The "Lies of Leaving Neverland" Observations

A 32 minute video, titled: "Lies of Leaving Neverland" magically appeared on YouTube on the 13th of August 2019 published by "Mark Hostetler". This is the only and first video under that name, and unlike other anti-Leaving Neverland videos that have appeared on the platform, this one contains video footage of Wade Robson's 2016 deposition.

Exactly how this mysterious "Mark Hostetler" got hold the footage, is unknown, but you don't have to be a genius to work out that it came directly from the Jackson estate.

The short 32 minute video, which first reported on, unsurprisingly, attacks Leaving Neverland's subjects, James Safechuck and Wade Robson. A 4:55 video of the deposition can also be found via The Blast YouTube channel.

The video is spliced together in dramatic conspiracy style fashion, predominantly from other YouTube videos, news interviews, and pretty much anything else which is anti-Leaving Neverland, with lots of gotcha moments for Michael Jackson stans to salivate over.

There is, however, a few observations I made after watching the video, which I think are worth mentioning, for anybody who doesn't support unrelated man/boy sleepovers, and recognises the complexity of child sex abuse.

1. The Grand Canyon

Because Joy Robson stated in 1993 that she took her "whole family" to the Grand Canyon, it's impossible that Wade was molested by Jackson on their first visit to Neverland. This is a bit of a brain-dead argument, as we now know the entire Robson family had been defending Jackson under false pretenses.

In the 2016 deposition video, it shows Joy Robson stating this, however, its made to look as if she's repeating it in 2016, rather than just reaffirming what she said in 1993. The video wants you to believe that Joy had completely changed her story when she started filming Leaving Neverland in 2017. The truth is, without seeing the video in its entirety we simply do not know. Who knows what she said 5 minutes before or 5 minutes after? You can see from the timeline in the video, that there are massive jumps of minutes to hours. Mark Hostetler (a.k.a. the Jackson estate) have spliced together the bits they want you to see, not what reveals the truth.

There is, in fact, proof from the 2005 molestation trial transcripts that Wade stayed about a week, while his family continue their holiday.

Wade Robson 5 May 2005:

20 Q. Did you spend much time at Neverland?
21 A. Yeah. Spent a lot of time, yeah.
22 Q. When do you think you first went to
23 Neverland?
24 A. It was right after that visit. I’m pretty
25 sure it was that night that we went, my whole family 
26 went to the ranch. And, you know, we stayed for, I
27 don’t know, about a week or something like that.
28 Q. And approximately what year do you think you 9094
1 first went to Neverland, Mr. Robson?
2 A. That was 1989. 
3 Q. Okay. And who did you go to Neverland with 4 the first time? 
5 A. Went with my mother, my sister, my father, 
6 and my grandfather, grandmother. 
7 Q. And how long did you stay during that first 
8 visit?
9 A. I think it was about a week. 
10 Q. And after you spent a week at Neverland, 
11 what did you do?
12 A. Went back to Australia.


Joy Robson 6 May 2005:

4 Q. Do you remember the first time you visited
5 Neverland?
6 A. Yes. It was in January of 1990.
7 Q. And how did you end up visiting Neverland?
8 A. When we were here, we called around, trying
9 to find Michael again. He had told us if we
10 returned to the United States to contact him. So we
11 called around, and we eventually were put onto his
12 personal assistant, which at that time was Norma
13 Stakos, and they called Michael. 
14 He remembered us, and said he would like to
15 see us again. So we met him at a recording studio
16 where he was working at the time.
17 Q. And did you stay at Neverland on that first
18 visit?
19 A. Yes, he invited us to stay that weekend, so
20 we did. We went -- we were touring the United
21 States, we were here on vacation as well. We went
22 away for the week, and came back for the second
23 weekend. 

Chantal Robson 6 May 2005:

7 Q. All right. Now, do you recall when you
8 first visited Neverland Ranch?
9 A. I do. 
10 Q. And approximately when was that?
11 A. This was ‘89. I was ten years old.
12 Q. And do you remember who was with you?
13 A. Yes. When we first went, it was my entire
14 family. My grandparents, my father, my mother, Wade
15 and myself.
16 Q. Okay. And do you remember where you stayed
17 at Neverland?
18 A. I stayed in Michael’s room.
19 Q. Okay. And was anyone else in there with
20 you?
21 A. Wade was and Michael was. 
22 Q. And how many nights did you and Wade stay in
23 Michael Jackson’s room on that occasion?
24 A. Two nights.


As you can see from the 2005 trial transcripts, Wade is pretty confident that he stayed at least a week or more at Neverland during his first visit, while his mother confirms they were on vacation and only stay 2 separate weekends. Chantal confirms she stayed 2 nights in Jackson's bedroom, before continuing the family vacation and then returning the following weekend.

While there's no mention of the Grand Canyon, or Wade being left alone with Jackson, clearly about "a week" isn't two weekends, and Wade's and Joy's testimony is consistent to what was said in Leaving Neverland.

Also notice how Joy Robson can't remember the exact date she first visited Neverland by stating 1990, while her 2 children state 1989. Jeez, I wonder if James Safechuck made the same mistake?

The Robson's, in general, are very protective of Jackson during the trial, and you can tell that they had been well coached by Jackson's legal team not to say anything incriminating. Did the same thing happening 1993? Probably.

2. In the 2016 Deposition Wade Said The Abuse Started When His Sister Was Present

In the deposition video Wade states: "we both slept in the bed with Michael. Then at some point on that second night she said to me, I think we [you and I] should sleep upstairs. I don't know why she said or thought that, but I didn't want to. So at bedtime she went upstairs, Michael and I stayed in the bed downstairs and I believe at some point that night the abuse started."

Again, due to the spliced and diced nature of the video, its a bit of a guessing game whether he meant the first weekend, or the second one, when his family returned.

Chantal testified that she slept 4 nights in Jackson's bedroom, and confirms that she slept in the upstairs bed, while Wade and Jackson slept in the downstairs bed.


8 Q. How many times do you think you’ve been in
9 Michael Jackson’s room?
10 A. I’ve probably been there a lot of times,
11 just sort of in and out. I’ve slept there four
12 times.
13 Q. When you slept in Michael Jackson’s room,
14 has your brother Wade always been there?
15 A. Yes. 


1 Were you interviewed by Scott Ross, an
2 investigator for Mr. Jackson, on May 2nd, 2005?
3 A. Yes. Not quite sure if that was the date,
4 but, yes.
5 Q. That was just a few days ago?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. And did you tell Mr. Ross that you recalled
8 the first night that you slept downstairs, and Wade
9 went upstairs and slept with Mr. Jackson?
10 A. No. It would be the other way around.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. Michael and Wade slept -- Michael and Wade
13 slept downstairs and I slept upstairs on the first
14 night.
15 Q. All right. So Mr. Jackson and Wade slept
16 together separately from the area that you slept in?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Why was that?
19 A. Because I left and went upstairs.
20 Q. Why did you leave and go upstairs?
21 A. Because I was a little older at that point
22 and I felt like I was interfering in Michael’s
23 bedroom, so I left and went upstairs.
24 Q. Because you wanted to give Mr. Jackson some
25 privacy?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. And he was alone with your brother at that
28 time? 9319
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And your brother was seven years old?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And that night, your brother slept in the
5 same bed with Michael Jackson?
6 A. Yes. I told him to come up with me.
7 Q. You told him to come up with you?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Was that because you felt like he shouldn’t
10 be sleeping in a bed with a grown man?
11 A. Not at all.
12 Q. Then why did you tell him to do that?
13 A. Because I didn’t want to make Michael feel
14 like two people were invading his space.
15 Q. Something about that first night made you
16 feel uncomfortable, didn’t it?
17 A. No, not at all.
18 Q. Didn’t you say you felt more comfortable the
19 second night to Mr. Ross when you spoke to him a few
20 days ago?
21 A. Comfortable with my friendship with Michael,
22 yes.
23 Q. And that next night, you slept in the same
24 bed with Michael Jackson?
25 A. I did.


It's interesting to know that Chantal did not spend the very first night in Jackson's bed, but Wade did. Though she doesn't directly admit it during the trial, she clearly didn't feel comfortable being in bed with a grown 30 plus-year-old man, yet Wade a boy did. As for the second night, did she spend a couple of hours in Jackson's bed, only to return to the upstairs bed, leaving Wade behind with Jackson? Possibly.

If Wade is referring to the first weekend, that still doesn't contradict what he said in Leaving Neverland, in that the abuse started after his family left for the Grand Canyon.

If you listen carefully to what Wade said in the deposition, he said: "I believe at some point that night the abuse started". He doesn't say 100% that the abuse started, or what type of abuse it was. Was it a hug, a kiss on the cheek, or the fact that Jackson succeeded in isolating him from his sister and parents? There's no mention of fondling, kissing or oral sex from the deposition video whatsoever, therefore, no contradiction.

If you're a Jackson stan, who is going to quibble over one measly day, think again. This is what child molestation expert Kenneth V. Lanning has to say on the matter when it involved multiple sexual acts over an extended period of time: "In my experience, many valid claims of child sexual molestation, especially those by this type of child victim, involve delayed disclosures, inconsistencies, varying accounts, exaggerations, and lies often associated with false allegations. Inconsistencies in allegations are significant but can sometimes be explained by factors other than that the allegation is false. What is consistent and logical in these circumstances must be based on experience and knowledge of cases similar to the case being evaluated."

3. James Safechuck Jewellery Scene Was a Staged Reshoot for Dramatic Effect

So, it's a conspiracy to reshoot scenes while making a film? No, Dan Reed is quite honest that he filmed the scene a year later, after pressing James to find the jewelry box. Dan Reed, nor his production crew, were trying to fool anybody, by filming it in the same location, with James wearing the same clothes. It's called continuity.

Reid said: "It took him a long time.The house was not big. He found it eventually, and we went back to the location, for continuity, and he sat down and opened this box. It was incredible, just like opening up some kind of physical memory, literally his hands started to shake and he became short of breath, overwhelmed by feelings that washed over him from the past, the intensity of emotion when he took out the ring when he got married.”


A bigger issue, one which the estate YouTube video doesn't mention, is that there is reasonable evidence to indicate that Jackson did in fact perform a mock wedding with James as a child. In the 2005 trial, Jackson's lawyer, Thomas Mesereau is adamant that James Safechuck got married at Neverland.

During the March 17, 2005 cross-examination of reluctant Prosecution witness Kiki Fournier, a former housekeeper at the Ranch, Mesereau brought up the detail about Jimmy's purported Neverland wedding:

2 Q. Okay. Now, the prosecutor for the
3 government asked you some questions about other
4 young boys, as he put it, that Mr. Jackson knew
5 through the years, right.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And would you agree that, like most people,
8 Mr. Jackson sometimes became a closer friend of some
9 families rather than others, correct.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And the so-called “young boys” the
12 prosecutor referred to would come with their
13 families, correct.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In fact, Jimmy Safechuck was married at
16 Neverland, wasn’t he. Do you remember that.
17 A. I didn’t even know he was married.

I myself as well as others, have contacted Thomas Mesereau to see if he could clarify why he stated James [Jimmy] Safechuck got married at Neverland, despite evidence to the contrary that he was married for the first and only time in 2008 to his current wife. No reply was ever given.

We can rule out that he didn't get his wires crossed with any other former boys, such as Jonathan Spence, as questions were in relation to the time period between 1991 and 2003. Jonathan Spence's relationship with Jackson ended in 87/88. And with Jackson sat by his lawyer's side, throughout the entire trial he himself made no attempt to correct Thomas Mesereau that James Safechuck wasn't married sometime before 2005 at his Neverland Ranch.

So why was Thomas Mesereau under the impression that James got married there? Well, in my opinion I believe the man who stated he was Peter Pan and lived in a fantasy world that involved enticing dozens of unrelated boys into his private bed told his lawyer, while deeply engrossed in his own paedophilia that James got married at Neverland, yet left out the detail it was to him.

4. James Safechuck Was Abused in a Non-Existent Train Station in 88 and 89

This comes directly from the Comic Book Guy lookalike and barmy truther, Charles Thomson.

James Safechuck in Leaving Neverland describes being sexually abused in a upstairs room at the Neverland train station, though there's no mention of what train station it was, or what year it happened. James states in his civil complaint that he was abused between 88 and 1992 when he was between 10 and 14. This abuse happened in multiple locations not limited to Neverland, but also outside of California.

According to Charles Thomson because James describes his abuse at multiple Neverland locations, including the castle, the swimming pool and train station like when you first start dating somebody, this to him is seen as some kind of admission that it happened between 88 and 89.

Now, I'm trying to get my head around this one. How would you expect a survivor of sexual abuse to describe their abuse as a child? Come on, think about this one. Is Charles Thompson so mentally bankrupt that he believes children who are groomed, seduced and sexually abused in secret to describe that abuse in yearly feelings, from "first dating" to having sex like "seasoned veterans?".

All I can say is, 30+-year-old Charles Thompson has revealed his sexual experiences, or more specifically the lack of any. A copy of Dating for Dummies is on its way, Charles.

I think a lot of people think Jackson bought this prebuilt fantasy land full of fairground rides, animals and candy. It wasn't. There was very little there except for the main house, manicured gardens and a couple of outbuildings when Jackson purchased it in 87 or 88.

James states in his civil complaint that: "When DECEDENT purchased the Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County in 1988, Plaintiff was the first guest to stay overnight. At that time, there was no large “Neverland Ranch” sign, only the main house, pool and a trampoline."


Wade Robson even states in Leaving Neverland that the ranch wasn't that vast during his first visit in 1989, and only became this giant playground from the 1990s onwards.

The below photograph shows what Neverland like in early 1989. No fairground, no zoo, not much of anything at all.

So, we can conclusively say that when James describes abuse outside of the main residence it always happened late 89, 1990s onwards.

Now, the train station issue is far more complicated than it appears. I, as well as many others were completely unaware that there was in fact two trains that operated at Jackson's Neverland ranch. The first train, a CP Huntington went live sometime in the autumn of 1990 and used a series of gazebo style train stations throughout Neverland. The second larger train, named after Jackson's mother, Katherine, was installed in late 93. These two trains had a combined track size of at least 3 to 4 miles.

Mike Smallcombe and Charles Thompson are adamant that James is talking about the main Neverland train station because it's featured in the film and is accompanied by pictures that he took himself. However, in the anti-Leaving Neverland documentary: "Michael Jackson: Chase the Truth" featuring Mike Smallcombe himself, they a use picture of the smaller 1990 CP Huntington train when discrediting James's abuse at the main Neverland train station, which is a complete mismatch since that train had nothing to do with that specific train station.

When I first wrote about the Neverland train station I made it quite clear that Dan Reed and his editing team could only use what footage was available, and probably had very little knowledge of the true layout of Neverland or its sheer size. The director of Chase the Truth, Jordan Hill, and Mike Smallcombe have proved my point exactly.

But What If James Is Describing the Main Neverland Station?

The main Neverland train station hadn't received planning permission until September 1993 and didn't open until early 94, according to Mike Smallcombe, a whole year after James said the abuse had stopped. This, however, has been met with lots of contradictory evidence from books and eyewitnesses, including Jackson's former photographer, Harrison Funk, who boldly claims in a February 2019 podcast that Jackson built the main Neverland train station before the September 93 permit.

Rather than go over the same tedious things I'm just going to present some basic facts.

1. Genuine survivors can rarely remember the precise start and end date of their abuse

It's a fact that genuine survivors of sexual abuse can rarely remember when it first happened, or ended. We know that James had close contact with Jackson into 93 and 94, when the train station definitely existed. In any other case, we wouldn't vilify a survivor of sexual abuse if they had been as little as 12 months out of sync, would we?

Brett Barnes, despite sharing a bed with Jackson for a decade between the ages of 9 and 19 had extremely poor memory, when under cross examination in 2005. He could not remember how old he was when he first flew from Australia to Neverland, where he travelled with Jackson, or the number of visits he made. His mother under cross examination also had an equally if not worse memory. As I pointed out at the beginning of this article, Joy Robson thought the 1st visit to Neverland was in 1990, when in fact it was 89.

2. James misidentified the main Neverland train station

Neverland was big, I mean really, really big. The area that contained the main house, funfair and zoo was around 150 acres alone. There was at least 75 to 100 different buildings and structures dotted throughout this area by the mid-90s. It would take you at least one hour to walk from the main Neverland gates to the furthest end of the zoo and back again. That's how big it was. James literally witnessed Neverland going from a handful of buildings to this enormous child's paradise in the space of a few years.

Perhaps, at some point, after the first train was installed in 1990 there was a building with an upstairs room that was referred to as a train station. A Rolling Stones article originally published in January 1992, even describes a "train room" that was accessed by going up a narrow staircase. A Neverland staff member even confirms that Jackson had slumber parties in this room with children. So it's not a case of James was never exposed to trains or train stations between 1990 and 92. The odds of mis-identifying a site of abuse in such an environment, would be far greater than the average case of child sex abuse.

And again, for those interested in the real truth, Kenneth V. Lanning, a child molestation expert can confirm that genuine survivors don't get every single detail correct. He states: "Indicators suggesting a false allegation in a typical rape case have little application to the evaluation of most acquaintance, child-molestation cases, especially those involving repeated access and prolonged sexual activity. Such child molestation cases are very hard to classify as either a valid or false allegation. Victim claims may include allegations that appear to be false, but that does not mean the case can be labeled in totality as “a false allegation.” 

In my experience, many valid claims of child sexual molestation, especially those by this type of child victim, involve delayed disclosures, inconsistencies, varying accounts, exaggerations, and lies often associated with false allegations. Inconsistencies in allegations are significant but can sometimes be explained by factors other than that the allegation is false. What is consistent and logical in these circumstances must be based on experience and knowledge of cases similar to the case being evaluated."

I always say to any Jacksons stan on social media, who discredits James's allegations in their entirety purely on the train station issue, that they must also apply the same logic to Jackson and come to the conclusion that he was guilty of molesting Jordan Chandler in 1993, because in 1995, less than two years after the police raid and having his genitalia photographed, he openly lied on a Primetime interview with Diane Sawyer by claiming there were no markings whatsoever on his genitalia, or that he didn't own any books featuring fully nude images of children.

Watch Michael Jackson lie from the 16:10 minute onwards:

5. Wade Robson Never Wavered at the 2005 Trial

This comes from Jackson's former lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, when interviewed for an Australian documentary titled: "Michael Jackson What Really Happened behind the Gates of Neverland."

Thomas Mesereau goes on to say: "he was very strong in his defence of Michael Jackson. He told me in no uncertain terms he had not been molested. He had not been abused and that these claims were ridiculous. I mean this man was so strongly supportive of Michael Jackson, so powerful in his defence of Michael Jackson that it shocks me that he's changed his story in recent years. I just can't get over it."

Scott Ross a private detective for the defence and Thomas Mesereau, goes on to say in a different documentary titled: "Neverland Firsthand: Investigating the Michael Jackson Documentary" that: "you always start with your strongest witness. In our case this was Wade Robson. Wade Robson had to get through three seasoned, experienced, intelligent attorneys. How is it when those three attorneys... this was not a surprise attack... those three attorneys with cross-examination history under their belt, prosecutors who got together the night before, prepared their attack. How were they unable to break Wade Robson? If you're trying to hide the truth, you're going to waver, you going to do whatever".

Here's the other side of the coin....

Ron Zonen, the veteran prosecutor who cross-examined Wade Robson has a very different opinion. In a article published in March this year, he goes on to say the following about Wade Robson: “Oh, we thought he was lying,” recalls Zonen, now a civil litigator at the firm McCarthy & Kroes. “There was no question in our minds about that. We were convinced he was a victim of long-term sexual abuse by Jackson. And everything about his behavior on the witness stand suggested that we were correct. And of course, we were correct. He was noticeably uncomfortable. He was the kind of uncomfortable you are when you’re under oath in front of a large group of people answering questions falsely.”


In a Fox News article published on 6 May 2005, it documents how uncomfortable Robson became when Ron Zonen started showing him Jackson's vast collection of pornography, including gay material and books feature nude images of children, something Thomas Mesereau tried to play down as nothing more than a couple of Playboy and Penthouse magazines.

Robson started shaking his head and went on to say: "I can't imagine people around the world are watching me do this."


In a rather dumb attempt to discredit Wade Robson and Leaving Neverland, Brandi Jackson, who you may or may not want to believe, claims she had a close and even intimate relationship with Wade Robson for over seven years. Despite this relationship never being mentioned once in the 2005 trial, Brandi Jackson now claims that Wade had become a sly, devious and lying individual who cheated on her multiple times by his late teens.

If Brandi Jackson is telling truth, then it further validates that Jackson taught Wade how to become the master of deception.

Read more about it here:

And, of course, we have our trusted friend again, Kenneth V. Lanning, who can confirm that the abused do defend their abusers. Specifically, it's called the offender-victim bond.

He goes on to say: "Because victims of acquaintance exploitation usually have been carefully seduced and often do not realize or believe they are victims, they repeatedly and voluntarily return to the offender. Society and the criminal-justice system have a difficult time understanding this. If a boy is molested by his neighbor, teacher, or clergy member, why does he “allow” it to continue? Most likely he may not initially realize or believe he is a victim. Some victims are simply willing to trade sex for attention, affection, and gifts and do not believe they are victims. The sex itself might even be enjoyable. The offender may be treating them better than anyone has ever treated them. They may come to realize they are victims when the offender pushes them out. Then they recognize all the attention, affection, and gifts were just part of the master plan to use and exploit them."


The "Lies of Leaving Neverland" talks about contradictions in Leaving Neverland, yet they have Scott Ross on film, talking about how Wade Robson was the star witness in 2005, but the narrator is saying Wade Robson never spent more than one week in Jackson's company. That's a strange one. Why would Thomas Mesereau and Michael Jackson call up Wade Robson as a star witness if he had spent less than one week in a one-on-one position with Jackson. The estate video is essentially saying that Wade Robson was as good as a stranger to Michael Jackson. Talk about contradicting yourself.

6. James Safechuck Abuse Details Come from a Discredited Book

The Jordy Chandler Book Titled "Michael Jackson Was My Lover" by Victor Gutierrez is apparently the source of James Safechuck's false molestation allegations against Jackson, because in the eyes of the estate and Jackson stans, child sex abuse allegations can't be similar to others. Yes, this is what they actually want you to believe. Child molesters do not under any circumstances use the same grooming and seduction techniques more than once.

You know, if the estate are going to make such pig ignorant comments such as that they could at least provide some counterarguments with factual proof that support their claims, but they can't.

As for the book, the estate video claims it's been discredited and that Victor Gutierrez was sued by for $2.7 million. What they fail to tell you is that Victor Gutierrez was never sued by Jackson in relation to his book, instead he claimed he had a videotape of Jackson having sex with a teenage boy. No video ever materialise, but his book remained on sale and can be purchased to this day.

Jackson never in his entire lifetime sued anybody who published a book alleging he was a paedophile. That's a fact.

8. Leaving Neverland Has Been Massively Discredited and Didn't Have the Impact They Hoped

This again is a audio clip from barmy truther, Charles Thomson.

He goes on to say: "I think what they were hoping for a response akin to the Harvey Weinstein response... you know where all of a sudden you have another person coming out and another person coming out. It's just this huge snowball that keeps getting bigger and bigger and in the end, it destroys Michael Jackson. I think Dan Reed thought he was going to win a poulos or something, but in fact it has just been a complete catastrophe for them because it's not had anything like the impact like they thought it would. There's been like a handful of radio stations in the whole world, who's actually banned the music and you know, like 99% still playing it and in the meantime, the documentary has been completely discredited online. Umm... it's not done anything like the numbers I think that thought it would."

I don't ever recall Dan Reed, nor HBO or Channel 4 ever saying they hoped Leaving Neverland would open the floodgates to more allegations, or result in the worldwide ban of his music. In fact, I think Dan Reed was surprised that Leaving Neverland did spark a big debate that later resulted to some radio stations and TV channels banning Jackson from their airways.

As for the floodgates, not opening? Well, how many victims have to come forward until people accept that there was something very wrong with Jackson's obsession for one-on-one sleepovers with unrelated little boys?

Jackson has five physical accusers, plus a handful who say inappropriate things happened, such as Terry George. These boys spent months or years in Jackson's company. Wade and James both allege that Jackson abused them hundreds of times. That's a lot.

Everybody knows that Harvey Weinstein's victims remained silent for years or even decades, despite being successful, wealthy actresses. Some even worked with Harvey Weinstein, or posed for pictures with him at awards ceremonies despite him being a monster. What does that tell you?

Jimmy Savile is one of the UK's most prolific sexual predators who abused hundreds of individual people. He however died as a humanitarian and innocent in the eyes of the law. When he was alive he had 2 allegations of sexual abuse against him, which were quickly dismissed, due to lack of evidence. Jimmy Savile's victims were terrified to come forward until the time was right.

Ian Watkins, the former lost Lostprophets singer who somehow persuaded two starstruck female fans to abuse their children for his pleasure. Not only was this one of the sickest child sex abuse cases in history, but one that was committed in the name of celebrity worship syndrome.

The US Department of Justice in 2016 reported that as many as 80% of rapes and sexual assaults go unreported, with reasons ranging from revictimization, distortion of allegations, and generally not being believed.


A German study has concluded that the average age child sex abuse victims disclose their abuse is 52 years old, meaning we could very well see even more allegations against Jackson in 20 years time.


Charles Thompson, rather bizarrely, boasts on his own website that when he worked for a Essex-based newspaper, the Yellow Adviser, that "his investigation has inspired multiple victims to report their abuse for the first time and has led to at least one arrest." So, in a nutshell, the guy talk about historic sexual abuse crimes that weren't reported for decades and compensation cover-ups within Essex Council, but five physical accusers who say they were abused hundreds of times by Jackson, somehow, isn't enough. Welcome to bizarro world.

Of course, Charles Thomson isn't stupid. He chooses to control and influence others via misinformation. Exactly why a grown 30+-year-old wants to do that is something only he can answer. But he knows Jackson wasn't a monster who hid in bushes and kidnapped and sexually abuse children. He was, what the professionals would call "a nice guy" child molester who showered his victims with love, attention and gifts.

I don't believe for one minute that Jackson only physically molested five boys. More will come out in the future, I'm sure of it. But perhaps a big reason more haven't can forward is because of people just like Charles Thompson, who seem to take pleasure in running this Russian style misinformation campaign against Jackson's current accusers.

If the facts tell us one thing, it's that sexual abuse is unbelievably complicated and survivors disclose abuse when they are ready, not when society expects them to.

As for Leaving Neverland being completely discredited? Well, it's certainly ruffled a lot of feathers and prompted the estate as well as thousands of mentally deranged Jackson stans to go on the war path, over something which supposedly doesn't have an ounce of credibility or truthfulness in it. Need I say any more?


The "Lies of Leaving Neverland" is a another one-way propaganda and misinformation video designed to cast the usual doubt and confusion as well as hatred towards James, Wade and Dan Reed. The release of the spliced and diced deposition video certainly is a desperate attempt by the estate, one which may come back to haunt them. The fact that they could only manipulate 4 minutes and 55 seconds from multiple hours of footage, strongly indicates they couldn't find anything incriminating.

If only the Jacksons and their goons put this much effort into tackling Michael Jackson's unhealthy obsession with young boys back in the 80s and 90s, we probably wouldn't be in this mess now.

In the meantime, Leaving Neverland is still available to stream online, and will undoubtably win more awards. If the estate really was to put an end to that they could face Wade Robson and James Safechuck in a fair and legal environment, rather than hide behind an outdated statute of limitations law.


  1. You are incorrect. Okay, I must go now to grow my yams, goodbye my children.

  2. Can you make a page about Jimmy Savile? Or one about R. Kelly? I don't know anything about that. You don't need to contact Michael Jackson, he was innocent.

  3. Great post debunking the lies of MJ cult.

  4. Lmao keep doing mental gymnastics to believe in that pedo fantasy film you lifeless freak.

  5. Thank you!
    I believe all victims of Mj.
    Great post!Keep up the Good work!!!

  6. If Wade is a victim, why did MJ chose him to be the witness? I never understand that... What if he broke down and tell the truth? Why not another kid who's not a victim, because lots of kids went there, some still testifiying MJ is innocent until today.

    And LN doesn't even involving the jury judges etc, so... I don't know.


This blog is about investigating Michael Jackson's questionable behaviour, and recognising the complexity of child sex abuse. You'll gain nothing from this blog if you're a Michael Jackson stan, who sees nothing wrong with a grown man having one-on-one sleepovers with unrelated children.

Therefore, ensure that all comments are civilised and on-topic. Misinformation or abuse directed at Michael Jackson's survivors will not be tolerated.