27 comments

1. 
   MJJJusticeProject · July 8, 2019

   The article is great, will help people who just don’t really have a grasp of the Michael Jackson reality something to think about… Only issue I have is the photo used of MJ and Emmanuel Lewis is not the original; the bottles have been photoshopped in by mjtroll website – Buds.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 
     erik buys · July 8, 2019

     I didn’t know that. Could you provide me with an original photo? That would be greatly appreciated!

     LikeLike

     Reply
   • 
     erik buys · July 11, 2019

     Thank you very much for the comparison between the original and the manipulated photo of Michael Jackson and Emmanuel Lewis!

     People should know about this stuff.

     Thanks again!

     LikeLike

     Reply
2. 
   Benjamin David Steele · July 9, 2019

   I haven’t researched it deeply. But from looking into it a bit, the accusations seem off to me. I think it’s a case of someone who is perceived as being weird and so it is assumed there must be something morally wrong with him.

   As Michael Jackson lived in reclusion late in life, it allows people to project onto him in imagining his private life. For many people, their imagination tends to go to dark places. And the corporate media loves a scandal, real or not.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply
   • 
     shanny101 · July 10, 2019

     I fully agree. I used to believe he was guilty. Then I started looking into the other side, studying court documents, trial transcripts, fbi files, evidence, accusers backgrounds and motives, and how corrupt the media have been when it comes to Jackson. I am now convinced he was innocent. What I find so interesting is how every single accuser’s story falls apart when examined further. Each one had huge credibility issues, sometimes they would give several different versions of an alleged incident, the timelines are always off, and many have claimed absurd impossibilities. Such as Janet Arvizo madly claiming that Jackson had kidnapped them and was holding them hostage and that she planned to escape in a hot air balloon, despite there being evidence she had been on expensive shopping trips on Jackson’s expense during the alleged hostage period, or James Safechuck claiming he was abused in the Neverland train station years before it even existed.

     It should also be known each accuser had a huge financial motive to lie. Every single accuser went to civil lawyers or sold stories to tabloids for money, before even thinking of going to police. Only the Arvizo’s allegations ever lead to a criminal trial. The Arvizos first went to a civil lawyer on two occasions in an attempt to sue Jackson, but due to Californian law changing there had to be a criminal case first, but they stood to seek a huge payout if Jackson was convicted. The Arvizos had a history of fraud and had made previous false sex abuse claims for money. Their case was an utter sham that should never have gone through the courts.

     Even the former employees of Neverland who claim they witnessed abuse from Jackson have zero credibility. They previously defended him during the 1993 case and only changed their stories when Jackson fired them for things such as theft. They then tried to sue Jackson for wrongful dismissal and lost, and ended up owing him money. Only then did they change their stories claiming they were too afraid to go to police, yet had no issue selling their stories to tabloids for thousands of dollars a time.

     What is very clear here is that there is no evidence other than the accusations themselves, accusations which so easily fall apart. There is evidence however that all of Jackson’s accusers told provable lies and wanted millions of dollars.

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • 
       erik buys · July 11, 2019

       Thank you for your reaction!

       I had the same experience: you have a certain impression, pointing clearly in the direction of guilt, until you really take a look into the cases. Then the allegations fall apart and become very ridiculous, very fast.

       Again, more people should receive this type of information before judging.

       LikeLike
     • 
       Gemma Jiménez Ruiz · August 1, 2019

       Thank you for the research you did and wellcome to the LiGHT and the TRUTH.

       LikeLike
3. 
   Elke · July 9, 2019

   I have some issues with a couple of your logical leaps, and some of the claims you make about the ‘facts’ of this case.

   First of all, you seem to think it a fact that this case is only part of the #MeToo movement. It’s not. The #MeToo movement started in 2017 as a way to make the many victims of sexual assault, sexual intimidation and rape visible in our society, as a way to show that Harvey Weinstein’s abuse is not an isolated incident but part of the way our society looks at women and women’s bodies, men and men’s sexuality, protects the powerful and incriminates victims in their victimhood. These elements are what defines ‘rape culture’: a culture that allows a sports doctor to get away with sexually abusing over 250 girls and young women in his care, that allows a judge to not give a severe punishment for rape to a young man ‘because he has a such a promising academic carreer’ and for a man who admits liking the fact that women allow him to ‘grab them by the pussy’ because he’s famous to become the favored president of the religious right. James Safechuck and Wade Robson getting up and saying ‘Yeah, me too’, is part of that story about victims, but it’s a lot older: Robson came out with accusations against Jackson in 2013, Safechuck filed a case in 2014. That’s 4 and 3 years before the movement started.

   Elke, you’re attacking a straw man. I’m not saying that the cases of Wade Robson and James Safechuck are only part of the #MeToo movement. Of course I know they are older, I’ve done my research. I’m claiming that a film like the HBO production Leaving Neverland (truthful or not) profits from the #MeToo movement. Hence I write: “[The HBO production Leaving Neverland […] profits from the sympathy of victims of proven child sexual abuse during this #MeToo era.”

   In fact, I claim quite the opposite. I claim that Robson’s and Safechuck’s cases fit the pattern of previous cases against Michael Jackson – a history that indeed is much longer than the #MeToo movement. Again, what I do claim is that the renewed interest for the cases of Robson and Safechuck is a result of the #MeToo movement.

   Secondly, you state that the #MeToo movement should be about “a concern for real victims, also victims of false allegations.” I hope from the former that it’s clear that no, it’s not about victims of false allegations. That doesn’t mean that I deny that those exist. But the movement isn’t about them, it’s about us. Here are the stats: 1 in every 3 women and 1 in every 8 men is sexually assaulted or raped at least once in their lifetime. Of those, only 1 in 8 of women and 1 in 20 of men actually files a complaint. Of those, about a third goes to trial. Of those, about 1 in a hundred turns out to be fabricated. So thats 1% of 30% of 12,5% of rape or sexual assault cases. But our culture says the following:

   “It should not lend itself to sustain the condemnation of people in a mere trial by powerful media, especially if those people are no longer here to defend themselves and were already acquitted on all counts during their lifetime.” That, what you write here, is a part of rape culture: we must, at all costs, avoid making false accusations. It doesn’t actually matter that this makes us assume the worst about everyone stepping forward to launch a complaint. No, we would rather be certain that we do not falsely accuse that 1% of 30% of 12,5% of accused abusers, then make sure that we do not demonize and further traumatize those 99% of 30% of 12,5% of people daring to come further and allow themselves to be re-traumatized in order to seek some sort of justice, let alone the 87.5% of women and 95% of men who don’t dare to come forward and file a complaint. [All these stats come from sources in the US and the EU.]

   You go so far as to call this 1% of 30% of 12.5% ‘real victims’: “However, the perversion of the achievement to listen to “the voice of the victim” threatens to silence the voice of real victims again: people pretending to be victims murderously persecute others in the name of “the victim” in order to gain power and end up making ever more victims.”

   The #MeToo movement was in part about getting focus back on the overwhelming majority of real cases, where victims are publicly shamed about their lifestyle choices, the clothes they wear, the pictures they put on their social media and the parties they go to in front of absolute strangers and have to tell the most horrible, degrading details of their abuse again and again and again to people who disbelief and discredit them for a living, if they are determined enough to file a complaint and lucky enough to be taken seriously by law enforcement.

   Elke, this is a perverse argument. You’re in fact suggesting that the “collateral damage” of a few false allegations doesn’t outweigh the positive consequences of the #MeToo movement for real victims of sexual abuse. You’re in fact suggesting that it’s okay for a few lives to be destroyed if it helps the victims of sexual abuse. You literally claim that the #MeToo movement is a movement of polarization, of “us against them”. You indeed write: “the movement isn’t about them [the victims of false allegations], it’s about us [the victims of sexual abuse].”

   And what’s with the straw man again? You write: “That, what you write here, is a part of rape culture: we must, at all costs, avoid making false accusations. It doesn’t actually matter that this makes us assume the worst about everyone stepping forward to launch a complaint.” Apart from being a straw man, that’s also a non-sequitur (an illogical leap). The concern to investigate the veracity and credibility of allegations does not imply assuming the worst about everyone stepping forward to launch a complaint. It is a way to focus time, money, energy and resources on the real victims of child sexual abuse rather than on frauds who try to abuse the movement (and the real victims!). That’s why the #MeToo movement should be concerned about the victims of false allegations. Hence I write:

   “The #MeToo movement should be about a concern for real victims, also victims of false allegations. The focus, time, energy and money of a society should go to real victims, not pretenders. That’s why the #MeToo movement should be concerned about false allegations. It should not lend itself to sustain the condemnation of people in a mere trial by powerful media, especially if those people are no longer here to defend themselves and were already acquitted on all counts during their lifetime. Regarding Michael Jackson, we should focus on what can be known for a fact before speculating and jumping to conclusions.”

   Thirdly, the fact that there are many people who say they weren’t abused by Jackson and the possibility that these statements are all true, doesn’t mean that no children were abused and doesn’t discredit the accusation. Not all girls Marc Dutroux met ended up in his basement. I’m going into some detail about what child sexual abuse is later on in the comment, but it’s important to remember that predators rarely have more than 2 or 3 children they’re grooming for abuse, and rarely more than 1 or 2 children that are being abused, at the same time. If Jackson had a group of 20 children around him at all times over the course of 20 years, then it stands to reason that at most 20 to 30 of those children were actually abused, and the absolute majority were not.

   Elke, really, a third straw man? Your dishonesty is getting tiring. I clearly write: “I will wholeheartedly admit that this doesn’t mean that Michael Jackson didn’t molest any other children.”

   You claim that it is reasonable to assume that Michael Jackson actually abused 20 to 30 children at most. Where are they? If you reconsider the facts I refer to in this post, it is no surprise that I conclude the following (more below, in a reply to your other considerations):

   “Considering all the supportive testimonies of people who knew Michael Jackson when they were children, it is probably no coincidence that of all the alleged potential victims the only [two] cases that came out [during Michael Jackson’s lifetime] were clearly non-credible extortion attempts.”

   Fourth. “All the extremely thorough research done by legal and judicial authorities over the years, time and again exonerate Michael Jackson.” Is that true? Jackson was exonerated by a jury of his peers, but in order for the state to launch a trial, they have to also pass several hurdles. There had to have been enough material and circumstancial evidence to support a complaint in order for them to try this case, which means there WAS evidence. But the jury was not convinced beyond reasonable doubt, amongst other reasons because of the testimony of the later accusers. Just like you are now not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by the testimony of these other children. Are they liars? No, not necessarily. But that doesn’t mean that this invalidates the accusations, at all. It only means that two of those people now say that they perjured themselves when they testified back then.
   You also completely reject the possibility that a jury verdict could ever be wrong. Which is why there are never any wrongfully convicted people, ever.

   Elke… Sigh. Straw man, again. Where do I completely reject the possibility that a jury verdict could ever be wrong? Where? Tell me. I only claim that in this case, the 2005 trial against Michael Jackson, the jury came to the right decision. For obvious reasons mentioned in the post, but I’ll repeat them here. Consider the following.

   The second case against Michael Jackson during his lifetime revolves around Gavin Arvizo, which culminates in the 2005 criminal trial. The Arvizo family turns out to have a history of (at times successful) extortion attempts. On August 27, 1998, when he is only eight years old, Gavin steals two school uniforms and two school uniform pants from a J.C. Penney department store. Strangely enough, the incident ends with a settlement between the Arvizo family and J.C. Penney in which the store pays the family $152,200. Janet Arvizo, the mother, claimed that she had been touched inappropriately by security guards. The file about the case clearly indicates her manipulative tactics.

   Apart from the Michael Jackson and the J.C. Penney cases, the Arvizos get also caught being involved in fraudulent and manipulative activities against actor and comedian Chris Tucker, comedian George Lopez, television host Jay Leno and editor Connie Keenan. Mother Janet Arvizo also committed welfare fraud.

   A very important fact is the changing of the timeline of Michael Jackson’s alleged abuse by the Arvizos. The Michael Jackson Allegations website points out the consequences of this (see also Rolling Stone’s account of the same situation):

   “Initially the Arvizos claimed that the molestation started as soon as they returned from Miami with Jackson, on February 7, 2003. This version of the story is also represented in the prosecution’s initial felony complaint, filed on December 18, 2003.

   –

   However, later they changed this story and said that Jackson started molesting Gavin after February 20. As you will see, this timeline change was not just a minor correction. It significantly changed the narrative of the Arvizos’ initial story.

   –

   […]

   According to the story that the Arvizos ended up with due to the timeline change, Jackson started molesting Gaving while the CPS and the police investigated, while there was a huge public attention on him and Gavin because of the Bashir documentary, and while his PR team was working overtime on damage control because of the public relations backlash resulting from the Bashir documentary. To believe the Arvizos’ story you have to believe that all the while this was happening (including a police and a CPS investigation), Jackson suddenly started molesting Gavin Arvizo, even though for three years he had not touched him and not even trusted him and his family. This is exactly the story that the Arvizo family ended up with after they were forced to change their initial timeline because of the discovery of the ‘rebuttal tape’ raw footage.”

   See also about the “evidence”:

   https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2019/05/27/addressing-michael-jackson-detractors-best-evidence/

   See also the conclusion about the regular media reports on the 2005 trial by award winning investigative journalist Charles Thomson:

   http://charles-thomson.net/Portfolio-Features-Michael-Jackson-Trial.html

   Fifth, you rely heavily in your ‘facts’ on two biased sources: the Jackson Estate’s own document, and an article by superfan Damien Shields of the MJ podcast. (http://www.damienshields.com/)

   Elke, I don’t know if I should laugh or cry now. Can you make one argument without using a straw man? Explain to me the following. How can I rely on the article of Damien Shields that I mention in an update of my post FACTS TO CONSIDER WHEN WATCHING LEAVING NEVERLAND when that article appeared in July 2019 and my post was written on March 19, 2019 (three months before the article by Damien Shields!)?

   And no, I don’t rely on the Jackson Estate as a source. I checked the claims in the document from independent sources – court documents most of all – and concluded that the Estate’s reply was a fair preliminary assessment of the problems regarding Leaving Neverland. Of course, since then multiple new problems regarding that HBO production have emerged. In any case, I don’t automatically care about who makes a claim. I care about what is being said, regardless of who, and check if the content of a statement is true. Claims should not be accepted on the basis of authority, but on the basis of facts. That’s one of the positive achievements of the Enlightenment.

   But here are some other facts, that you fail to mention in either of your posts. 10 to 20% of European children fall victim to child sexual. In the US, stats show that around 93% of victims know their abusers. Children are almost inevitably groomed for abuse: they are singled out for special treatment, eased into sexual intimacy by incorporating it in play or explaining it as a special way to show affection. They are made not to speak of the abuse through threats (your parents won’t want you anymore, they won’t believe you, I’ll hurt them) but more often through threats to the relationship (they’ll keep us apart, they don’t want me to love you, I won’t be able to help you anymore). The abuse is shown as normal but secret. Children often only realize that what they experienced was abuse when they start having their own sexual relationships with peers, or start suffering from the effects of trauma. This is usually around the age of 20 to 25. Victims seldomly speak out because they experience shame, guilt, loyalty to the abuser who also gave them good things and good memories, and especially the way they see others react to other people who make these claims. They protect themselves from re-victimization by not telling.
   Abusers rarely have more than one or two children that they abuse at the same time, especially if the abuse is prolonged. They often keep contact with their victims after the sexual abuse has ended as a way to make sure the child doesn’t become disloyal. They often have very good relationships with the parents (if they are not the parent or guardian of the child). They pick vulnerable children, often with learning disabilities or behavioral problems, who do not come across as too likeable, so they can discredit what the victim says.

   Hold the stories of Robson and Safechuck, told over and over again in the past 4 years and in excruciating detail over the 4 hours of the documentary, against those simple basic facts about child sexual abuse. How many of the boxes do their stories tick? And how many of the things people lay at their feet (why so late? why did you first lie in court? why now?) become slightly less easy to maintain as mere rational inquiry.

   Elke, that’s the pattern alright, followed microscopically in Leaving Neverland as well. The stories of Wade Robson and James Safechuck fit the pattern of child sexual abuse perfectly. Again, consider the following – I quote again from the post at hand:

   “With Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed finds himself in the company of people like Diane Dimond and Víctor Gutiérrez and their stories about Michael Jackson. Both Dimond and Gutiérrez are tabloid journalists of the worst kind, the latter being convicted for blatantly lying and making up stories on multiple occasions, also regarding Michael Jackson. It is now proven that Wade Robson read multiple tabloid stories while he was preparing his (ammended) complaint. He also declared reading books himself about the pattern of child sexual abuse, supposedly to make sense of his own experience. Whatever the level of truth in his own story, the tabloid stories and the books on child sexual abuse clearly helped Robson to put the pieces of his own story together. It is also proven that Robson knew about tabloid stories not being true, and yet he used them in his (ammended) complaint. As for James Safechuck, many elements of his story are so comparable to the story that Víctor Gutiérrez created in Michael Jackson Was My Lover: The Secret Diary of Jordie Chandler (Alamo Square Distributors, 1996) that they seem copy pasted from that book.

   The question to determine Michael Jackson’s guilt should not be whether or not the stories of Wade Robson and James Safechuck “fit the pattern” of child sexual abuse. The question should be whether or not the different elements of their stories, which constitute that pattern of child sexual abuse, are actual facts as opposed to lies.

   An approach to reality that reduces reality to “correspondence to a pattern” is an externalization of what Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995) calls “totality”.

   A “pattern” is a way to approach reality. It is not reality itself. Knowledge of a pattern can be used by deceivers to “sell” a story as “truth”. Tabloid journalism excels in this respect. The testimonies (see also the Open Letter by the Schleiter Family) challenge the standard “totalitarian” story of Michael Jackson as a textbook pedophile.

   The tabloid background didn’t help the cases of Robson and Safechuck (who contacted Robson and was eventually represented by the same legal team) regarding their credibility. Several victims of child sexual abuse were outraged about Leaving Neverland and spoke out against Wade Robson and James Safechuck once they knew more about the history of their cases.”

   Sixth, the money. Oh, it always comes down to the money, doesn’t it? The argument is this: if they are real victims, then money shouldn’t be their goal because it can’t ease their pain. Wanting money, therefore means they are probably not real victims.
   Consider this: would you be willing to risk being harrassed in the street, get threatening letters, get sued for all manner of things by the rich and powerful Jackson estate, possibly ruin you family’s reputation, knowing that you will most likely never have your day in court and none of the people who enabled and profited from your abuse will ever be brought to justice? That was the promise of Jackson’s lawyers: if you accuse Michael Jackson, we will destroy you and your family. How much money would it take for you to be willing to take those risks? Does it matter if your boss fires you or you have to change phone numbers every other week, if you actually have money enough to compensate for that? To hire a good lawyer to go up against that estate? So that’s a very rational possible reason for why accusers sold their stories: for the money. Because they have a good idea of what they’re up against, and what they’ll need to survive. They’ll need money.

   As for why Robson and Safechuck would sue for money, there too is a very rational reason that’s not easily dismissed when contemplated: justice. If their accusations are true, this abuse was enabled by Jackson’s staff, and it was enabled because it allowed his entourage to make their living. That means that they are complicit. Jackson is dead, there is no justice there. And there is a group of fans who will never want to believe anything bad about him, because he is sacred to them, so he’ll never be completely removed from his pedestal. But there are people right now who are wealthy because they covered up that abuse. And most of those people are part of the Jackson estate. Punishing them through their money, the thing they sold these children’s safety and well-being for, is a very rational thing to do.

   Elke, you claim: “That was the promise of Jackson’s lawyers: if you accuse Michael Jackson, we will destroy you and your family.” And yet the vast majority of people who sold (by now proven) false stories to tabloids were never sued. Why tell lies if you could also make big money by telling truthful stories about Michael Jackson’s alleged abusive behavior? Perhaps because there are no true stories in that respect? Some people admitted at the trial in 2005 that they changed their stories about the 1993 allegations only after being offered big money by tabloids. It would be naive to think that Michael Jackson, one of the richest celebrities in the world, would not fall victim to grifters. One of the very few people who got sued was Víctor Gutiérrez, and rightly so: he made it his life to destroy people (see FACTS TO CONSIDER WHEN WATCHING LEAVING NEVERLAND to find out more about all the horrible things he was involved in and convicted for). Consider the following from the Open Letter by the Schleiter children:

   “Over the years we were offered over a quarter million of Euros for interviews, but no money in the world could ever materialize a value that would stand above the value of our memories with Michael. This is the reason why we have never spoken a word publicly about our friendship.”

   Now take a look at the two cases of child sexual abuse during Michael Jackson’s lifetime. Compare them to the cases of Robson and Safechuck, and maybe you’ll see another pattern than “Michael Jackson grooming children into abuse”. I’ll quote again from the post at hand.

   Regarding the Jordan Chandler case of 1993, people should consider the following facts. Jordan Chandler’s parents are divorced. His father, Evan, is a Hollywood dentist who wants to make it in show business. He becomes very disgruntled with his ex-wife June, his son Jordan and Michael Jackson when they don’t sustain the level of communication he expects from them. In a lengthy taped phone conversation between Evan and David Schwartz (Jordan’s stepfather) Evan reveals his plans to “destroy ex-wife June and Michael Jackson” if they don’t return to his desired level of contact. Evan Chandler suggests his plan is to level allegations of child sexual abuse against Michael Jackson. If his ex-wife and Michael Jackson do re-establish contact with him, he promises not to go through with his plan. In other words, Evan Chandler clearly aims to blackmail Michael Jackson. Whatever really happens between Michael Jackson and his son is of no importance to him. When Michael Jackson resists Evan Chandler’s extortion attempts, Evan Chandler tries everything to force his son to level allegations of child sexual abuse against Michael Jackson. Jordan Chandler denies anything inappropriate ever happened between him and Michael Jackson multiple times, until he finally succumbs to the pressure of his father. Evan Chandler threatens to go public with the allegations if Michael Jackson refuses to pay a settlement. Michael Jackson indeed refuses, after which Evan seeks monetary compensations in an official civil case against Jackson. Michael Jackson and his legal team file for the criminal case to go before the civil case so he can clear his name, but to no avail. After the civil case is settled (for $15,331,250) in which an official document makes sure that this is not an admission of guilt on the part of Michael Jackson, Evan Chandler is no longer interested in pursuing criminal charges against Michael Jackson. The criminal case goes on, though, but is rejected by two different Grand Juries – in any case, Michael Jackson did not buy his way out of court!

   After the whole circus winds down, Jordan Chandler no longer wants anything to do with his parents anymore and files for legal emancipation. At the trial against Michael Jackson in 2005, his mother declares that she hadn’t been in contact with her son for 11 years. Jordan at some point even obtains a permanent restraining order against the father who had forced him to level allegations against Michael Jackson. If there is one manipulative, abusive person in this whole situation, it is indeed Jordan Chandler’s father Evan Chandler. Not only other people become the victim of his behavior. Eventually Evan Chandler commits suicide, a few months after Michael Jackson’s passing.

   The second case against Michael Jackson during his lifetime revolves around Gavin Arvizo, which culminates in the 2005 criminal trial. The Arvizo family turns out to have a history of (at times successful) extortion attempts. On August 27, 1998, when he is only eight years old, Gavin steals two school uniforms and two school uniform pants from a J.C. Penney department store. Strangely enough, the incident ends with a settlement between the Arvizo family and J.C. Penney in which the store pays the family $152,200. Janet Arvizo, the mother, claimed that she had been touched inappropriately by security guards. The file about the case clearly indicates her manipulative tactics.

   Apart from the Michael Jackson and the J.C. Penney cases, the Arvizos get also caught being involved in fraudulent and manipulative activities against actor and comedian Chris Tucker, comedian George Lopez, television host Jay Leno and editor Connie Keenan. Mother Janet Arvizo also committed welfare fraud.

   [see above]

   Surprise, surprise? Considering all the supportive testimonies of people who knew Michael Jackson when they were children, it is probably no coincidence that of all the alleged potential victims the only cases that came out were clearly non-credible extortion attempts.

   Concerning the cases of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, the pattern to seek monetary compensations for alleged abuse repeats itself. This is a fact. Moreover, Robson and Safechuck were also caught lying on multiple occasions regarding their cases, not only by investigative journalists, but also by judges. This is a fact. It is no coincidence that their cases were already thrown out of court twice. It is probably also no coincidence that Robson first made allegations when he was experiencing financial troubles and troubles regarding his career (he was not accepted as director for a Michael Jackson Cirque du Soleil tribute show). And it is probably also no coincidence that Safechuck “suddenly realized” that he had been abused by Michael Jackson only days after the Safechuck family business got sued for nearly a million dollars.

   Finally, what bothers me the most is that you try to want to defend the #MeToo movement (and I don’t doubt your intentions there) but you do it by doing the one thing that the movement tries to fight: discrediting accusors in order to protect the reputation of a powerful man. And I’m sure you didn’t even notice you were doing it.

   Elke, how on earth can you even describe Michael Jackson as a powerful man? He is dead. He cannot defend himself against the accusations that are now leveled against him by people who are backed by powerful institutions like HBO and Oprah Winfrey. You assume a lot that simply isn’t true about his so-called “power”.

   Michael Jackson’s properties got raided several times by police forces, his computers were meticulously investigated by the FBI, he barely had any privacy, his genitals were photographed by the police, tabloids continuously sought to publish scandalous stories about him (paying huge amounts of money for whoever wanted to tell a story), and he constantly had people around who wanted to take advantage of him (as is also testified by the Schleiters in their Open Letter). In 1993, during the first of two cases leveled against him during his lifetime, Michael Jackson and his legal team relentlessly tried to get the criminal trial ahead of the civil trial by filing motions, all of which were rejected by Judge David Rothman. California law at the time allowed the civil trial to go ahead of the criminal trial. Michael Jackson and his legal team lost four (yes, four) motions in their attempt to postpone the civil suit until the criminal proceedings were completed. In other words, Michael Jackson was eager to go to trial to clear his name, but he didn’t stand a chance. That’s how “powerful” he was.

   Even when Michael Jackson was acquitted on all counts in 2005 for a case that was actually too ridiculous to go to trial at all (see above why), he had to face the fact that many people still believed in his guilt. And (tabloid) media kept feeding that perception. Michael Jackson could never defend himself against the bulk of venomous tabloid vomit. Again, that’s how “powerful” he was. Some people keep thinking Michael Jackson was acquitted in the Arvizo case because of his power and money, without looking at the case itself and its ridiculousness. Leaving Neverland of course confirms that assumption (at first sight that is). And anyone who dares to consider even the possibility that Michael Jackson is innocent of the charges leveled against him, is arrogantly labeled “a crazy, irrational fan”. And yet people who are not a fan of Michael Jackson have spoken out against Leaving Neverland and have discredited the allegations by Robson and Safechuck.

   If the #MeToo movement wants us to accept that emotionally convincing cinematic productions by powerful media, launched to the world for big money, are more important to make decisions about a person’s guilt than the facts that are revealed through arduous and official investigative proceedings – selling the former as “rational” and the latter as “irrational” -, then the #MeToo movement will eventually be more about defending grifters than about defending real victims of (child) sexual abuse.

   That is not a world that I want to be a part of.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply
   • 
     erik buys · July 15, 2019

     Elke,

     I gave my replies to your comment in the comment itself. My answers are the texts with emphasis.

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • 
       Elke Verhelst · July 29, 2019

       1) Elke, you’re attacking a straw man. I’m not saying that the cases of Wade Robson and James Safechuck are only part of the #MeToo movement.

       Erik, I did not construct a straw man, I clearly said: “you seem to think it a fact that this case is only part of the #MeToo movement.” It was unclear to me whether or not you did this on purpose, out of ignorance or whether I had simply missed something in your writings.

       Elke, you keep holding on to your straw man. You write: “You seem to think it a fact that this case is only part of the #MeToo movement.” For once and for all: NO, I do not think that, and NO, I don’t even seem to think that as my post goes back to the first allegations in 1993.

       I also used this, quite clearly, as a way to frame the rest of my commentary by clearly defining the movement as I have know and followed it for 2 years now, so that it would be clear to you within which frame of reference my comments are made. This seems important to me before engaging in a reflection on logic coherence of an argument. It is not at all an attack.

       Again, what I do claim is that the renewed interest for the cases of Robson and Safechuck is a result of the #MeToo movement.

       I would urge you then, Erik, to listen to this podcast interview with the director of the documentary Leaving Neverland about how this documentary came about. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/dan-reed-michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland.html

       Elke, I quote Dan Reed in his own words from the interview you sent me:

       “At the outset, I had no special interest in Jackson. This project came about in a kind of random way and the timing is quite random.

       I wish I could say I’d set out to make a big difference in the #MeToo movement. […]

       [The project] came about through a casual conversation with a Channel 4 executive in the UK, and we were talking about what are the big stories out there that are slightly unresolved. […] I commissioned someone to do some research and they [sic] came up with this, I think it was like a foreign page reference to these two guys I’d never heard of, Wade Robson and James Safechuck.”

       Dan Reed then goes on to say that he met each of them only once before recording their stories.

       [On a side note, Reed’s personal “research” doesn’t look very impressive, and indeed as he said in another interview, he knows “very little” about Michael Jackson].

       I don’t hear Dan Reed say that he reached out to Wade and James before the #MeToo movement. He just says that this was not his primary angle. But still, this is a quote from the summary below the interview:

       “In the interview, Dan Reed reached out to Wade Robson and James Safechuck before #MeToo exploded, but its influence is clear.”

       So it’s a mixed bag. Clearly the airing of Leaving Neverland benefits from the context of the #MeToo era and it is understood (also by the podcast you sent me) as being influenced by the movement.

       2) Elke, this is a perverse argument. You’re in fact suggesting that the “collateral damage” of a few false allegations doesn’t outweigh the positive consequences of the #MeToo movement for real victims of sexual abuse. You’re in fact suggesting that it’s okay for a few lives to be destroyed if it helps the victims of sexual abuse.

       Yes, Erik, that is indeed what I wrote. I’m glad you understood me correctly. However, I would not be inclined to call my argument ‘perverse’. ‘Perverse’ suggests that I am somehow changing or upending a natural or moral order to things, which is the opposite of what I wrote.

       NO Elke, perverse in this context means “having an effect opposite to what is intended or expected” (closer to Latin “per-vertere”). Meaning: the #MeToo movement protects victims by allowing the creation of victims. But anyway, you go on…

       We are not discussing the ideal version of how we would want the world to be. We are discussing the reality of what the world is. Each system, however refined, opens itself up to loopholes and abuse. Yes, we should always strive to make a system function to the best of its abilities. We should also start by righting the most grievous wrongs.

       The reality of what the world is, is that for centuries, victims have been marginalized in order to protect the reputation and power of perpetrators. This is what I referred to as re-victimization in my original post. This is why so few victims of sexual abuse and child sexual abuse come forward: because they are unlikely to be believed, and quite likely to be first accused of lying or manipulation before they are taken seriously.

       #MeToo is the hegelian/marxist antithesis. It’s not the endgoal, it’s the revolution that upends the existing order. What if, instead of always being extra careful to examine the claims of abuse out of fear of ruining an accused’s reputation, we start by examining the claims without treating the accusers as liars, frauds and grifters? What if we #BelieveHer? It’s no coincidence that the resurgence of the term patriarchy in public (feminist) discourse goes hand in hand with the rise of the #MeToo movement.

       It’s quite ironic, Elke, that you want to deal with reality as it is while justifying the collateral damage of the #MeToo movement with a Hegelian/Marxist straight jacket. Anyway, no one said anything about not believing victims/accusers at first (straw man?). I, for one, first believed Robson and Safechuck after seeing Leaving Neverland. But after researching their and the previous two cases against Michael Jackson, I don’t believe them any more.

       That does not mean that a dismissal of the stories of falsely accused and perpetrators is inevitable. It simply means that this movement is revolutionary in its origins and essence, and means to literally reverse the existing situation: we demand to be seen and heard before the accused are, taken seriously before the accused are, because in overwhelming numbers we did not lie or exaggerate, and in overwhelming numbers we are dismissed or revictimized.

       As I stated in the first portion of my original comment: “The #MeToo movement started in 2017 as a way to make the many victims of sexual assault, sexual intimidation and rape visible in our society, as a way to show that Harvey Weinstein’s abuse is not an isolated incident but part of the way our society looks at women and women’s bodies, men and men’s sexuality, protects the powerful and incriminates victims in their victimhood.”

       And I inadvertently made a mistake, because I stepped into your frame instead of my own knowledge of the movement: it’s actually a lot older. If you haven’t already, you should definitely watch the founder’s TED-Talk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP3LaAYzA3Q

       What are you talking about? My frame about the movement? Really, what are you talking about?

       If you want to write about the possible death of a movement, or how to save this movement from a perceived problem, it seems important to me to accurately understand the aim and strategies of the movement. Perhaps you take issue with its intentions and goals, and I would understand this. I’ve had many conversations with men of my acquaintance about their (legitimate but over exaggerated) fear of being falsely accused. But in that case you should have written a critique of the movement and its goals and strategies, instead of creating a straw man yourself to defend.

       I understand the aim of the #MeToo movement. But by lending credibility to an HBO production about two alleged victims of Michael Jackson, it focuses on a highly questionable (eufemism), yet high profile case which does not bolster the credibility of victims as a whole – precisely because of the numerous problems with the stories in Leaving Neverland. Thus the movement weakens itself (per-vertere in the sense described above, again). And, again, Leaving Neverland is understood (see the summary of the podcast you sent me, among others) as being influenced by the movement.

       You literally claim that the #MeToo movement is a movement of polarization, of “us against them”. You indeed write: “the movement isn’t about them [the victims of false allegations], it’s about us [the victims of sexual abuse].”

       Actually, Erik, this is a straw man. I didn’t say it’s about us vs. them (which would be polarization as you noted), I said it’s about us, not them. Black Lives Matter isn’t against white victims of police violence, it’s just not about them. Civil rights movements for LGBTQ people aren’t against cishet people, it’s just not about them.

       If you want a movement that advocates for victims of false allegations, then research those, or start one. But this is not that movement. Again: you are creating a straw man by pretending the #MeToo movement is something you would like it to be, not something it is.

       You really don’t understand or don’t want to understand what I’m saying. I literally wrote that the #MeToo movement SHOULD concern itself with the victims of false allegations. This implies that it DOES NOT concern itself with those victims. So I understand the movement perfectly well. Now, why should it concern itself with those victims of false allegations? Because the #MeToo movement wants to preoccupy itself with victims of sexual abuse, and that’s why it should not bolster frauds (but true victims). Right now it is bolstering frauds who take millions of energy, both mentally and financially, of a society (see the Carl Beech case in the UK; as you said, the #MeToo movement is a lot older than 2017, isn’t it?).

       However, it is a polarizing movement. Except the ‘them’ is the perpetrators and enablers of sexual assault and sexual violence. It’s a similar discussion to the one about culpability and apology in the Church: for decades society at large and the Church specifically have chosen to ignore, neglect, buy off or demonize accusers and protect its own reputation by protecting the accused. In the current reckoning regarding (child) sexual abuse in the Church, we see the same polarization. Does that mean that in the future a new compassion and understanding for perpetrators is something that cannot and should not be worked towards? No, it doesn’t. It merely means that right now we need to reverse the way we look at these cases completely, shift the balance so we can right these old and new wrongs.

       Okay, Elke, I take you at your word.

       ELKE, YOU WRITE: “THE ‘THEM’ IS THE PERPETRATORS AND ENABLERS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE.”

       HIGH PROFILE CASES THAT TURN OUT TO BE TOO RIDICULOUS TO BE TRUE, CONTAINING A MYRIAD OF PROVABLE LIES, HURT THE OVERALL CREDIBILITY OF THE VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE.

       OVER MEDIATIZED CASES, LIKE THE CASES AROUND ACCUSER CARL BEECH OR LIKE THE CASE AROUND THE ACCUSED BUT INNOCENT SIMON WARR, CREATE A CULTURE WHEREIN REAL PERPETRATORS CAN SHED DOUBT ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF REAL VICTIMS.

       BY NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED ABOUT A PERSON’S GUILT IN A COURT OF LAW, AND BY ALLOWING A HIGH PROFILE MEDIA FRENZY REGARDING TWO ALLEGED VICTIMS WHOSE CASES WERE ALREADY DISMISSED TWICE BY A JUDGE, ONE FURTHER PARTICIPATES IN THE CREATION OF A CULTURE OF DOUBT CONCERNING THE ALLEGATIONS OF VICTIMS.

       THUS, IF THE #METOO MOVEMENT REFUSES TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HOW AN ALLEGED HIGH PROFILE PERPETRATOR WAS ACQUITTED (AND SIMPLY, LAZILY REFERS TO THE ALLEGED POWER OF THE ACCUSED AND HIS “GOOD LAWYERS”) AND ALLOWS FOR NEW ACCUSATIONS TO BE MADE WITH EASILY PROVEN LIES AND HUGE MONETARY DEMANDS, THEN THE #METOO MOVEMENT IS ITSELF AN ENABLER OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND VIOLENCE (AS PERPETRATORS ONCE AGAIN CAN HIDE BEHIND A VEIL OF DOUBT).

       THAT’S WHY THE #METOO MOVEMENT SHOULD BE VERY TROUBLED ABOUT A FILM LIKE LEAVING NEVERLAND. IF IT IS NOT TROUBLED, THEN THE #METOO MOVEMENT IS SIMPLY, HOWEVER TRAGICALLY, ONE MORE ENABLER OF THE RAPE CULTURE IT IS TRYING TO FIGHT.

       AS ACCUSED BUT OFFICIALLY ACQUITTED PERSONS TESTIFY, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE PEOPLE WHO SIMPLY DON’T BELIEVE ONE WAS INNOCENT. THIS MAKES IT VERY EASY FOR FRAUDS TO LAUNCH NEW ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SOMEONE WHO WAS ACQUITTED BUT STILL SUFFERS FROM A BAD REPUTATION, ESPECIALLY IF THAT PERSON IS NO LONGER HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF.

       And what’s with the straw man again? You write: “That, what you write here, is a part of rape culture: we must, at all costs, avoid making false accusations. It doesn’t actually matter that this makes us assume the worst about everyone stepping forward to launch a complaint.” Apart from being a straw man, that’s also a non-sequitur (an illogical leap). The concern to investigate the veracity and credibility of allegations does not imply assuming the worst about everyone stepping forward to launch a complaint. It is a way to focus time, money, energy and resources on the real victims of child sexual abuse rather than on frauds who try to abuse the movement (and the real victims!). That’s why the #MeToo movement should be concerned about the victims of false allegations.

       First of all, Erik, I don’t see the straw man. You literally write, once again by the way, about “real victims” as opposed to “frauds who try to abuse the movement” in an effort to “focus time, money, energy and resources”. An integral part of rape culture is a focus on weeding out false accusations from real accusations, if necessary by public re-victimization. For a case study on this, you might want to read about Anita Hill’s testimony (or start easy by watching her interview with John Oliver here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHiAls8loz4). So that is literally what you wrote. This implies that the frauds are so numerous, that they form an actual drain on our time, money and resources. This is why I gave you the stats: no, they do not. The overwhelming majority of cases are not false accusations. The number of grifters, frauds etc… is less than 1% of known statistics (and that means it’s even less, because most people don’t press charges).

       The problem is, Elke, that less than 1% is often high profile (Carl Beech, Wade Robson/James Safechuck) and they do take a disproportionate amount of time, energy and money (the Carl Beech case took a scandalous amount). By the way, I’ve seen other stats than that less than 1%, but okay. Your “this implies that the frauds are so numerous” is an implication you make, and thus once again a straw man. Also, see my answer in capital letters above.

       It’s also not a non sequitur, only a hasty formulation of a longer, well-known argument that I assumed you were familiar with due to you stating elsewhere you had researched this for two months. For both our benefits, I will write it in full.

       If we must at all costs avoid making a false accusations, then this means no cost is too high. This also includes the cost to the accuser: the clinical physical examination often done without an officer or nurse trained in sexual assault cases present, the lengthy interviews with accusers running through each step of their assault over and over (and over) with different interviewers present, the in-depth research into the (sexual) habits and background of the accuser, the public trial where intimate details of the accusers sex life, sexual habits, social habits as well as the rape are weighed against their probability and possibility, the re-victimization by media, etc… Since the body is the scene of the crime, the body is held under a microscope. Victims are publicly called promiscuous, a tease, a fraud, manipulative, drunk, etc…

       Elke, this part of your comment makes me think of The Accused, a movie wherein Jodie Foster plays Sarah Tobias who was gang-raped. The story is loosely based on the case of Cheryl Ann Araujo (1961-1986). Araujo became the victim of gang rape in 1983. The lawyers for the defence argued that she had somehow “seduced” her attackers. In short, this case is a clear example of victim blaming. I refer to the film and the case in my courses: https://mimeticmargins.com/2018/03/27/een-kruis-over-religie/

       So, you are absolutely right about pointing this all out. Knowing how gruesome it is for victims to tell their story in detail over and over beyond their inner circle, it is striking how in the cases of Robson and Safechuck (certainly in the case of Robson) both men have been telling their story over and over and over again in the past 6 years – publicly. In the case of Robson it seems that he willingly told his story publicly numerous times. After all, Robson first tried to shop a book deal with his story of abuse that no publisher wanted. He only filed a lawsuit afterwards. After which he told his story publicly in the Today Show, and so on. And now, finally, after his case was dismissed already twice, he once again told his story in Leaving Neverland. The recognition he receives now as a victim from powerful institutions like HBO and Oprah Winfrey apparently is still not enough. He filed for the third time, adding new elements to his story and contradicting previous versions, in order to be able to also make a monetary claim.

       Bear in mind that we know for a fact that almost all of these accusers are real victims. We are talking about less than 1% who are falsely accused.
       The focus in this process is not, and never was, on the victims. Only in very rare circumstances, like extreme child sexual abuse, are accusers actually shielded by the judicial system from this re-victimization and allowed to testify from another room, for instance, or with their testimonies pre-taped.
       If we must at all costs avoid making false accusations, then none of this trauma matters. It’s a cost well worth paying. That is what I said, and it actually follows from the initial premise, as you can see. So not a non sequitur either.

       Again, Elke, the #MeToo movement should be severely troubled about a trial by media that does not take into account, not in any way, how the guilt/acquittal in a high profile case is established. For the reasons given above (once again, see my answer in capital letters). This does not mean that victims and their allegations aren’t taken seriously. On the contrary, both Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo had the opportunity to press criminal charges against Michael Jackson. Jordan Chandler refused to testify in a criminal case in 1993 and in 2005, but he was taken seriously.

       In 2005 Jackson’s lawyer Tom Mesereau had witnesses willing to testify that Chandler confided in them that nothing ever happened and that he was forced by his father to make the allegations. If you know the case and also the extortion tapes of Jordan’s father Evan Chandler, this comes as no surprise at all. It is also no surprise that Jordan filed for legal emancipation from his parents and that his mother testified in 2005 she hadn’t spoken to her son in 11 years. It is also no surprise that Jordan even got a restraining order against his abusive father at some point – the father who forced him to make the allegations in the first place. This is how Tom Mesereau sums it up in a lecture for Harvard Law School in 2005 in 30 seconds (referring to the fact that Jordan Chandler didn’t show up to testify in 2005):

       Gavin Arvizo’s allegations were also taken seriously. So the attention was on the alleged victim in 2005. But really, if the case hadn’t been about Michael Jackson, the prosecution’s case would have been considered too ridiculous to be taken seriously. As Rolling Stone concluded at the time after describing the prosecution’s case: “None of it makes any sense.” Indeed. Read the above blogpost again where the Arvizo case is summarized (twice, once in the middle and once at the end of the post).

       Statistics give information on a certain level, but at some point you must look at the specific cases at hand and the judicial process through which guilt or innocence is established. Mind you that Michael Jackson was not acquitted on procedural errors in 2005. He was acquitted because the whole case turned out to be bogus. And I challenge everyone to go through the court documents and see for themselves. The prosecution’s case was ridiculous from the get-go, though, and the accusers had a recorded and proven history of false allegations.

       I guess we need the statistics of the less than 1% in this case.

       The #MeToo movement demands attention to victims. Taking that attention away, diverting it to the accused in order to avoid false accusations and thus damage to the reputation of the accused is part of what we call rape culture.

       Well, Elke, as is clear by now the alleged victims of Michael Jackson had the attention of the media, the general public, the judicial system, psychological mentors and law enforcement for years. Again I refer to my answer in capital letters above why the attention for these specific high profile cases participates in a re-victimization of real victims.

       3) Elke, really, a third straw man? Your dishonesty is getting tiring.

       First of all, your conclusion that the fact that you see me argue against a straw man means I’m dishonest, is in itself not logical at all. I might be stupid, not fluent enough in English to understand your writings or not good enough in philosophy to make a cogent argument. In fact, your inference from your interpreting my arguments as straw men (up to now, I have shown how this is incorrect), is and ad hominem, as you are well aware.

       Okay, Elke, sorry for my inference. As you continue to show, you indeed do not seem to understand my argument at all (but, once more, read the summary of my argument in the comment in capital letters above). You were not being dishonest.

       I clearly write: “I will wholeheartedly admit that this doesn’t mean that Michael Jackson didn’t molest any other children.”

       In the context of a lengthy post reasoning that the multitude of people stepping forward to claim they were not abused somehow has any kind of bearing on whether or not those stepping forward to say they were abused are credible or should be treated as credible, this is meaningless. It’s the sophist equivalent of saying I’m not a racist because I love my baker Mohamed, but look at these 100 Moroccans who are clearly morons. Being intimately acquainted with the works of Sam Harris, I find that it’s more important to read what someone writes, rather than simply take for granted what they say they wrote.
       And this is what you did write:

       “Considering all the supportive testimonies of people who knew Michael Jackson when they were children, it is probably no coincidence that of all the alleged potential victims the only [two] cases that came out [during Michael Jackson’s lifetime] were clearly non-credible extortion attempts.”

       Thank you for handily quoting it for me. See, what you write here is: “Considering all these kids saying nothing happened, it’s no surprise that we don’t believe these two who say something did happen.”

       Elke, NO NO NO NO!!! That’s NOT AT ALL what I’m saying. I’ll take your word that you aren’t willfully dishonest in the presentation of my argument. I’ll try to explain myself better.

       Dan Reed believes that Michael Jackson was a serial pedophile, as is also claimed by Wade Robson. There are a number of people who clearly qualify as potential victims because they slept in the same room as Jackson and had a close relationship with him (Jackson could have “groomed” them). Other children, who visited Neverland Ranch under the guidance of others and as a group (often with Michael Jackson absent at the time) less easily qualify. The majority of people who qualify as potential victims have testified that they never experienced any abuse by Michael Jackson. This does not fit the pattern of the serial pedophile Dan Reed and others are so eager to establish. So what about the exceptions, the people who did level allegations against Michael Jackson? Are their stories credible? Well, they are not, for the reasons established by a criminal trial and arduous investigations over more than 10 years – see also above about the Chandler and Arvizo cases.

       NOTE that already for the 1993 case at least about 50 children were questioned by the police (some sources claim up to 100). The prosecution even sought potential victims and witnesses in Canada and the Philippines.

       The pattern of the serial pedophile that Dan Reed, Wade Robson and others try to establish should then be further investigated, since the most important element – numerous molested children – is absent. Do the different elements that constitute the typical pattern of the serial child sexual abuser correspond to actual facts? As court documents show, the different elements do not uphold themselves under scrutiny.

       In short, the pattern of the serial pedophile is not confirmed by factual evidence in the case of Michael Jackson (although Leaving Neverland surely tries to, but whenever it refers to so-called factual evidence, the actual facts contradict the allegations). Is there another pattern? Well, the cases in 1993 and 2005 were clearly succesful/unsuccesful extortion attempts (in the latter case because by 2005 a monetary settlement of a civil case could only happen after a criminal trial, unlike the law in 1993). What about the cases of Robson and Safechuck? Well, despite the lies established in a courtroom already twice, and despite the judge reprimanding Robson that “no rational fact-finder could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statement”, Robson files for a third time, again demanding huge monetary compensations – changing his story for the umptieth time in the process. There was not a word about the history of his allegations in Leaving Neverland. Neither was the fact mentioned that Safechuck “suddenly realized” he was abused when he saw Robson on television, only days after the Safechuck family business got sued for nearly a million dollars. This could be all coincidences, of course. As could be the fact that Robson filed a lawsuit after he was refused the direction over a Cirque du Soleil Michael Jackson tribute show, and he experienced financial difficulties (he sold his house).

       You accept these positive testimonies regarding Jackson’s presumed innocence of any wrongdoing as factual and truthful. You write about ‘taking these statements seriously’, but then… don’t do this for the statements of those who say something different? How is it that you spend so much time poring over the negative testimonies to find whether or not they’re credible, but with the positive ones you merely… quote them? Why did they not warrant similar scrutiny?

       Elke, what do you suggest then? That we should try to prove that Michael Jackson did molest Brett Barnes, Karlee Barnes, Omer Bhatti (O-Bee), Aaron Carter, Eddie Cascio, Frank Cascio, Kevin Macaulay Culkin, Bela Farkas, Corey Feldman, Brandi Jackson, Taj Jackson, Sean Lennon, Harriet Lester, Emmanuel Lewis, William Ray Norwood Jr. (Ray J), Danny Oliver, Kelley Parker, Alfonso Ribeiro, David Rothenberg (Dave Dave), Anton Schleiter, Franziska Schleiter? Despite them saying the opposite?

       Let me ask you a question: why should I believe the testimonies of proven liars like Blanca Francia and Mariano “Mark” Quindoy? They are Wade’s “witnesses” in his lawsuit. Read more about them here: https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2018/05/12/wades-witnesses-part-1/

       Why should I believe someone like Wade Robson, who lied in his lawsuit to get around the statute of limitations in order to be able to make monetary demands? Why should I believe the man who was reprimanded by the judge because of his lies?

       Why should I believe someone like James Safechuck, who convincingly told a story about being abused several times in the room of a train station that didn’t exist at the time of the alleged abuse? The earliest possibility of being abused there would have been when Safechuck was around 17-18 years old, since it was only then that he visited Neverland again when Michael Jackson was around.

       Dan Reed claims that the abuse did take place in the train station. But that destroys the narrative Reed himself defends in Leaving Neverland, as the film claims that Jackson lost interest in boys when they reached adolescence. Mind you, Jackson didn’t cut the ties with Safechuck for a “replacement” (look up, for instance, the pictures of him with Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley in Hungary; Presley also defended her ex-husband after their divorce and also after his death).

       Why should I believe people like Víctor Gutiérrez, a multiple convicted tabloid journalist of the worst kind? Why should I believe people like Diane Dimond, who once described video footage of a boy being molested by Michael Jackson but never saw the actual video? She claimed a “reliable source” was in possession of that video, that source being Gutiérrez. When push came to shove, however, he couldn’t deliver the video. Why? Because it simply didn’t exist! Apart from being convicted in the States, Gutiérrez was also convicted in his homeland Chile. This is the man who once paid a street kid to make allegations of a pedophile ring against some politicians in Chile. The street kid confessed it. His lawyer claimed Gutiérrez only gave money to the boy “out of charity” but not to “bribe” him. Yeah, right.

       And if you don’t know why I’m referring to Víctor Gutiérrez and Diane Dimond regarding the cases of Chandler, Arvizo, Robson and Safechuck, then I must conclude that you almost know nothing about the allegations against Michael Jackson at all.

       Because you don’t make a similar deep dive into the credibility of these testimonials, you imply that the mere existence of them and the relative quantity of them should somehow speak to the veracity of these other claims. If that is not why you include them, then why include them at all. Clearly you seem to think they mean something. If they do not mean to reinforce the idea that these other accusations are false, then why are they there?

       As I explained above, these testimonies debunk an important element of the pattern of the classic “serial pedophile”. They were the children who qualify as potential victims (not the children who visited Neverland on a school trip for one day, en masse and under the constant guidance of supervisors).

       (Note that you frame them as non-credible extortion attempts, which is exactly what I said happens to accusers when the focus is on preventing harm to the reputation of the accused.)

       Elke, I didn’t “frame” the three taped phone conversations between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz, now did I? I didn’t “frame” the fact that Jordan Chandler demanded legal emancipation from his parents after the 1993 case and even had a restraining order against his abusive father, now did I? I didn’t “frame” the book by Evan’s brother and Jordan’s uncle Ray, wherein Ray describes the tactics Evan used to force a “confession” of his son, now did I?

       I didn’t “frame” the prosecution’s case of 2005, which was described as “not making any sense” by Rolling Stone and every other sane person who looked into the case, now did I? I didn’t “frame” the fact that the Arvizos had a recorded, proven and testified history of extortion attempts, now did I?

       You claim that it is reasonable to assume that Michael Jackson actually abused 20 to 30 children at most. Where are they?

       I did not say that I know of 20 or 30 children who were abused, I merely said it was reasonable to assume.

       4) Elke… Sigh. Straw man, again. Where do I completely reject the possibility that a jury verdict could ever be wrong? Where? Tell me. I only claim that in this case, the 2005 trial against Michael Jackson, the jury came to the right decision.

       Erik, you see straw men everywhere – but so far, you’ve imagined them all. At most what I did was draw a conclusion from the absence of any indication that you acknowledge this possibility. But please, point me to the paragraph in your text where you state clearly that you take into account the possibility that these verdicts were incorrect. I will probably have missed it.

       Elke, I’ve imagined them all? We must agree to disagree (see above). Okay, I’m repeating my question: where do I completely reject the possibility that a jury verdict could ever be wrong? Your question as a reply: “please, point me to the paragraph in your text where you state clearly that you take into account the possibility that these verdicts were incorrect.” This reply is somewhat besides the point (and, depending on your intentions it could be yet another straw man), but okay, let’s be fair. You have to know the history of my investigations. In the current post I refer to the previous blogpost (FACTS TO CONSIDER WHEN WATCHING “LEAVING NEVERLAND”) where I clearly write:

       “After seeing Leaving Neverland, I thought Michael Jackson lucked out during his lifetime for not having been convicted of child sexual abuse. I wanted to know how he lucked out, so I started reading. Gradually, I came across one surprise after another, and now I find it very hard to believe the allegations. The following article is a result of those surprises.”

       As I assumed that Michael Jackson “lucked out” during his lifetime, I equally assumed that the jury verdict was wrong in 2005.

       5) Elke, I don’t know if I should laugh or cry now. Can you make one argument without using a straw man?

       Yes, Erik, I did so for a great number of paragraphs now.

       Elke, your self-confidence in this regard is not at all warranted (see above).

       But a broken clocks must be correct twice a day, so here is your first lucky strike: I did not look at the publication date of your article. I would argue that a straw man is a willful manipulation of discourse, but whatever: I was wrong about this one.

       Claims should not be accepted on the basis of authority, but on the basis of facts. That’s one of the positive achievements of the Enlightenment.

       But I too can be pedantic: it’s actually the achievement of the renaissance to no longer use authority in pursuit of knowledge. I know this because I helped one of my 4th graders study for her history exam.

       Okay :), haha, you’re right about that.

       The question to determine Michael Jackson’s guilt should not be whether or not the stories of Wade Robson and James Safechuck “fit the pattern” of child sexual abuse. The question should be whether or not the different elements of their stories, which constitute that pattern of child sexual abuse, are actual facts as opposed to lies.

       So you are saying that the fact that the stories they tell in great detail fits the pattern of child sexual abuse to a t should be dismissed, because it’s not a fact? It could be lie?

       Nope, Elke, no. That’s not what I’m saying, but I won’t accuse you of yet another straw man. I’m not saying “it could be a lie”. I’m saying that the elements that constitute the pattern of child sexual abuse are there in the film, but they are not representing the reality of the situation.

       I could go on for hours now, but almost every statement in Leaving Neverland is contradicted by facts. I will name only a few, because it would take us too far.

       For instance, Safechuck’s mother Stephanie claims that Michael Jackson bought her a house after her son James testified on Michael’s behalf in the Chandler case. Actually, it was a loan that Jackson granted the Safechucks in 1992 (well before the Chandlers made their allegations) and he cancelled their debt in 1997 (because they were unable to pay).

       Another example. Wade Robson claims he was abused “hundreds of times” by Michael Jackson in an interview for BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire programme. The problem is that Robson didn’t meet Jackson that often, and certainly not in situations where he was completely alone with the pop star. Wade’s mother Joy testified this at the trial in 2005, and she repeated it in 2016 regarding her son’s case that began in 2013. The following is, for instance, what she says about the visits of her family to Neverland between 1991 and 1993. It is taken from the Deposition Transcript of Lynette Joy Robson – September 30, 2016; see page 52 of the pdf: https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/joy-robson-deposition-extracts.pdf):

       “We have stayed there [Neverland Ranch] maybe four or five times [from September 1991 to July of ’93], not many, but never with Michael. […] He was there in the June/July visit, but that was the only one.”

       So between 1991 and 1993 Michael Jackson was only in Neverland together with the Robsons in June/July 1993, according to Joy Robson.

       If you really start counting the testified number of meetings between the Robsons and Michael Jackson (in Neverland or elsewhere), and the number of times Jackson could have been alone with Wade, it is simply impossible that Jackson molested Wade “hundreds of times”. Moreover, the majority of the times that the Robsons visited Neverland, also after 1993, Jackson himself was almost never there. Joy Robson testified this several times already.

       Part of the narrative in Leaving Neverland is also that Michael Jackson was jealous of Wade Robson having relationships. The problem is that Michael’s niece Brandi Jackson was in a relationship with Wade for almost ten years, and that the relationship began when they were 10. Brandi says that Wade had developed a crush on her and that he had asked her uncle to set up a new meeting, which he did. So what about that so-called “jealousy”? Also, Wade spent far more time with Brandi, also in Neverland, than he would ever spend with Michael.

       And then there is the story about the “grooming process” of Wade. Once again, Michael Jackson never contacted the Robsons initially (and also later on). It was Joy Robson who tried everything to create a bond with Michael Jackson as she was eager to advance the career of her son. There is ample evidence of this that you can find elsewhere (I’m getting tired).

       See, this is what I meant with re-victimization and thinking the worst of accusers. This is exactly what the #MeToo movement goes against. This is why I concluded that without knowing it and with what I assume are the best of intentions, you are reinforcing patterns of rape culture in your writings.

       Well, as I wrote before, I started out assuming the accusers were telling the truth. I’ll repeat what I wrote in my first blogpost about Leaving Neverland:

       After seeing Leaving Neverland, I thought Michael Jackson lucked out during his lifetime for not having been convicted of child sexual abuse. I wanted to know how he lucked out, so I started reading. Gradually, I came across one surprise after another, and now I find it very hard to believe the allegations. The following article is a result of those surprises.

       A “pattern” is a way to approach reality. It is not reality itself. Knowledge of a pattern can be used by deceivers to “sell” a story as “truth”.

       This completely disregards the fact that psychology and psychiatry are sciences, and where they are descriptive rather than speculative or predictive in nature, they reveal patterns that are not ‘ways to approach reality’ but rather scientifically described ways a certain mental disorder or psychological act develops itself. The fact that someone with depression lies in bed, doesn’t brush their teeth, has sleep paralysis and doesn’t feel like doing much, isn’t ‘a way to approach reality’, it’s the way the disease unfolds. The person can lie about being depressed, sure, but we do not immediately first assume that they are lying because they fit the pattern so well.
       Also, Ockham’s razor.

       I’m not disregarding the fact that psychology and psychiatry are sciences. I’m suggesting that you can make a movie about whatever disease without the actors being sick in reality. And I do believe, for reasons mentioned above and elsewhere, that Leaving Neverland is a work of largely fiction.

       6) Elke, you claim: “That was the promise of Jackson’s lawyers: if you accuse Michael Jackson, we will destroy you and your family.” And yet the vast majority of people who sold (by now proven) false stories to tabloids were never sued. Why tell lies if you could also make big money by telling truthful stories about Michael Jackson’s alleged abusive behavior?

       I don’t see how what you write dismisses or discredits what I wrote, Erik.

       Elke, you probably refer to yet another contested segment of Leaving Neverland. Mark Geragos, one of Michael Jackson’s lawyers, claims that his words were taken out of context. His defence is quite lame, though. But back on topic: the majority of people who accused Jackson in tabloids were not “destroyed” by Jackson’s lawyers, and neither was their family.

       Perhaps because there are no true stories in that respect?
       

       Perhaps. But like I said, you are writing about #MeToo. The entire purpose of the movement is to no longer say ‘perhaps these are lies’ but to say ‘perhaps this is true’ and to treat accusers and accusations as such. So within the context of your writings, you are once again showing that you follow traditional patterns of dealing with accusers and victims, rather than adhering to the way the movement works. And since you seem to be writing as a way to warn the movement of imminent doom, I can only once again infer that you do not know the movement or are defending your own straw man version of it.

       Well Elke, we’re repeating ourselves here. Once again, every case against Michael Jackson was taken seriously by the judicial system, by police force, the FBI, by Children Protective Services etc. Hence the numerous investigations. Also on a personal note, remember the quote of what I wrote before:

       “After seeing Leaving Neverland, I thought Michael Jackson lucked out during his lifetime for not having been convicted of child sexual abuse. I wanted to know how he lucked out, so I started reading. Gradually, I came across one surprise after another, and now I find it very hard to believe the allegations. The following article is a result of those surprises.”

       Concerning the cases of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, the pattern to seek monetary compensations for alleged abuse repeats itself. This is a fact. Moreover, Robson and Safechuck were also caught lying on multiple occasions regarding their cases, not only by investigative journalists, but also by judges. This is a fact. It is no coincidence that their cases were already thrown out of court twice. It is probably also no coincidence that Robson first made allegations when he was experiencing financial troubles and troubles regarding his career (he was not accepted as director for a Michael Jackson Cirque du Soleil tribute show). And it is probably also no coincidence that Safechuck “suddenly realized” that he had been abused by Michael Jackson only days after the Safechuck family business got sued for nearly a million dollars.

       An accuser is stripped of all possible goodwill and scrutinized through a magnifying glass. Can you at least recognize, Erik, if only for yourself, that you are doing exactly what I described people do with accusers? That this is exactly the re-victimization I talked about? And can you then at least concede that it is logical of me to not think you an ally to the movement that wants to stop us from doing this to accusers, publicly and mercilessly, but rather opposed to it?

       Do you know any person whose life has been held under a magnifying glass like Michael Jackson’s life? We know what his genitals looked like, we know what porn sites he visited, what he had in his bedroom, and so on (for more, read this article: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/no-child-porn-found-at-neverland-thenor-now-the_b_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8). He was researched, on and off by police and FBI, for over a decade. The court documents about the cases against him are available to everybody, with every single detail of his private life exposed.

       This is not part of the solution that the #MeToo movement stands for, this is part of the problem. Now, again, you may have problems with the movement and what it stands for, but that is not what you’re writing about. Please look at the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford, and president Donald Trump’s reaction (she was drunk, she doesn’t remember much, she remembers odd details) to see this re-victimization in action. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ7ovA37u-0

       No, part of the problem of rape culture is that people who are held under a magnifying glass like no other, who went to trial for a ludicrous case and were (of course!) acquitted on all counts are still being “raped” by proven liars (with proven liars like Blanca Francia and Mariano “Mark” Quindoy as “witnessess”). These proven liars, already reprimanded by a judge, can count on the bad reputation of the accused and the empathy of a #MeToo movement that – apparently – doesn’t care about fair trials. The trial in 2005 wasn’t fair to begin with.

       That’s why I repeat the following.

       HIGH PROFILE CASES THAT TURN OUT TO BE TOO RIDICULOUS TO BE TRUE, CONTAINING A MYRIAD OF PROVABLE LIES, HURT THE OVERALL CREDIBILITY OF THE VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE. OVER MEDIATIZED CASES, LIKE THE CASES AROUND ACCUSER CARL BEECH OR LIKE THE CASE AROUND THE ACCUSED BUT INNOCENT SIMON WARR, CREATE A CULTURE WHEREIN REAL PERPETRATORS CAN SHED DOUBT ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF REAL VICTIMS. BY NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED ABOUT A PERSON’S GUILT IN A COURT OF LAW, AND BY ALLOWING A HIGH PROFILE MEDIA FRENZY REGARDING TWO ALLEGED VICTIMS WHOSE CASES WERE ALREADY DISMISSED TWICE BY A JUDGE, ONE FURTHER PARTICIPATES IN THE CREATION OF A CULTURE OF DOUBT CONCERNING THE ALLEGATIONS OF VICTIMS. THUS, IF THE #METOO MOVEMENT REFUSES TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HOW AN ALLEGED HIGH PROFILE PERPETRATOR WAS ACQUITTED (AND SIMPLY, LAZILY REFERS TO THE ALLEGED POWER OF THE ACCUSED AND HIS “GOOD LAWYERS”) AND ALLOWS FOR NEW ACCUSATIONS TO BE MADE WITH EASILY PROVEN LIES AND HUGE MONETARY DEMANDS, THEN THE #METOO MOVEMENT IS ITSELF AN ENABLER OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND VIOLENCE (AS PERPETRATORS ONCE AGAIN CAN HIDE BEHIND A VEIL OF DOUBT). THAT’S WHY THE #METOO MOVEMENT SHOULD BE VERY TROUBLED ABOUT A FILM LIKE LEAVING NEVERLAND. IF IT IS NOT TROUBLED, THEN THE #METOO MOVEMENT IS SIMPLY, HOWEVER TRAGICALLY, ONE MORE ENABLER OF THE RAPE CULTURE IT IS TRYING TO FIGHT.

       AS ACCUSED BUT OFFICIALLY ACQUITTED PERSONS TESTIFY, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE PEOPLE WHO SIMPLY DON’T BELIEVE ONE WAS INNOCENT. THIS MAKES IT VERY EASY FOR FRAUDS TO LAUNCH NEW ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SOMEONE WHO WAS ACQUITTED BUT STILL SUFFERS FROM A BAD REPUTATION, ESPECIALLY IF THAT PERSON IS NO LONGER HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF.

       7) Elke, how on earth can you even describe Michael Jackson as a powerful man? He is dead. He cannot defend himself against the accusations that are now leveled against him by people who are backed by powerful institutions like HBO and Oprah Winfrey. You assume a lot that simply isn’t true about his so-called “power”.

       As you very well know Erik, being a religious studies master yourself, power is not a static thing, nor is it something that can only be exerted by a living person over living people. Power is systemic and dynamic. MJ’s empire is still an empire, and a lot of people still gain in many different ways from his position as a musical legend, a pop icon and a philanthropist. Moreover his power is in the symbolic realm as well. He holds power as a symbol of the American Dream, of the race issues in the US as well as abroad, of many people’s hopes and aspirations. He’s rightfully called one of the last great superstars. The fact that fans are willing to pay money to discredit accusers on the side of a bus, shows the power he still holds.

       So you see, I’m not assuming anything. You are merely thinking too narrowly about what powerful means in the context of patriarchy.

       Okay Elke, do you really think that I don’t know all that? You refer to my reference of Michael Jackson holding power over “(crazy) fans” yourself, below.

       Michael Jackson’s properties got raided several times by police forces, his computers were meticulously investigated by the FBI, he barely had any privacy, his genitals were photographed by the police, tabloids continuously sought to publish scandalous stories about him (paying huge amounts of money for whoever wanted to tell a story), and he constantly had people around who wanted to take advantage of him (as is also testified by the Schleiters in their Open Letter).

       I should take this Open Letter at face value, Erik, without putting it to the same scrutiny you have put the accusers to?

       Be my guest, Elke, prove that all these people are liars regarding Michael Jackson (maybe it is as easily done as the lies the judges discovered in Robson’s and Safechuck’s lawsuits): Brett Barnes, Karlee Barnes, Omer Bhatti (O-Bee), Aaron Carter, Eddie Cascio, Frank Cascio, Kevin Macaulay Culkin, Bela Farkas, Corey Feldman, Brandi Jackson, Taj Jackson, Sean Lennon, Harriet Lester, Emmanuel Lewis, William Ray Norwood Jr. (Ray J), Danny Oliver, Kelley Parker, Alfonso Ribeiro, David Rothenberg (Dave Dave), Anton Schleiter, Franziska Schleiter.
       

       Also: aside from the latter two, all of these things seem normal to me in the course of a sexual assault investigation, do you not think so? You seem to think that a powerful man would escape the law indefinitely. This is not what I said. I merely stated that you were doing what the #MeToo movement rebels against: discrediting accusers in order to protect the reputation of a powerful man. The fact that he was investigated and cleared, does not mean that this is not what you are doing.

       And anyone who dares to consider even the possibility that Michael Jackson is innocent of the charges levelled against him, is arrogantly labeled “a crazy, irrational fan”.

       Erik, now you are arguing a straw man. Where did I say that?

       Elke, I was quoting from my post. And no, the post is not directed at Elke Verhelst exclusively.

       If the #MeToo movement wants us…

       Who’s polarizing now, Erik? The frame of your writings seems to imply that you want to ‘save’ the movement, further implying some sort of affinity with it or a moral sympathy for it. But now it’s us vs. the movement? We need to be convinced of something?

       If the #MeToo movement wants us to accept that emotionally convincing cinematic productions by powerful media, launched to the world for big money, are more important to make decisions about a person’s guilt than the facts that are revealed through arduous investigative proceedings – selling the former as “rational” and the latter as “irrational” -, then the #MeToo movement will eventually be more about defending grifters than about defending real victims of (child) sexual abuse. That is not a world that I want to be a part of.

       See, once again, you show that you do not understand the movement at all. In fact, the first part of your statement could have been an interesting thesis: what is the best way to tell these stories? Should that even matter? And is telling the stories the same as laying blame or talking about guilt.
       But then you launch into ad hominem hyperbole, which show that you don’t understand and/or completely disagree with the movement. I assume you saw Oprah Winfrey’s After Neverland special? She did what #MeToo is about: broaden the story, reflect it back to the audience, show people how common it is and how damaging. It’s not about Michael Jackson’s guilt or innocence, it’s not about how many details of the story are correct or incorrect. It’s about broadening the conversation, opening it up for people.

       Here’s what Robson and Safechuck did, and what you never mentioned in your entire piece: they opened up the conversation. Yes, it was on HBO. Which means millions of people saw it, together, with their families. Which means it was a moment for hundreds of them to turn to that family and say: This, this is me. Living, breathing victims who finally see an open door through which to step, a way forward to tell their story and find some measure of peace and healing. This is what that relentless four hour documentary did: it told the story of child sexual abuse, in great detail, and it opened up this story and the possibility to understand and empathize for a whole generation. And in following it up the way she did, Oprah used her voice to amplify millions who’ve been left silenced for decades.

       Silenced by the threat of scrutiny and second guessing that hangs over the head of every single accuser. Because for the love of God, let’s protect the reputation of that handful of falsely accused men. And in doing so, our society has locked millions of people – men and women, boys and girls, trans people of all ages – into a traumatic box of silence and shame and fear. And that is what #MeToo is about. That’s who we care about. We don’t care about Michael Jackson’s phantom, we care about millions of people who live with immense trauma.

       The world you live in, where watching Leaving Neverland made you research relentlessly the story of two boys claiming to have been sexually abused in order to make sure it’s true, is the world we live in, and have lived in. The world of #MeToo, the world we want to live in, is the world where my students watched the documentary and we talked it through, and some of them talked to friends they had thought maybe were victims of sexual violence, and one of them went into therapy, and donations to Child Focus and JAC and Overkop and all kinds of organizations dealing with child sexual abuse went up. That’s what it was about. But you missed it, because you were busy with Michael Jackson’s reputation.

       Elke, I couldn’t care less about Michael Jackson’s reputation. If he was a child molester, then he was a child molester. However, he had his day in court. He was more than properly investigated. His accusers were all taken seriously, also by me (as you can read in my repeated quote from my first post about Leaving Neverland). I firmly believe he was innocent, based on the information that is available.

       You are right in a sense, Elke. Leaving Neverland demonstrates what child sexual abuse is all about in a superb way, and so in that sense, it opens up the conversation. I’m sure there are other movies with good actors that do the same. If “it isn’t about Michael Jackson”, other good movies or documentaries on real cases of child sexual abuse can be used as well.

       Leaving Neverland, however, does not present itself as a work of fiction. And as it revolves around a celebrity like no other, it will detract attention from the alleged victims to Michael Jackson more times than it wants to. Moreover, as Leaving Neverland does not take into account all that has been discovered by official investigations, by a criminal trial and by judges (regarding the current lawsuits) it tends to encourage “witch hunts” that don’t bother about due process. More lies have been uncovered since it aired as well.

       Therefore, I consider it immoral to use Leaving Neverland as a vehicle to talk about child sexual abuse. #WadeAndJamesDoNotSpeakForMe is a hashtag used by victims of child sexual abuse, and I understand why (also from my personal experience, but I’ll leave it at that). They are the “us” I was talking about. And, once more, the following represents the reason why high profile cases (in this case also a trial by media case) of proven false or highly doubtful accusations hurt the #MeToo movement.

       HIGH PROFILE CASES THAT TURN OUT TO BE TOO RIDICULOUS TO BE TRUE, CONTAINING A MYRIAD OF PROVABLE LIES, HURT THE OVERALL CREDIBILITY OF THE VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE. OVER MEDIATIZED CASES, LIKE THE CASES AROUND ACCUSER CARL BEECH OR LIKE THE CASE AROUND THE ACCUSED BUT INNOCENT SIMON WARR, CREATE A CULTURE WHEREIN REAL PERPETRATORS CAN SHED DOUBT ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF REAL VICTIMS. BY NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED ABOUT A PERSON’S GUILT IN A COURT OF LAW, AND BY ALLOWING A HIGH PROFILE MEDIA FRENZY REGARDING TWO ALLEGED VICTIMS WHOSE CASES WERE ALREADY DISMISSED TWICE BY A JUDGE, ONE FURTHER PARTICIPATES IN THE CREATION OF A CULTURE OF DOUBT CONCERNING THE ALLEGATIONS OF VICTIMS. THUS, IF THE #METOO MOVEMENT REFUSES TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HOW AN ALLEGED HIGH PROFILE PERPETRATOR WAS ACQUITTED (AND SIMPLY, LAZILY REFERS TO THE ALLEGED POWER OF THE ACCUSED AND HIS “GOOD LAWYERS”) AND ALLOWS FOR NEW ACCUSATIONS TO BE MADE WITH EASILY PROVEN LIES AND HUGE MONETARY DEMANDS, THEN THE #METOO MOVEMENT IS ITSELF AN ENABLER OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND VIOLENCE (AS PERPETRATORS ONCE AGAIN CAN HIDE BEHIND A VEIL OF DOUBT). THAT’S WHY THE #METOO MOVEMENT SHOULD BE VERY TROUBLED ABOUT A FILM LIKE LEAVING NEVERLAND. IF IT IS NOT TROUBLED, THEN THE #METOO MOVEMENT IS SIMPLY, HOWEVER TRAGICALLY, ONE MORE ENABLER OF THE RAPE CULTURE IT IS TRYING TO FIGHT.

       AS ACCUSED BUT OFFICIALLY ACQUITTED PERSONS TESTIFY, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE PEOPLE WHO SIMPLY DON’T BELIEVE ONE WAS INNOCENT. THIS MAKES IT VERY EASY FOR FRAUDS TO LAUNCH NEW ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SOMEONE WHO WAS ACQUITTED BUT STILL SUFFERS FROM A BAD REPUTATION, ESPECIALLY IF THAT PERSON IS NO LONGER HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF.

       LikeLike
     • 
       erik buys · July 30, 2019

       Elke,

       Thank you for your reply.

       Again, what I write (also my quotes by you) has emphasis.

       Sincerely,

       Erik

       LikeLike
   • 
     erik buys · July 31, 2019

     Elke,

     at first sight, to believe that Michael Jackson was a serial pedophile is one of the easiest things to do. It also seems the most rational, even compassionate thing to do. Well, is it?

     Those who believe in Michael Jackson’s guilt often point to his “unusual behavior” as circumstantial evidence corroborating that guilt. However, they do not consider the unusual as well as fraudulent behavior and proven outright lies of accusers like Evan Chandler, Janet Arvizo, Víctor Gutiérrez, Diane Dimond, Wade Robson and James Safechuck as circumstantial evidence that indicates Michael Jackson’s innocence.

     Moreover, Michael Jackson’s accusers often refer to non-existent things as “proof” of Jackson’s guilt. Diane Dimond once referred to a non-existent videotape of Jackson molesting a boy allegedly owned by her convicted fraudulent friend Víctor Gutiérrez. Gutiérrez wrote a graphic pedo-fantasist book about the relationship between Jordan Chandler and Michael Jackson, based on a non-existent “secret diary” of Jordan Chandler. James Safechuck tells stories about Michael Jackson reminiscent of the stories in the book by Gutiérrez and claims to have been molested numerous times in a 1988 non-existent train station. Wade Robson fails to mention he started dating Brandi Jackson thanks to Michael Jackson when he was 10 years old and refers to Jackson’s non-existent jealousy regarding Robson having relationships with girls.

     And so on. In any case, the reference to non-existent things as alleged “proof” are numerous in all the tales of Michael Jackson’s accusers. Exactly why these accusers should be believed despite their apparent lies, manipulations and fantasies is never quite explained by “believers” of Michael Jackson’s guilt.

     Can you explain to me why we should believe those people?

     Thanks.

     LikeLike

     Reply
   • 
     erik buys · July 31, 2019

     Elke, and what about the following testimony? She says about Leaving Neverland:

     “Real abuse victims like me are not believed because people do this for money. They lie and others are not believed that it really happened to them.”

     LikeLike

     Reply
   • 
     erik buys · August 11, 2019

     Elke,

     Say one more time that I don’t know nothing about the #MeToo movement after you read the following.

     It is the EXACT SAME CASE I make in my post:

     According to a Vox/Morning Consult survey (published April 5, 2018),

     “Women who supported #MeToo were actually more concerned than women as a whole about some potential ill effects of the movement. Sixty-eight percent of #MeToo supporters were very or somewhat concerned about false accusations, for instance, compared with 63 percent of all women.”

     Why?

     According to the same survey,

     “Women’s concerns are often rooted in a desire for the movement to succeed.

     It’s not surprising that women who were supportive of #MeToo were also more likely than average to have certain concerns, said Sarah J. Jackson, a professor of communication studies at Northeastern University who studies racial and gender justice activism. People who support the movement “understand the stakes,” Jackson said.

     In her recent interviews with feminist Twitter users, she said, she found a keen awareness of the ways feminist causes can be undermined — an awareness that false rape accusations, for instance, can be portrayed in ways that harm anti-rape activism as a whole.”

     Read more here: Why women are worried about #MeToo. https://www.vox.com/2018/4/5/17157240/me-too-movement-sexual-harassment-aziz-ansari-accusation

     LikeLike

     Reply
   • 
     vulcan · January 28, 2020

     Elke,
     Guess why this movie originates with Channel 4 and why Dan Reed was hired to direct it? The same Channel 4 which presented the NAMBLA pedo Victor Gutierrez as a credible “investigative reporter”? Gutierrez said 100 years from now people may accept Jackson’s and Jordan Chandler’s sexual relationship as a love affair. Sounds like concern for victims to you? Watch :
     https://streamable.com/qyw64
     It’s NAMBLA propaganda just like Leaving Neverland itself. No wonder the pro pedophilia group Amos Ye now uses Leaving Neverland to show that boys can enjoy sex with men. https://i.postimg.cc/XYDBRhDj/amos-yee-pedo-advocate.png
     Dan Reed sounds just like a NAMBLA member, the exact same disgusting vocabulary as Gutierrez and the media and you have no issue with that at all?
     Look at this:
     
     Reed calls a 7 year old a lover in Leaving Neverland and your reaction is: this is such a good film for victims. Reed says a 7 year old had a “fulfilling sexual relationship” with a 30 year old and you say how great this is for victims?
     Oprah saw it on David Geffen’s yacht. Geffen is not only investor in Digital Entertainment Network, the company founded by convicted pedophile Marc Collin Rector, but he is a known Jackson hater (once he was trying to hit on Jackson and Jackson wanted none of it) and also owns 1 billion in Apple stocks. So Geffen supports Leaving Neverland, Oprah goes on to promote it and guess what? She gets a new Apple deal. So does Richard Pepler, the HBO CEO who approved Leaving Neverland. What a coincidence.
     If there is one thing Leaving Neverland exposed is the absolute corruption, hypocrisy and perversion in the UK and US TV and Film industry.
     Leaving Neverland is a movie that was created to entertain the part of society who likes such salacious material about famous people especially Jackson who has always been the perfect target for the most insane, bizarre, disgusting tales imaginable given that most people are incapable of understanding someone who was indeed unlike anyone else. The more shocking the claims are the more eyeballs it will get. This is the same phenomenon which keeps tabloids alive. Bombshell, shocking, devastating, disturbing! Those are the words the media used to promote Leaving Neverland.
     What about factual, fair, objective and rational? Oh those do not sell well. And facts and common sense actually support Jackson’s innocence so let’s just ignore them.
     It’s a propaganda film so obviously manipulative and deceptive you have to either be blind, or WANT Jackson to be guilty no matter what to take it seriously. Look at the very first scene and the deceptive editing there to make people believe Jackson was a predator. Safechuck, who pursued an acting career, performed lines as an actor, then were edited together to fool the viewers that it was a spontaneous statement. What is your excuse for this?

     As a side-example, the 1st 2 clips of James in LN come from very different moments in filming. The opening line was filmed much later than the second (daylight & camera position). Yet due to the excessive use of interludes & music the effect is again of a raw, cohesive narrative. pic.twitter.com/kfPo4jq9gw
     — TSCM (@MJJRepository) October 29, 2019

     https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
     What’s your excuse for the equally staged and deceptively edited and acted ring scene which doesn’t even make sense as Safechuck says Jackson asked for female rings and then he shows a ….. MALE Rolex Ring and a Disney Micky Mouse ring which is neither female nor male.The so called wedding ring is a male ring too. Oh well, who cares about common sense when it’s shocking, disturbing, gut wrenching, devastating. Yeah it’s also pure fiction. Look at it.

     As a side-example, the 1st 2 clips of James in LN come from very different moments in filming. The opening line was filmed much later than the second (daylight & camera position). Yet due to the excessive use of interludes & music the effect is again of a raw, cohesive narrative. pic.twitter.com/kfPo4jq9gw
     — TSCM (@MJJRepository) October 29, 2019

     https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
     Jackson never gave any wedding ring to Safechuck, never wanted to marry any male, never had any mock wedding with a boy.
     You basically argue that it doesn’t matter that Leaving Neverland is fiction based on the pro pedophilia fiction book “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” written by NAMBLA supported Victor Gutierrez, as long as it helps some real victims Michael Jackson deserves to be dragged through the mud, his achievements he worked so hard for erased from history, his kids and relatives should be harassed by people who are now convinced he was a horrible child rapist and money should be taken from them based on the completely unfounded assumption that certain people who are part of the Jackson estate knew and allowed the abuse to go on. (An assumption that doesn’t even make sense since if there had been a cover up the Robsons and Safechucks would have been part of that cover up as they kept defending Jackson even after 1993, even after 2005, even under oath, not just two accusers but their families too. They went AGAINST other accusers.)
     What you are advocating is pure evil. Like the mass media you completely dehumanize Jackson. For you he is just a big name to advance your agenda. To demonstrate how kids can be abused regardless of whether he ever actually abused anyone, regardless of the overwhelming evidence that he actually helped and saved abuse victims, treated all childlike like his own, was an empath not an abuser and had zero attraction toward anything male. You say psychology is science, well, then listen to this psychologist who explains why Jackson’s behavior was that of a child and parent in the same person as a direct result of Joe Jackson’s violent cold treatment of him as a child. It all makes sense when you look at how Jackson grew up including the fact that he only got fatherly love from unrelated adults some of whom slept with him numerous times, without molesting him of course:
     Michael Jackson innocent of child molestation according to psychologist Dieter Speck

     Far from being an abuser, Jackson wanted to protect kids from anything negative, including from their parents sometimes (Evan Chandler, David and Janet Arvizo, Joy Robson, Kit Culkin); he had a savior complex and obsession with happy childhood. He wanted one for himself and for all children who came his way, related or not. And his very open love for children made him the perfect target for NAMBLA pedophiles who wanted to turn him into the posterboy of “man boy love” hoping that would lead to social acceptance. Yes, the first who called Jackson a pedophile were actual real pedophiles.
     You realize that Robson and Safechuck not merely fabricated their stories when both faced massive financial problems but they actually used the pedophile fantasies of Victor Gutierrez who admittedly was inspired by the Oscar Wilde story. Do you think it’s a mere coincidence that 17 parts of Gutierrez’s book are parts of Safechuck’s lawsuit? If you don’t believe me check this thread out, the evidence is undeniable: Safechuck’s molestation story was created with Gutierrez’s help. Will you show these facts to your students too?

     THREAD: overwhelming evidence that James Safechuck pieced together his allegations using Victor Gutierrez's pro pedophilia book proves he is not a victim but a liar and a particularly cynical one @danreed100 @HBODocs @Channel4 @iankatz1000 @sundanceorg
     — Believe the victims of false accusers (@Hammertonhal) January 16, 2019

     https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
     In case you believe that Gutierrez just reported facts he uncovered, he admitted that his book is a pack of lies. He is also a court proven liar, Jackson sued him for defamation for one of his many sick fantasies about him and boys and won. Here’s the new of the verdict:
     https://www.deseret.com/1998/4/10/19373725/michael-jackson-wins-2-7-million-in-lawsuit
     Not only Safechuck’s story is like a copy of Gutierrez’s pedo fantasy book; elements of the Oscar Wilde story are part of it too.
     Safechuck says he had a mock wedding and got a wedding ring.
     Guess who had a mock wedding? Oscar Wilde and his friend Alfred Taylor who even said they exchanged rings.
     Safechuck says the “couple relationship” started in Paris, France.
     Guess who had his honeymoon in Paris France? Oscar Wilde. He also took 16 year old Fred Atkins
     to Paris and had sex with him there.
     Safechuck says Jackson kissed him all over his body
     Oscar Wilde said he kissed boys all over their body
     Safechuck and Robson say Jackson taught them to distrust women.
     Oscar Wilde said “women were the ruin of young fellows”
     Safechuck said Jackson gave him jewelry for sex acts
     17 year old Afred Wood said Oscar Wilde gave him jewelry after sex
     And you think all these are mere coincidences?
     In case you believe Gutierrez just reported what he discovered from other boys, it’s not only that he lost a defamation case against Jackson, and Jordan Chandler himself submitted a declaration contradicting Gutierrez that he knew about certain disgusting claims in his book but Gutierrez proudly admitted that he made it all about Michael Jackson and he would make up stories even about his mother for money.
     Maria M Barraza, journalist:
     In 1999 Victor Gutierrez said at a luncheon that he had invented everything for his Michael Jackson book $$$ and that he did not regret it. I was at that lunch.

     En1999 Víctor Gutiérrez dijo en un almuerzo que había inventado todo lo de su libro de Michael Jackson por $$$ y que no se arrepentía. Yo estaba en ese almuerzo.
     — María M. Barraza C. (@Ma_LadelBarrio) March 17, 2019

     https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
     I didn’t want to see the documentary… For what? If it’s all a lie. Victor Gutierrez said that for $$$ he was able to invent stories even of his mother!

     No quise ver el documental… Para qué? Si todo es mentira. Víctor Gutiérrez dijo que por $$$ es capaz de inventar historias hasta de su madre!
     — María M. Barraza C. (@Ma_LadelBarrio) March 17, 2019

     https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
     Tell us which victim benefits from Robson saying this “a full grown man sized penis in my little seven year old mouth”? This is cheap sensationalism to satisfy part of society who finds such shocking claims entertaining and pedophiles themselves.
     That you bring up fan efforts to combat what has been an unprecedented global media lynching of an innocent man as proof that Jackson is still powerful is absurd. The entire US and UK and AUS media have promoted Leaving Neverland as if it was proven historical fact that Jackson was a serial boy molester. Only a few journalists had the guts to point out the obvious undeniable lies in the movie. Getting a few ads on buses for a short period, which of course were taken down by really powerful lobbies in the UK, is nothing compared to that.
     If Jackson’s estate was so powerful as you claim they could get the litany of evidence that Robson and Safechuck are serial liars promoted by the mass media. Instead they can’t even get an interview like Dan Reed got from countless outlets!
     As for Robson and Safechuck not making up abuse stories to get money. These two men are failures in showbiz. They both wanted fame and fortune and failed. They are acting like movie stars with photo shoots and showing up at award shows smiling like they are happy that they told the world that Michael Jackson’s penis was in their mouth. I have never seen real victims act like these two.
     Robson wrote “my abuse story will make me relevant and relatable” I have never heard that from any real victim either.
     Robson’s career crumbled many years ago, he burned bridges in the industry with his behavior and also he was simply not up to directing a movie. He begged the Jackson Estate to hire him for MJ ONE. He didn’t get the job. And then suddenly he “realized” that sex with kids is wrong after all, started to shop a book, asked for a lot of money, nobody picked it up, so he filed a creditor claim, for money, lied under oath to get around the statutes, filed it under seal so it’s not that he wanted to help victims with his story, rather he wanted to scare the Estate into a settlement! He filed lawsuit against companies which had nothing to do with why he spent time with Jackson, it was his mother and father who took him there but of course he is not suing his mother for negligence even though if he had been abused his mother would be the No 1 enabler of his abuse!
     He also set up a fund in 2019 to ask people for donations. Robson tried to profit from his allegations FOUR ways already all the while telling Oprah “money was not my concern money is not my concern”
     It is very much a concern because he does not have any skills, only high school, nobody hires him for major projects anymore, he is in the 30s and so his only way to secure his financial future is to get tens of millions from Jackson’s estate and the only way for him to get it is to accuse Jackson and since he has zero proof he was molested he makes the most disgusting allegations to create as much sympathy for himself as possible.
     Leaving Neverland is part of that strategy of Robson, Safechuck and their lawyers to turn the public against Jackson with bad publicity to ensure that if they win appeal the estate won’t be able to find open minded jurors. Using metoo is part of that tactic too: don’t dare to not believe we are victims if you do not believe us you undermine metoo!
     You say you don’t care about Michael Jackson’s phantom. You only say that because it’s not your father, brother, son who has been demonized by Robson and Safechuck in a scripted, acted and deceptively edited propaganda film. If you were falsely accused yourself you would not tolerate a film like Leaving Neverland. You would be outraged that the litany of evidence of your innocence was deliberately left out.
     #metoo did not eliminate people who lie about sex abuse. Look at this case where a man falsely accused another man of raping him at age 14 and then filed for compensation. The accused was convicted thanks to people like you who simply refuse to admit that some people are so evil they will lie about anything for money and attention. Anything. Including child rape. Years later the man was exonerated.
     Police and prosecutors criticised after firefighter wrongly convicted of sex attacks solely on testimony of fantasist
     https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/20/police-and-prosecutors-criticised-after-firefighter-wrongly-conv/
     You are afraid if the world realizes what a fraud Robson and Safechuck really are that would be a huge blow to metoo and real victims. Metoo as it is today SHOULD get a huge blow. Nobody should be condemned without questioning the accusers and making sure they were indeed abused. That two obvious serial liars are treated as heros just because they claimed disgusting acts and accused a famous black man and made a “shocking disturbing, devastating” but completely scripted and acted movie shows that much of society lost their marbles amid the effort to support genuine victims.
     There are literally HUNDREDS of holes, lies, contradictions and absurd claims in the accusations against Jackson. Every single one originates with corrupt money hungry ADULTS who all are also failures who wanted something from Jackson or his Estate and didn’t get it.
     They are not victims. They are frauds like Carl Beech, Rovier Carrington, the Paul Gambacini and Cliff Richard accusers, or these 12 women who lied about rape

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply
   • 
     vulcan · January 28, 2020

     Elke,
     You are overlooking the elephant in the room. These two are not merely false accusers like 1000s of others. They actually fabricated their stories adopting the ideas of a court proven liar and pedophilia advocate: Victor Gutierrez.
     Guess why Leaving Neverland originates with Channel 4 and why Dan Reed was hired to direct it? The same Channel 4 which presented the NAMBLA advocate Victor Gutierrez as a credible “investigative reporter”? Gutierrez said 100 years from now people may accept Jackson’s and Jordan Chandler’s sexual relationship as a love affair. Sounds like concern for victims to you? Watch: https://streamable.com/qyw64

     It’s NAMBLA propaganda just like Leaving Neverland itself. No wonder the pro pedophilia group Amos Ye now uses Leaving Neverland to show that boys can enjoy sex with men. https://i.postimg.cc/XYDBRhDj/amos-yee-pedo-advocate.png

     Dan Reed sounds just like a NAMBLA member, the exact same disgusting vocabulary as Gutierrez and the media and you have no issue with that at all? Look at this: https://i.postimg.cc/kgV1WNx4/gutierrez-reed.jpg

     Reed calls a 7 year old a lover in Leaving Neverland and your reaction is: this is such a good film for victims. Reed says a 7 year old had a “fulfilling sexual relationship” with a 30 year old and you say how great this is for victims? Reed said he was more disturbed by the fact that the “sexual relationship” ended than by the sexual abuse claims. Hello?

     You say they described it in detail. You actually believe that both of them could remember all those details including what Jackson supposedly told them, verbatim when they were just 7 and 10? Robson’s emails which he tried to hide from the estate revealed he in fact didn’t remember much about what happened when he was 7.

     They recorded those SCRIPTED details in more than 90 clips! Meaning, they performed all those details for the camera like actors perform lines for a fictional film. That their interviews were put together from so many chunks discredits the entire film as a documentary. Real documentaries do not need multiple takes and this many clips to create the impression that it’s all a continuous interview. Robson’s and Safechuck’s acting is also obvious in numerous clips. They look and sound fake. They talk about those sex acts like it’s nothing, no emotional reaction at all.

     Leaving Neverland – Robson & Safechuck vs real abuse victims

     Leaving Neverland – evidence of multiple interview takes

     LEAVING NEVERLAND’s suspicious editing

     It’s a propaganda film so obviously manipulative and deceptive you have to either be blind , or WANT Jackson to be guilty no matter what to take it seriously. Look at the very first scene and the deceptive editing there to make people believe Jackson was a predator. Safechuck performed lines as an actor, then those lines were edited together to fool the viewers that it was a spontaneous statement. What is your excuse for this?

     As a side-example, the 1st 2 clips of James in LN come from very different moments in filming. The opening line was filmed much later than the second (daylight & camera position). Yet due to the excessive use of interludes & music the effect is again of a raw, cohesive narrative. pic.twitter.com/kfPo4jq9gw

     — TSCM (@MJJRepository) October 29, 2019

     What’s your excuse for the equally staged and deceptively edited and acted ring scene which doesn’t even make sense as Safechuck says Jackson asked for female rings; then he shows a… MALE Rolex Ring and a Disney Micky Mouse ring which is neither female nor male. The so called wedding ring is a male ring too. Oh well, who cares about common sense when it’s shocking, disturbing, gut wrenching, devastating. Yeah it’s also pure fiction. Look at it.

     As a side-example, the 1st 2 clips of James in LN come from very different moments in filming. The opening line was filmed much later than the second (daylight & camera position). Yet due to the excessive use of interludes & music the effect is again of a raw, cohesive narrative. pic.twitter.com/kfPo4jq9gw

     — TSCM (@MJJRepository) October 29, 2019

     Jackson never gave any wedding ring to Safechuck, never wanted to marry any male, never had any mock wedding with a boy. In 1992, when Safechuck and Robson want us to believe Jackson was in love with them, Jackson was actually dreaming about finding a woman he could trust and was interested in a girl named Melissa. Unlike Robson and Safechuck who do not have any recorded evidence Jackson was attracted to them, this secretly recorded phone calls prove that Jackson liked girls and women, the opposite of Gutierrez’s propaganda – which those two and Reed all adopted of course:
     (Tape 6/15) Michael Jackson and Stein family phone calls

     You basically argue that it doesn’t matter that Leaving Neverland is fiction based on the pro pedophilia fiction book, Michael Jackson was my lover, written by NAMBLA supporter Victor Gutierrez; as long as it helps some real victims, Michael Jackson deserves to be dragged through the mud, his achievements he worked so hard for erased from history, his kids and relatives should be harassed by people who are now convinced he was a horrible child rapist and money should be taken from them based on the completely unfounded assumption that certain people who are part of the Jackson estate knew and allowed the abuse to go on. (An assumption that doesn’t even make sense since if there had been a cover up, the Robsons and Safechucks would have been part of that cover up as they kept defending Jackson even after 1993, even after 2005, even under oath, not just two accusers but their families too. They went AGAINST other accusers.)

     You realize that Robson and Safechuck not merely fabricated their stories when both faced massive financial problems but they actually used the pedophile fantasies of Victor Gutierrez who admittedly was inspired by the Oscar Wilde story. Do you think it’s a mere coincidence that 17 parts of Gutierrez’s book are parts of Safechuck’s lawsuit? If you don’t believe me check this thread out, the evidence is undeniable: Safechuck’s molestation story was created with Gutierrez’s help. Will you show these facts to your students too?

     THREAD: overwhelming evidence that James Safechuck pieced together his allegations using Victor Gutierrez's pro pedophilia book proves he is not a victim but a liar and a particularly cynical one @danreed100 @HBODocs @Channel4 @iankatz1000 @sundanceorg

     — Believe the victims of false accusers (@Hammertonhal) January 16, 2019

     In case you believe that Gutierrez just reported facts he uncovered, he admitted that his book is a pack of lies. He is also a court proven liar, Jackson sued him for defamation for one of his many sick fantasies about him and boys and won. Here’s the news of the verdict:
     https://www.deseret.com/1998/4/10/19373725/michael-jackson-wins-2-7-million-in-lawsuit

     Not only Safechuck’s story is like a copy of Gutierrez’s pedo fantasy book; elements of the Oscar Wilde story are part of it too.

     Safechuck says he had a mock wedding and got a wedding ring.
     Guess who had a mock wedding? Oscar Wilde and his friend Alfred Taylor who even said they exchanged rings.

     Safechuck says they first “had sex” in Paris, France.
     Guess who had his honeymoon in Paris, France? Oscar Wilde. He also took 16 year old Fred Atkins
     to Paris and had sex with him there.

     Safechuck says Jackson kissed him all over his body.
     Oscar Wilde said he kissed boys all over their body.

     Safechuck and Robson say Jackson taught them to distrust women.
     Oscar Wilde said “women were the ruin of young fellows”.

     Safechuck said Jackson gave him jewelry for sex acts.
     17 year old Alfred Wood said Oscar Wilde gave him jewelry after sex.

     Safechuck said Jackson got him drunk before molestation.
     Charles Parker said Oscar Wilde offered him alcohol before sodomizing him.

     And you think all these are mere coincidences?

     In case you believe Gutierrez just reported what he discovered from other boys, it’s not only that he lost a defamation case against Jackson, and Jordan Chandler himself submitted a declaration contradicting Gutierrez that he knew about certain disgusting claims in his book but Gutierrez proudly admitted that he made it all about Michael Jackson and he would make up stories even about his mother for money.

     Maria M Barraza, journalist:
     In 1999 Victor Gutierrez said at a luncheon that he had invented everything from his Michael Jackson book $$$ and that he did not regret it. I was at that lunch.

     En1999 Víctor Gutiérrez dijo en un almuerzo que había inventado todo lo de su libro de Michael Jackson por $$$ y que no se arrepentía. Yo estaba en ese almuerzo.

     — María M. Barraza C. (@Ma_LadelBarrio) March 17, 2019

     I didn’t want to see the documentary… For what? It’s all a lie. Victor Gutierrez said that by $$$ being able to invent stories even of his mother!

     No quise ver el documental… Para qué? Si todo es mentira. Víctor Gutiérrez dijo que por $$$ es capaz de inventar historias hasta de su madre!

     — María M. Barraza C. (@Ma_LadelBarrio) March 17, 2019

     There are literally HUNDREDS of holes, lies, contradictions and absurd claims in the accusations against Jackson.
     90% of pedo stories originate with Gutierrez who has a history of making up such stories about Jackson and various boys. And you think we should all just ignore that because OMG if the world would realize that Robson and Safechuck are in fact two opportunist liars and not victims that would be a setback for the metoo movement?

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • 
       Elke Verhelst · January 31, 2020

       I cannot help but notice, Erik, you still have not seen fit to post my reply saying I wanted to stop taking part in this discussion, while in the meantime you have allowed replies to my initial comments. Someone is not playing fair.

       LikeLike
     • 
       erik buys · January 31, 2020

       Elke,

       You have every right not to take part in the discussion anymore. So if you don’t want to answer to other people’s comments, that’s totally fine!

       However, others have every right to reply to your statements and arguments.

       That’s fair. There is freedom of speech and expression for everybody. Who am I not to allow other people’s opinions? Otherwise we would find ourselves in a dictatorship, where someone decides who can and who cannot express themselves.

       I hope you can respect other people’s rights and freedom. The reactions are within the standards of style that you yourself find acceptable (see the screenshots I sent you of Pascal Lacroix’s reactions to some of my posts in the Facebook group that you’re an administrator of, together with Pascal).

       Thank you for your understanding.

       LikeLike
4. 
   Gemma Jiménez Ruiz · August 1, 2019

   Great article exposing FACTS. Thank you.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply
   • 
     erik buys · August 3, 2019

     You’re welcome!

     LikeLike

     Reply
5. Pingback: “Leaving Neverland”: aantoonbare riooljournalistiek die de #MeToo-beweging schaadt | Mimetic Margins
6. Pingback: Leaving Neverland: “It’s NOT about Michael Jackson…” | Mimetic Margins
7. Pingback: FACTS TO CONSIDER WHEN WATCHING “LEAVING NEVERLAND” | Mimetic Margins
8. 
   Alex · December 10, 2019

   Bit off topic, but where does Leigh Fetter get the idea that the arrest and multiple convictions of Amanda Knox were based on flimsy evidence and moral panic? That was the spin that American media gave to it. Reading Italian media you got an entirely different view on the case. Nobody is perfect but police and investigators simply did their job, and ms. Knox and boyfriend were very much guilty based on a shitload of evidence but politics got involved imo. Ms. Knox is still living off being a ‘victim’ just like Robson and Safechuck and unfortunately many other fakers that have infiltrated the metoo movement. I certainly hope the metoo movement dies asap so all men can walk around normally again and choose professions that include children if they want without having to look over their shoulder.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 
   Jenna S · October 28, 2021

   Loved reading this. Thank you!

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. Pingback: Leaving Neverland: “It’s NOT about Michael Jackson…” – SCAPEGOAT SHADOWS
11. Pingback: “Leaving Neverland”: aantoonbare riooljournalistiek die de #MeToo-beweging schaadt – SCAPEGOAT SHADOWS