he refused to testify in the 2005 trial and he was "so terrified" of Michael that Jackson's 'mere voice' gave him panic attacks".
version 2: He didn't realize until after his son was born and he started having pedophilic thoughts himself about his own son that he realized he had been abused. (And again no one finds THAT concerning? Those were his very own words in his civil complaint. But yes, let's call Jackson the pedophile here instead of he guy who admits to pedophlic thought towards HIS OWN SON in a COURT DOCUMENT. But shhh....let's not mention that because....his son's well being is irrelevant because we want JACKSON. Right? Right...? RIGHT? Don't believe me....go read the documents. )
version 3: It was all loving and he was in love with Michael and it wasn't until he saw Wade talking about it on TV that he realized he had been abused.
Please someone explain to me like I am a four year old how all of those scenarios are possible together? Because Wade has told ALL of them in his interviews and depositions. Same goes for Safeechuck. It always depends who is asking him and what he is challenged with what version he will offer you. If Michael Jackson is threatening you to keep quiet and you are "terrified"....and you KNOW about the abuse, as you claim...then tell me why do you volunteerly go barbecue with him and his kids as an adult in 2008? No one is forcing you at that point. You can just refuse to go. And why would you BRAG about it years later? And even AFTER HE DIES.....when that very person who you claim threatened you is DEAD....why would you KEEP PRAISING him VOLUNTEERLY at EVERY CHANCE YOU GET and BRAG about your friendship with him at EVERY chance you get? It's one thnig to "keep quiet" and "be forced to keep a secret"....but no one was forcing Wade to go give interviews and VOLUNTEERLY praise Michael and call him a "good guy, a kind human being, a great father"....AFTER MICHAEL DIED no less!!! And no one was forcing him to go work on TRIBUTES TO HONOR HIS LIFE. the day after Michael died Wade called the So You Think YOu Cna Dance producers to ask them to let him do a Michael Jackson tribute. He called Kenny Ortega to ask for a job in making the This Is It documentary film. He asked janet Jackson to let him dance with her at the MTV tribute Janet did for his brother He makes absolutely NO SENSE and I don't get how the media is failing to see that or refuses to point that out! Wade did a short film called "Within" in 2007 and he filmed it at Neverland and THANKED Michael in the credits for allowing him to use his "sacred land". If someone abused you and THREATENED you to keep quiet...would you REALLY want to go to the very scene of the alleged abuse VOLUNTEERLY to shoot videos there and then THANK your abuser?!! Seriously??!!
When we raise these questions and challenge it the media people defend them with "Well, they were in love with Michael and protected him because they had been manipulated by Michael to believe it was all just loving and not wrong and they were poor little kids who didn't know any better and even as adults they struggled to blame him because they loved him"....Yes, that would make sense and would be believable.....EXCEPT BOTH WADE AND JAMES BOTH HAVE OFFERED A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORY ALSO!! Both have claimed Michael was threatening them and they were "terrified". So HOW do those two scenarious go together? DO PRAY TELL? Or have the media and the rest of the people completely failed in logical thinking? And THAT is the problem we have with all of this. People accept ALL OF THEIR VERSIONS without challenging them, even when they make NO SENSE WHAT SO EVER together and are impossible scenarious when told together. Both Wade's and James's stories have changed so many times, it's hard to keep up with what their latest version of it all is. One time it's repressed memory, then it's not repressed memory..then it's not realizing, then it's not realizing it was BAD...then it was threats and secrets...then it's loving and tender...then it's abusive and manipulative and "terrifying"....WHICH ONE IS IT?! Pick one. Or is this one of those currently popular stories where the audience can pick what version of the story they will go with and then choose the ending based on what story they picked? Is that how justice works these days? Is that how ethics work now?
And let's look at Dan Reed. The "award winning director" who says he didn't know anything about Jackson prior to making the film but claims he did a lot of research for "two years" for the movie and claims that he found "nothing that would contradict the stories" but found that the "witness testimonies corroborated James and Wade's stories" after he read trial documents. Now...let's keep in mind that all of those witnesses that testified at the trial in 2005 were discredited in court and were found unreliable because they had fabricated stories and sold them to tabloids. But of course if we want to omit FACTS and ACTUAL EVIDENCE and pick and choose our stories and omit what REALLY happened and omit the truth and try to rewrite history and rewrite what REALY happened....sure...anything goes I guess. If I read the court transcripts too and read what was said and then come up with same allegations and say exactly what the supposed witnesses had said happened...and just ignore what they said WAS NOT RUE and was proven FALSE in court....of course MY story would also be "corroborated" by those stories because THAT'S where I got it from in the first place but just changed the characters. Would that make my story true, however?
And let's not forget Dan Reed's own remarks on how he didn't think it was important or even necessary to contact anyone on the Jackson side to give them a chance to defend Michael....No family member and no other former child or their families who also were friends with Michael and to this day say nothing happened and defend him....even though every single journalistic standard and guideline demands one to do so. Dan Reed said on CBS Morning that he didn't have to ask the Jacksons because "what could they say about it because they weren't there". (That seems to be the media's mantra also. They can say for a fact Jackson is guilty and convict him but if anyone defends him they say "How can you say he's innocent...you weren't there. Well...they weren't there either so it goes both ways. The double standards and hypocrisy of the media people are insane!) Well....neither Robson's nor Safechuck's family were in the room either based on what they say, so they equally wouldn't know anything more than The Jacksons would know in that case....but that didn't stop Reed from giving THEM air time. So how come they get to say something but the Jacksons don't? Reed further said in an interview that "he did put the horrible comments that Jackson fans have said about Wade in the film to show the other side". Which again shows his agenda and bias. He is not letting anyone have a voice and isn't fair but rather picks and chooses what the other side gets to say and intentionally presents them in a bad light. Just how the author in the above mentioned article did too. There's a word for it: Propaganda. And it is not something any serious journalist with any integrity or ethics or morals would ever do.
I am a registered pediatric nurse and I am a part of our hospital's ethics commitee. I take child abuse VERY SEROUSLY. Children and their well being are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to me. But so is JUSTICE, ETHICS, FACTS and the TRUTH. I have followed the Jackson case intensively since 1993 and I have looked at EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE (or lack there of) to MAKE SURE Michael Jackson isn't guilty. I would NEVER support someone who was a child molester. All I have found, however, is stories of extortion, shady characters and crooks and frauds looking for a pay day....and a media willing to go to sickening lengths for a lie. (The most recent example being the Australian show Sunday Tonight that invited Michael Jacobshagen, a known crook from Germany who has been forging Michael Jackson's handwriting for years and who got caught in selling forged letters and fake Jackson memorablia to fans for thousands of dollars. German television exposed him years ago. Jacobshagen met Jackson for the first time...and only time....in March 1998 in Munich and got to spend a day with Jackson. Yes, that is a fact. Him and his mother were interviewed by German televison about it in 1998. But that didn't stop neither Jacobshagen, nor the Australian televison from airing footage of Jacobshagen showing "lettesr he got from Michael" on Christmas 1997 according to Jacobshagen....and him claiming he went on the HIStory tour with Michael (HIStory tour was in 1996-97). He also showed an art book with pictures of young boys claiming Jackson gave it to him and showed a supposed "dedication written by Michael" saying it was to his "Rubba Rubba" friend and Jacobshagen explained on air how "Rubba Rubba" came from "rubbing the bodies together". The Australian reporter even had a supposed "forensic expert" saying that YES that definitely is Jackson's handwriting in these letters to Jacobshagen and definitely in that book. Again...keep in mind that according to Jacobshagen he was on HIStory tour with Michael in 1996-97 and got the letters in 1997....But fact is he didn't meet Michael until 1998 FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER. If it weren't for the seriousness of the allegations it would be hilarious considering how foolish both the supposed "forensic expert" and the Australian reporter looked when we know the letters are forged, simply because we have Jacobshagen on camera from 1998 telling the REAL story. And "Rubba" comes from "Rubberhead", not "rubbing" and Jackson used to use that nickname with basically anyone who was close to him. He even called Connie Cascio "Momma Rubba" in his thank you notes on the Invincible album booklet. Was he also "rubbing his body" against her. "Rubberhead" later changed to "Applehead" and there was nothing "sinister" involved in it. It was just an inside joke and a nickname. We all have all kinds of funny and weird nicknames we use with people who are close to us. I won't even go into the meda inviting Conrad Murray who KILLED MICHAEL JACKSON to come talk about the allegations and to SLANDER HIS VICTIM on air! How does HE get to have any kind of voice in any of this when he is a convcted criminal who KILLED JACKSON! The media conduct itowards Michael Jackson s absolutely DISGUSTING!
But that demonstrates how the media is willing to go to greath lengths for a lie and to endorse a lie. And shows how dangerous and unethical it is when the media doesn't investigate, fact check and research properly before making serious allegations and publicly shaming and convicting someone. They destroy lives just for ratings. Is that ethical?
It used to be the media's job to investigate and then report to the publc fairly and accurately. Now all that has been left up for the audience to do themselves. It really shouldn't be our job to do your job for you and investigate for you, but since you clearly have failed to do any research.... here we are. Either that....or you are intentionally refusing to post all facts to push an agenda and initentionally deprive the public from their right to have an informed opinion by hiding information from them or by misleading them by only telling one side of the story and half truths.
As I mentioned, I am a member in our hospital's ethics comittee. Imagine if hospitals would start practising the same methods you use? Hide results from patients...ask them to sign consents by telling them that there are absolutely no risks involved in the procedure and hiding the risks...or worse...intentionally give them false diagnoses. Tell them they have cancer when they have none....Or tell them they are healthy when they indeed have cancer. Would that be ethical and moral? Imagine if courts would start also practising the same methods? You would only get to hear the prosecution's side and their "evidence". Defense would not be allowed to speak nor cross examine anyone. Would that be ethical and fair? Please ask yourselves those questions. What kind of human beings do you want to be and in what kind of society would you like to live in?
I agree that it is important that abuse victims are being heard and anyone who abuses another person will be put in jail. What I am not fine with however, is giving false accusations a platform and having trials in the media. We have a justice system for a reason. There used to be a time when people were burned at stakes based only on other people's assumptions. We, as a society, evolved however after the dark ages and created a court system to help us decide who is guilty and who is innocent. But seems we are going back to witch hunts and burning people at stakes. I am willinig to look at every allegation and I think it is our duty, but there also has to be justice and balance. Even my own mother said that she has now reached a pont where she is becoming more worried of MEN'S RIGHTS because of all these false allegations by women using the #MeToo movement for their own gain and as an extortion tool. If we take every allegation as the gospel truth and immediately publically shame people without even giving them a chance to defend themselves and try to mute anyone who "dares" to challenge the allegations, we have created a monster that will only have a disasterous ending by making bullying and extortion acceptable. It leaves ALL OF US vulnerable to false accusations. And it is doing a disservice to the REAL victims. Because while the media and all these filmmakers are using all of their time, money and energy in convicting and shaming Michael Jackson....the REAL predators are still out there. And the real victims are still suffering. Human trafficking is a HUGE problem and especially homeless kids are extremely vulnerable to it. Kids becoming homeless because the foster care system fails them and because some parents throw their kids out just because they are gay is a huge problem. The Covenant House has been doing amazing work for it and is trying hard to help these kids and stop human traficking. But their pleas fall for deaf ears. Why? Because the media is too busy publicaly shaming Michael Jackson. Someone...who even after his death continues to help people by giving 20% of all of the money his Estate makes to charity. So when the media and the "award winning director" Dan Reed keep saying how the Estate is just "trying to protect it's cash cow" and talks about the Estate like it is some business venture, they all forget what the Estate really is and what it stands for: Michael's three children, his mother and various charities. Those are the only ones where The Estate's money will go. It is not some "obscure, greedy business" but was created to protect and represent Michael's children, as well as all the charities it is supporting to help the less fortunate. But OF COURSE the media nor Dan Reed will ever point that out ether because it fits their agenda better to talk about The Estate as some "greedy company wanting to make money". Michael Jackson's children never flaunt their wealth and live in rather humble houses and they all either work (Paris) or go to school (Prince is in college and Bigi is planning on going to college).
I hope the Time will delete the article written by Judy Berman and will choose to keep its journalistic integrity, and its journalistic standards, high. I hope the Time wiil investigate the Jackson case further and will write a piece pointing out all the facts and the problems with the case as mentoned above, the way Joe Vogel did in his Forbes article, because that is what responsible, good journalists with ethics and integrity do. I wish the Time will remind people why it is dangerous and unethical to jump into conclusions and immediately join the public shaming bandwagon without thoroughly investigating and fact checking first. There are currently tons of teenagers either commiting or contemplating suicide, because they are victims of bullying, which is basically done by people with mob mentality endorsing and egging on false accusations without taking the time to look further and either believe it all because "that kid is weird or gay or his family is weird" as if being "weird" to others somehow would justify bullying. Or people just choose to look the other way because they don't care...unless someone commits suicide. That's when everyone suddenly cares and has an opinion and washes their hands out of it and pretend they weren't at all to blame. Or they don't have guts to stand up against it because it's not what's "popular". Much like the media in today's world. It's currently not "popular" to defend Jackson, even when he's innocent. When he died it was fashionable to cry the death of "the greatest entertainer of our time" to sell papers. Ask yourselves once again what you want to endorse and what you stand for? Mob mentality and bullying......or facts, justice and the truth? And keep all those bullied kids in schools contemplating suicide in your thoughts and how it will affect them when bullyng is made acceptable and "fashionable". The blood will be on your hands when they finally decide to release themselves from this earth because their pain became too much to bare. Yes, we must look at allegations but we must do it in a fashion that will NOT endorse bullying and extortion and gives false accusations a platform.
It is my sincere hope that the media, including the Time, will change their conduct and instead of lowering the bar to tabloid media level with sensationalist propaganda pieces, they will raise the bar higher to go back to real investigative journalism with high regard to journalistic standards, integrity and ethics. It can be done. As Michelle Obama said: "When they go low....we go high."
Sincerely,
(me):ranting:
