Tweet
One month ago, HBO aired an explosive “documentary” called Leaving Neverland, which told horrific stories of child sexual abuse by two accusers of pop icon Michael Jackson. In the aftermath of its premiere, which was almost universally embraced by the mainstream media, I wrote three different stories, including one which included interviews with important subjects the movie ignored, casting doubt on whether the film really should be taken as mostly, or even partly, factual.
Since then, the production has been found to have numerous substantive problems, and its narrative is now filled with significant holes. But strangely, while the tabloid press in the United Kingdom has been all over the movie’s implosion, there has been a complete blackout of these developments in the news media here in the United States.
The revelation which has gotten the most attention (it has been featured in at least three of the major U.K. tabloids), deals with the story of accuser James Safechuck, who was originally presumed to be the more credible of the two alleged victims. It centers on Safechcuk’s detailed claim in the movie that he was forced to have sex with Jackson, near the start of his abuse, in the second floor of the train station at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch.
In the film and in his lawsuit deposition, Safechuck says that his abuse by Jackson ended in 1992, when he was about 14 years old. A huge part of the movie’s narrative is that Jackson lost sexual interest in these boys when they reached the age of 14, supposedly because that is when puberty hit (though the average white American boy currently begins puberty at around ten years old).
However, there is now a huge problem with Safechuck’s allegation. Construction on the train station building, which was not commenced until late 1993, wasn’t completed until mid-1994, and after that time, Jackson, who had just gotten married to Lisa Marie Presley, was rarely even at Neverland for the next several years.
This suggests that Safechuck, based on his own testimony, and the film’s most prominent premise, made up the story about being abused in the train house. This would be problematic for anyone who has no corroboration for their dramatic claims, and who finally came forward to sue 21 years after their abuse, but given the remarkably wide latitude which abuse claims are given, especially in the #MeToo era, it would hardly be devastating on its own.
But that radically changed when the movie’s director Dan Reed, who has been effectively acting as the PR director for the massive lawsuit these accusers have against Jackson’s estate, inexplicably poured gasoline on a brushfire. Instead of simply saying Safechuck was mistaken (which would have only been seen as rather strange), Reed decided that Safechuck had indeed been abused in the train house, but his star victim had just gotten the year very wrong.
Except that explanation simply doesn’t work, and it causes enormous portions of Reed’s film to go down in flames. Even if we concede that Safechuck was just mistaken about the train house episode occurring at the start of the abuse (which he says began in 1988), at earliest Safechuck is at least a mature 16-years-old by the time it was built.
So, according to the movie’s own director, Safechuck lied under oath, lied in the film, and his abuse at 16-years-old, at which time he was clearly well past puberty and even larger than Jackson, blows apart the project’s entire theory of how and why Jackson supposedly only preferred the company of very young boys. But as much as this episode brings suspicion to the credibility of the research and testimony behind Leaving Neverland, it is really only a piece of a much large puzzle.
Here are just some of the other recent revelations which, in a rational world, would have the American news media thoroughly revisiting the claims at the center of this movie:
The other accuser, Wade Robson, asserts in the film that he was first abused by Jackson when left alone with him as his family went on a trip to the Grand Canyon. However, his mother, Joy Robson, a central figure in this saga, testified under oath twice, including well after Wade finally announced that he had been abused, indicating that Wade was actually on that trip with his family (it should also be noted that a radio interview Joy did in 2011, which casts further doubt on other aspects of Wade’s timeline, was just recently mysteriously removed from YouTube).
It was revealed that Joy not only remained part of a Michael Jackson fan group on Facebook, well after her son went on the Today Show in 2013 to announce that he was abused, but that she had “liked” several pro-Jackson posts way after that event. Then, within hours of someone tweeting about this discovery, those “likes” suddenly disappeared.
The movie tries desperately to explain why Robson was Jackson’s star witness at his 2005 criminal trial, and attempts to spin a narrative that a pensive dinner at Neverland influenced his decision to lie on Jackson’s behalf (which is strange because he also claims he didn’t know yet that he had actually been abused). However, people who were at the dinner say they are sure that it occurred after Robson’s testimony, not before.
Robson testified in his lawsuit that he realized he was abused while in therapy in May of 2012. However, there is an interview with Robson which was posted to YouTube in July of 2012 where he is still speaking of Jackson with very high praise.
Stephanie Safechuck, mother of James, who was exceedingly close to Jackson, is shown in the movie describing in detail how she celebrated learning the news of Jackson’s death (which she says happened as she awoke in bed, even though Jackson died in the afternoon in LA where she lived) because he could no longer abuse any children. However, since James has said numerous times that he only realized that he was abused when he saw Robson on the Today show (four years after Jackson’s death) and had never told anyone at all about it, it would require time travel for his mother not to have totally made up that story, with some rather poor acting.
In an attempt to promote the narrative that the evil Jackson PR machine can and will destroy anyone claiming to be a victim of the pop star, Reed blatantly used a clip of one-time Jackson attorney Mark Geragos totally out of context. Then, making matters even worse, Reed responded to Geragos’ anger over the editing ploy by exposing that he clearly had not done even the slightest research into an event he had featured in his film.
So, why is it that none of this has gained any media traction here in the United States, even though it has in the United Kingdom?
Since then, the production has been found to have numerous substantive problems, and its narrative is now filled with significant holes. But strangely, while the tabloid press in the United Kingdom has been all over the movie’s implosion, there has been a complete blackout of these developments in the news media here in the United States.
The revelation which has gotten the most attention (it has been featured in at least three of the major U.K. tabloids), deals with the story of accuser James Safechuck, who was originally presumed to be the more credible of the two alleged victims. It centers on Safechcuk’s detailed claim in the movie that he was forced to have sex with Jackson, near the start of his abuse, in the second floor of the train station at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch.
In the film and in his lawsuit deposition, Safechuck says that his abuse by Jackson ended in 1992, when he was about 14 years old. A huge part of the movie’s narrative is that Jackson lost sexual interest in these boys when they reached the age of 14, supposedly because that is when puberty hit (though the average white American boy currently begins puberty at around ten years old).
However, there is now a huge problem with Safechuck’s allegation. Construction on the train station building, which was not commenced until late 1993, wasn’t completed until mid-1994, and after that time, Jackson, who had just gotten married to Lisa Marie Presley, was rarely even at Neverland for the next several years.
This suggests that Safechuck, based on his own testimony, and the film’s most prominent premise, made up the story about being abused in the train house. This would be problematic for anyone who has no corroboration for their dramatic claims, and who finally came forward to sue 21 years after their abuse, but given the remarkably wide latitude which abuse claims are given, especially in the #MeToo era, it would hardly be devastating on its own.
But that radically changed when the movie’s director Dan Reed, who has been effectively acting as the PR director for the massive lawsuit these accusers have against Jackson’s estate, inexplicably poured gasoline on a brushfire. Instead of simply saying Safechuck was mistaken (which would have only been seen as rather strange), Reed decided that Safechuck had indeed been abused in the train house, but his star victim had just gotten the year very wrong.
Except that explanation simply doesn’t work, and it causes enormous portions of Reed’s film to go down in flames. Even if we concede that Safechuck was just mistaken about the train house episode occurring at the start of the abuse (which he says began in 1988), at earliest Safechuck is at least a mature 16-years-old by the time it was built.
So, according to the movie’s own director, Safechuck lied under oath, lied in the film, and his abuse at 16-years-old, at which time he was clearly well past puberty and even larger than Jackson, blows apart the project’s entire theory of how and why Jackson supposedly only preferred the company of very young boys. But as much as this episode brings suspicion to the credibility of the research and testimony behind Leaving Neverland, it is really only a piece of a much large puzzle.
Here are just some of the other recent revelations which, in a rational world, would have the American news media thoroughly revisiting the claims at the center of this movie:
The other accuser, Wade Robson, asserts in the film that he was first abused by Jackson when left alone with him as his family went on a trip to the Grand Canyon. However, his mother, Joy Robson, a central figure in this saga, testified under oath twice, including well after Wade finally announced that he had been abused, indicating that Wade was actually on that trip with his family (it should also be noted that a radio interview Joy did in 2011, which casts further doubt on other aspects of Wade’s timeline, was just recently mysteriously removed from YouTube).
It was revealed that Joy not only remained part of a Michael Jackson fan group on Facebook, well after her son went on the Today Show in 2013 to announce that he was abused, but that she had “liked” several pro-Jackson posts way after that event. Then, within hours of someone tweeting about this discovery, those “likes” suddenly disappeared.
The movie tries desperately to explain why Robson was Jackson’s star witness at his 2005 criminal trial, and attempts to spin a narrative that a pensive dinner at Neverland influenced his decision to lie on Jackson’s behalf (which is strange because he also claims he didn’t know yet that he had actually been abused). However, people who were at the dinner say they are sure that it occurred after Robson’s testimony, not before.
Robson testified in his lawsuit that he realized he was abused while in therapy in May of 2012. However, there is an interview with Robson which was posted to YouTube in July of 2012 where he is still speaking of Jackson with very high praise.
Stephanie Safechuck, mother of James, who was exceedingly close to Jackson, is shown in the movie describing in detail how she celebrated learning the news of Jackson’s death (which she says happened as she awoke in bed, even though Jackson died in the afternoon in LA where she lived) because he could no longer abuse any children. However, since James has said numerous times that he only realized that he was abused when he saw Robson on the Today show (four years after Jackson’s death) and had never told anyone at all about it, it would require time travel for his mother not to have totally made up that story, with some rather poor acting.
In an attempt to promote the narrative that the evil Jackson PR machine can and will destroy anyone claiming to be a victim of the pop star, Reed blatantly used a clip of one-time Jackson attorney Mark Geragos totally out of context. Then, making matters even worse, Reed responded to Geragos’ anger over the editing ploy by exposing that he clearly had not done even the slightest research into an event he had featured in his film.
So, why is it that none of this has gained any media traction here in the United States, even though it has in the United Kingdom?
Comment