On the morning of January 8, 2020, a Boeing 737 crashed and left debris scattered over a wide area just minutes after takeoff from the Imam Khomeini International Airport in Tehran. The Ukrainian International Airlines jet was en route to Kyiv, scheduled to land at Boryspil International Airport at 8 am local time. “Amateur” videos posted on social media led to the suspicion that the plane had been brought down by a missile over the city of Parand.
The first video, posted on Instagram by The Rich Kids of Tehran, was taken by someone who just happened to be shooting up at the totally dark sky at the very moment the plane appeared and was apparently hit by something, resulting in its crash in a flaming fireball when it hit the ground. This recalls the luck of the Naudet brothers on 9/11. The New York Times obtained a high-resolution copy of the Rich Kids video and “verified” it, whatever that means.
A second video was posted, filmed from a car that was driving in the direction of the crash. A third video showed the plane flying in from the right, proceeding on a downward trajectory, and exploding in a huge fireball upon impact:
A CCTV video turned up, reportedly showing the last moments of the jet, or what remained of it, exploding in a passageway between two walls, raining burning debris and leaving small fires on the ground. Other videos of small fires circulated in the media, suggesting widespread burning and destruction.
There were 176 people on board flight #752 according to Wikipedia, including 9 Ukrainian crew members and two additional Ukrainians. The other passengers included, by nationality, citizens of Iran (82), Canada (63), Sweden (10), Afghanistan (7), and Great Britain (3). According to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who was outraged by the situation, 138 of the 167 passengers were traveling to Canada. At least one Canadian passport was recovered, miraculously, and it seems likely that there are others. Just like the passports of four of the alleged hijackers on 9/11.
Canadian Passport. Image: Office of the President of Ukraine.
One does wonder why 138 people would travel from Tehran to Canada via Kyiv, but that is only one of many questions associated with this crash. Stranger still are the memorial programs for the Canadian victims that showed up in the media ON THE SAME DAY as the crash. Two that appeared immediately were produced by the CBC and the Vancouver Sun.
The CBC video, “Flight 752: A Canadian Tragedy,” is 45 minutes long and includes extensive reporting, dramatic commentary, and footage of the crash site, as well as the “stories” of the victims, with their full names, biographical information, candid shots, and professional black-and-white photos. The post is now dated January 9, but it was up on January 8. Even considering the time difference between Canada and Iran, it must have taken a cast of thousands working feverishly to compile the information and images and produce the programs so quickly. Unless they had advance notice.
Curiously, relatives and friends of the victims appear in the memorials, some looking barely distressed and even smiling, speaking to reporters ON THE SAME DAY their loved ones died, instead of choosing to grieve in private. One thinks of the cheerful interview of Chris and Lynn McDonnell by Anderson Cooper right after their daughter Grace was supposedly killed at Sandy Hook Elementary by Adam Lanza.
The crash site is also problematic. Debris is strewn over a wide area, with little of it burned. Very few parts of the plane are visible in the news footage, although most of it should have been recovered. The Boeing 737-800 has between 162 and 189 seats, but not a single airplane seat is seen in the footage.
A few pieces of luggage show up, but nowhere near the amount there should be, and papers, water bottles, photo albums, and children’s books survived. And we do have shoes, lots of single shoes – the hallmark of hoax events worldwide.
Pieces of debris look dropped at the site, and where they are close to a wall, the wall is not damaged.
The tail usually survives in a plane crash, but only the tip shows up here, and it looks like it was set down carefully in a tilled field, with the rows undamaged by any kind of impact.
The theory that the plane was shot down by a missile (or two missiles), which supposedly exploded before actually hitting it, is said to be substantiated by a missile part found at the crash site. This is allegedly a piece of a Tor-M1 missile, found in the yard of a home in the city of Parand, although this is unverified.
Photo of a Tor-M1 missile part that was posted on Twitter. Image: New York Post.
It seems that a missile may have been involved, although not to shoot down the airplane. This was discovered by Jeffersonian Girl who has posted several videos on the crash at 153news.net. She is an expert on jet fuel and a designer of fuel farms for airports. The Boeing 737-800 uses Jet A fuel, WHICH DOES NOT EXPLODE. The plane would have broken apart on impact, and fires may have resulted, although the high flashpoint of jet fuel reduces the potential for a post-crash fire. But the plane would not have exploded in a massive fireball.
One of the “amateur” videos, the “third video” posted above, allegedly shows the plane coming in from the right on a straight downward trajectory, hitting the ground in an exploding burst of light. If this video is real, it actually shows a missile and not a Boeing 737. The CCTV video, if real, further indicates that a missile hit the ground and not flight #752. This is all made clear in Jeffersonian Girl’s informative presentation.
None of the “amateur” videos can be assumed to be authentic, just as the stories in the media cannot be trusted. Taken together, however, the evidence points not to a plane crash but to a fake event, perhaps involving a missile, with loads of debris trucked in and deposited for the cameras.
This is further indicated by the lack of a proper investigation of the crash site and the hasty clean-up, which has been blamed on Iran. What about all those people walking around the area and gathering things up, and what about all the body bags? News footage shows many of these bags being carried away from the scene and, in a few cases, being filled with items picked up off the ground. Some of these people are not even in uniform, while others are from the Iranian Red Crescent, an NGO under the aegis of the International Red Cross. As with other deep-state events, local officials are involved, and the cover-up is part of the operation.
Body bags at the site of the crash of flight #752, filled with junk from the debris field. Image: New York Times.
Officials in the U.S., Canada, and elsewhere suggested that the Iranians had shot down the plane, although they conceded that it may have been accidental. Iran said that this was “a big lie,” “psychological warfare,” and “scientifically impossible.” After holding out for three days, however, the Iranians knuckled under and took responsibility, admitting that they had shot down the jet by accident. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif apologized in a tweet.
The admission gave rise to protests against the government, with shouts of “Khamenei is a murderer!” as reported by The New York Times. On January 13, The Times was reporting that “at least several people had been shot in the back by security forces, according to witnesses and videos.” Since one cannot believe anything that appears in The Times, it is unclear if this is true. But it further demonizes Iran, and it makes a good story.
So Iran has allegedly shot down a plane full of civilians, killing 176, and is murdering its own people in the streets. And all this stemmed from Trump’s drone strike on Qasem Soleimani on January 3, according to the media. The neocons are pleased, with Iran diminished and on the defensive, with Soleimani dead, and with Trump cast as the culprit. But was Trump really the main instigator?
In a two-page spread on Sunday, January 12, The Times published a story claiming that he was indeed at fault: “Seven Days in January: How Trump Pushed U.S. and Iran to the Brink of War.” This is an amusing title, referring to “Seven Days in May,” a 1964 film (based on a 1962 book) about a planned takeover of the U.S. government by a military/political cabal displeased with the fictional President’s disarmament treaty with the U.S.S.R. – that is, with the President’s wish to avoid war and commit to disarmament instead.
That is pretty much what is happening now, with Trump wanting to end the endless wars, and the neocons and their sponsors – Israel chief among them – hoping to keep the wars going and finish up by attacking Iran. The list of authors of “Seven Days in January” reads like a Who’s Who of CIA journalists:
One should remember that Soleimani has been in the sights of Israel and its operatives for years. He was instrumental in Iran’s support for Hezbollah in 2006, and he reportedly worked with Hezbollah in 2010 to strike at Israel. In 2015, Barack Obama allegedly warned Soleimani about an assassination plot by Israel, although by 2018, Israel was supposedly given “the green light” by U.S. officials. Benjamin Netanyahu has campaigned tirelessly for war against Iran, on the pretext that it is developing nuclear weapons.
Netanyahu at the UN in 2012, telling the General Assembly that Iran was close to building a nuclear bomb.
Although Netanyahu has distanced himself from the assassination of Soleimani, calling it “an American event,” Israeli sources are reporting that “the Jewish state was involved in the January 3 operation, handing the Americans key intelligence details.” The Times reports that Mike Pompeo briefed Netanyahu in advance about the plan to kill Soleimani, and that he was the only non-U.S. leader who knew about it beforehand. Some have speculated that the assassination was carried out by the CIA and Mossad. Did Trump really give the order?
This brings us back to the crash of flight #752. If this was a staged event and not a real plane crash, which is all but certain, who was capable of carrying out such a huge operation – and who benefits? According to the media, we are now very close to a war with Iran. General Hossein Salami, commander-in-chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, apologized for the downing of the jet but added, “We are at war with the United States. We do not consider the conflict over.” The U.S. does not benefit from a war with Iran – nor does Trump, as this would only alienate his supporters and add to his current problems. His defeat in 2020 is already being predicted by the media, due to the situation in Iran.
But one country does benefit from the assassination of Soleimani and the staged plane crash, and that is Israel. While one might think that the crash of a Boeing 737 and the deaths of 176 passengers would be impossible to fake, one should remember the attacks of 9/11. Four passenger planes were said to have crashed into WTC 1 and 2, the Pentagon, and the ground at Shanksville, killing the crews and passengers – although none of this actually happened. The false-flag attacks of 9/11 were engineered by Israel and its accomplices, including many traitors in the U.S. government. Like those attacks, the crash of flight #752 was an orchestrated event on a grand scale, involving an airplane and killing no passengers – calculated to keep America fighting for the Zionist Project.
So what induced the Iranians to take responsibility for downing the Ukrainian jet, when they knew the crash was “scientifically impossible”? As the media saying goes, the situation is still developing.
VIVIAN LEEis the nom-de-plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university.
Christine Blasey Ford takes the oath. Image: Getty Images.
The word of the moment is “credible.” Immediately following the Senate hearings on September 27, 2018, The New York Times published several online editorials as to why we should “believe” Christine Ford and not Brett Kavanaugh. The lead editorial is still posted there: “Why Brett Kavanaugh Wasn’t Believable and Why Christine Blasey Ford Was.” This was echoed on the front-page of the print version on September 28, showing two huge photos side by side: a stoic-looking Ford with her right hand raised, next to an angry Kavanaugh who is meant to appear unhinged. As The Times notes:
What a study in contrasts: Where Christine Blasey Ford was calm and dignified, Brett Kavanaugh was volatile and belligerent; where she was eager to respond fully to every questioner, and kept worrying whether she was being “helpful” enough, he was openly contemptuous of several senators; most important, where she was credible and unshakable at every point in her testimony, he was at some points evasive, and some of his answers strained credulity.
Who cares whether Ford’s allegations of attempted rape were true? As everyone had been told, it was the “optics” that would be the deciding factor.
CNBC tells us Ford was credible because she was vulnerable, at times she “appeared visibly traumatized,” and she made direct eye contact, “showing that she had nothing to hide.” And, by the way, she was genuine. The Boston Globe reports that “Christine Blasey Ford Was More Credible.” This is because Kavanaugh’s defense “doesn’t ring true.” Plus, Ford “doesn’t seem like a partisan schemer.” Then we hear from Slate that Ford was credible because she was trustworthy, she was “definitive,” and because she was not really certain about all the answers she gave. In other words, although she was unclear about many details and could not substantiate her allegations with witness testimony or real data about the alleged event, this somehow acted to her advantage. She was credible because, well, she was credible. Even President Trump agreed.
By contrast, Kavanaugh was considered not credible, as supported by the various published images of him looking vicious, indignant, and, um, uncredible. He was “angry,” he went “full partisan,” and he lost it in a “toddler-worthy temper tantrum.” He even resorted to asserting his virginity in high school and for some years after. Not credible, sez Trevor Noah. Kavanaugh is “trying way too hard.” A team of pundits at MSNBC broke it down in the video “Credibility vs. Emotion: Blasey Ford & Brett Kavanaugh’s Divergent Testimonies.”
We were told to “believe” Ford and not Kavanaugh by virtually all mainstream outlets, including the controlled opposition “alternative” media. The main exception to this snow job is Fox News, which clings to the antiquated idea that the accused may be telling the truth. Online sources, however, tell a different story. Is Ford credible? I don’t think so, and neither do many others who watched her performance.
As Fellowship of the Minds points out, Christine Blasey Ford is a 52-year-old professional with a BA in Psychology from the University of North Carolina (1988), a master’s degree (PsyM) in Clinical Psychology from Pepperdine University (1991), and a PhD in Educational Psychology from the University of Southern California (1996); in 2009 she earned another master’s degree (MEd) in Epidemiology from Stanford University. Wow – that’s impressive. Why is she not familiar with the details of a polygraph test and clueless about the meaning of the word “exculpatory”? Not to mention the fact that she supposedly did not know how to contact the US Senate.
Handwritten statement by Christine Blasey Ford, as used for her polygraph exam.
Efforts have been made to interpret Ford’s body language and handwriting. Analysis of her performance at the Senate hearings suggests that she was acting the part of a vulnerable, confused child, feigning nervousness, and playing the “terrified” victim. One does not need a professional analyst to spell this out – anyone paying attention will have noticed her discrepant behavior. Her handwriting is odd as well – with errors and strike-throughs – and traits that are said to indicate an addictive personality and lack of self esteem.
Not only that, her memory is rather poor for an academic. Most obviously, she does not remember when or where her alleged assault took place, or how she got to the party and home again, but that was a long time ago. However, she is also foggy on when she took the polygraph test, despite the fact that she had just come from her grandmother’s funeral – she either took the test on that very day or maybe it was the following day – just not sure. She didn’t know who paid for her polygraph test. And, by the way, she wasn’t sure if she gave TheWashington Post her therapist’s notes. Are these memory lapses, or is she lying?
In a blatant lie, which was brought out in her questioning by prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, Ford told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she was too afraid to fly east for the hearings, despite the fact that she has been flying all over the country – indeed the world – continually, as she had to admit. If she lied about this, was she lying about her allegations of assault? And was the attempted rape she has described, and from which she escaped, enough to traumatize her for the following 36 years, leaving her so claustrophobic that she needed a house with two front doors? Those who have actually been raped, and I am one of them, tend not to spend the rest of their lives paralyzed as “victims” but get on with things – in a way that Ford has oddly been unable to do. Except for somehow getting a BA, two master’s degrees, a PhD, holding several professional positions, and publishing widely, overcoming all odds no doubt.
New light was thrown on the matter by a former boyfriend, who said he dated Ford and even lived with her over a period of six years (1992‒1998). His statement of October 2, 2018, was obtained by Fox News and posted on Twitter the same day. The ex-boyfriend (name redacted but later identified as Brian Merrick) wrote that during his time with Ford she never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh or said that she had been the victim of a sexual assault. She had no fear of flying and in fact flew with him around the Hawaiian Islands in a propeller plane. She “never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit.” And a year after they broke up, she charged $600 on their joint credit card, from which she had been removed.
Statement of Brian Merrick, ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, disputing details of her sworn testimony.
But that’s not all. Merrick stated that Ford had helped her best friend, Monica L. McLean, prepare for a polygraph test, which he had witnessed. During questioning by Rachel Mitchell, Ford said she had never had discussions with anyone besides her attorneys on how to take a polygraph. The following day, McLean denied the account, saying that Ford had never helped her prepare for a polygraph test. Indeed, Monica McLean, former FBI agent, would not have wanted to admit that she was coached, if she was.
At any rate, the fact that Ford passed a polygraph test says nothing about her credibility, which is why the tests are not admissible in court. Polygraph tests are notoriously unreliable and can be “beaten” by those in the know. Ford was apparently one such expert, having published on the use of hypnosis and “psychoeducation” as treatment therapies, indicating her interest in the use of hypnosis to assist in memory retrieval and to create artificial situations in order to affect emotions. Add to this her alleged connections to the CIA, through the internship program that she oversees at Stanford University and also through her father, Ralph G. Blasey, Jr., who worked for a CIA black-budget bank – charges that the “fact-checker” Snopes lists as “false.”
Protesters on Capitol Hill before the hearings. Image: Associated Press.
Tied in closely is the #MeToo movement, which has resonated with women worldwide, for good reason. However, a large cadre of left-leaning supporters now insists that we “believe” the victim, women, Ford, etc., because of course the victim is telling the truth. During the hearings, scores of protesters appeared in support of Ford, carrying banners reading “Believe Survivors” or wearing t-shirts and buttons with “Believe Women” and “I Believe Christine Blasey Ford,” while some wrote “I believe” on the palms of their hands, for some indiscernible reason. A woman claiming to be a victim of assault may indeed be telling the truth, but she may also be making a false accusation.
#MeToo has been hijacked and is now a “color revolution” – or perhaps it was from the start. Like the Arab Spring, the Rose/Tulip/Orange revolutions, and the “Occupy,” “Black Lives Matter,” and “Resist” movements in the USA, #MeToo is such an engineered campaign. So-called color revolutions worldwide are financed by deep state entities to stoke and capitalize on the distress of repressed populations (in this case, women) to create chaos through protest and divide-and-conquer tactics in order to advance the objectives of those at the top. The driving force behind color revolutions is now social media, and appropriately we have #BelieveSurvivors and #BelieveChristine on Twitter.
Graphic for #BelieveChristine. Image: Planned Parenthood.
The graphic meme is the raised hand with clenched fist, which has migrated from the Middle East and Eastern Europe to #DisruptJ20 for Trump’s inauguration – and on to #BelieveChristine. The special tactic of #MeToo activists is to take down those who have been accused but denied due process, pitting women against men and subverting the presumption of innocence. Most of the press has marched to this tune in lock step. As The New York Times cautions, “Women are watching.”
Not coincidentally, Ford’s lawyer Debra Katz is a NeverTrumper, a “Resist” protester who herself sports a shirt with the clenched fist of the color revolution. As learned from the hearings, Katz and her colleague Michael Bromwich both worked for Ford pro bono, and they paid for her polygraph test. We also learned that Senator Dianne Feinstein recommended the Katz firm to Ford as counsel. Just who organized this impressive effort? And who paid for it? That remains to be seen, although Katz is Vice Chair of the Board of the Project on Government Oversight, which has received Soros funding.Bromwich resigned from his law firm in order to join Ford’s legal team. He had recently represented Andrew McCabe after his firing by Jeff Sessions, helping raise money for McCabe’s legal fees from a crowdfunding campaign.
Speaking of which, Christine Ford has or had several GoFundMe campaigns in her name, as alluded to in her testimony. As of this writing, these have raised $31,000 to establish an academic chair in her name, $34,190 for a Christine Blasey Ford endowment to establish research funding “into the prevention of violence against women and into ending gun violence,” $57,162 for newspaper ads supporting Ford, and $857,592 for Ford directly. As she had no legal fees, one wonders why she needed this financial support. Meanwhile, Kavanaugh was not far behind, with more than $600,000 pledged in GoFundMe campaigns. According to Market Watch, more than 42 GoFundMe pages mentioning Kavanaugh or Ford were started in the wake of the Senate proceedings, some of them “satirical,” such as the “Start a Brett Kavanaugh Beer!” campaign, which raised $38 (now listed as $0) toward its $100,000 goal.Kavanaugh has since declined the GoFundMe contributions; Ford accepted hers.
Christine Blasey Ford with lawyers Debra Katz (left) and Michael Bromwich (right) with Monica McLean looking on. Image: C-Span.
Other shenanigans involve Monica McLean, who attended the Senate hearings in support of Ford. Ford wrote her letter to Dianne Feinstein in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, where, coincidentally, McLean has a residence. So one might wonder whether the two wrote the letter together, or consulted about its contents, although Ford testified that she wrote it herself. Meanwhile, three people were named by Ford as attending the 1982 party where Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her: Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser, none of whom corroborated her claim. It has now developed that Leland Keyser was pressured into changing her story by none other than Monica McLean, as revealed to the FBI and reported by The Wall Street Journal. Ford shot back at Keyser saying, “Leland has significant health challenges, and I’m happy that she’s focusing on herself and getting the health treatment that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her…”
Although Ford’s story is obviously full of holes, all was not lost for Kavanaugh’s detractors. Two other women joined the team with unsubstantiated allegations, as reported breathlessly by the corporate media: Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, the latter represented by Michael Avenatti, aka “Creepy Porn Lawyer,” whose most famous client was Stephanie Clifford, aka “Stormy Daniels,” hailed by the press as a “feminist hero.” Swetnick’s claims were so unbelievable that they were widely ridiculed, and Avenatti, once a media darling, is now “radioactive.” And to top it off, Catland Books in Brooklyn hosted a public hex on Brett Kavanaugh on October 20 – see #HexKavanaugh on Twitter. With this joyless circus, the Left has shot itself in the foot, or, as a recent Times editorial put it, “American liberalism has pierced its own tongue.” Many Democrats have chosen to #WalkAway. And Brett Kavanaugh, his reputation in shreds, now sits on the Supreme Court.
Delay and discredit
After 16 days of meetings with individual US Senators (July 10‒August 23) and five days of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings (September 4‒7 and 27), only the last day seemed to count. Already on the first day of the hearings, Democrats called for a delay in the proceedings. On September 5‒6, Kavanaugh was asked about his political philosophy on certain issues as well as such things as Trump’s tweets about the judiciary; on September 7 outside witnesses were allowed to testify, including John Dean and Aalayah Eastmond, alleged survivor of the alleged shooting in Parkland, FL. Protests disrupted the proceedings throughout.
“Survivor” Aalayah Eastmond testifies on September 7, 2018. Image: Associated Press.
Then on September 12, The Intercept revealed the existence of a letter held by Dianne Feinstein, describing “an incident” involving Kavanaugh and a woman, not naming the subject but only her lawyer, Debra Katz. This was Ford’s letter, which was dated July 30 and received by Feinstein shortly thereafter. On the pretext of protecting Ford’s anonymity, Feinstein held the letter back until just before the scheduled vote; this was seen by many as an effort to extend the proceedings and eventually derail the nomination process. On September 16, The Washington Post published Ford’s account. A final day of hearings was then scheduled for September 27, in order for Ford to testify and Kavanaugh to answer her allegations.
In one last attempt to discredit the nominee, Democrats on the comittee avoided all substantive discussion and went for the jugular. While Ford was treated with fawning courtesy, Kavanaugh was bullied and browbeaten. Dispensing with any pretense to the dignity of their office, the Dems threw the book at Kavanaugh – his high school yearbook. In over two hours of questioning, the Democrats pressed the judge on the meaning of Keg City Club, Devil’s Triangle, Beach Week Ralph Club, and Renate Alumnius/Alumni. Some Republicans addressed more serious issues, including Lindsey Graham with his questioning on the Law of Armed Conflict, although the object of this interchange was not widely understood by the public.
In her speech following the hearings, Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins reported on the results of her own extensive interrogation of Kavanaugh regarding his judicial philosophy. She determined that Kavanaugh would not vote to eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions. That he has been “unequivocal in his belief that no President is above the law.” And that he would not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. She decried the politically charged atmosphere surrounding Kavanaugh’s nomination, and she ended by saying she would vote to confirm him to the Supreme Court. As punishment, Democratic donors have organized a multimillion-dollar fund-raising campaign to defeat Collins should she run in 2020.
The debate we didn’t have
Many Americans felt cheated: “There was no debate when we needed one.” Instead of a broad inquiry into Kavanaugh’s judicial record, we heard about claims that he was a teenage alcoholic and “serial rapist.” One would want him to state his views on the separation of powers and the protection of civil liberties. In the words of Paul Craig Roberts:
Can the Executive branch spy on citizens without warrants and cause, despite laws and constitutional prohibition to the contrary? Can the executive branch detain citizens indefinitely despite habeas corpus, despite the US Constitution’s prohibition? Can the Executive branch kill US citizens without due process of law, despite the US Constitution’s prohibition? Dick Cheney and University of California law professor John Yoo say “yes the President can.”
What are Kavanaugh’s thoughts on the “War on Terror,” besides his belief that we are now at war? After 9/11, “Congress passed the authorization for use of military force, which is still in effect,” as he told Lindsey Graham. What are his thoughts about Graham’s extended questioning on the Law of Armed Conflict and insistence that “you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy” and “American citizens who collaborate with the enemy are considered enemy combatants”? And there is much more we would have liked to know.
Kavanaugh was at the White House on 9/11, serving as an associate to White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales. He was evacuated after the Twin Towers were “hit” along with his future wife, Ashley, who was President Bush’s personal aide at the time. Kavanaugh was involved in the drafting of the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act, and is credited with the line, “…the new law will update laws authorizing government surveillance,” although citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and this is not subject to “update.” In correspondence obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request, Kavanaugh referred to the PATRIOT Act as a “measured, careful, responsible, and constitutional approach.”
Brett Kavanaugh at the White House with Alberto Gonzalez and George Bush in an undated photo. Image: Wikimedia Commons.
Then there are the “torture memos” of 2002: two documents drafted by Jay Bybee and a letter from John Yoo to Alberto Gonzales, along with other communications issued under the Bush administration, including a notorious DOD memo signed by Donald Rumsfeld. At this time, Kavanaugh was serving as an associate to Alberto Gonzalez, although he has denied any knowledge of these memos before their public release in 2004. In the opinion of critics, this is considered unlikely.
A meeting was held at the White House in 2002 regarding the assertion by the Bush administration that it could label an American citizen an “enemy combatant” at its discretion, and the question of whether or not this would be accepted by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh was reportedly at that meeting, and took part in the discussion, although in 2006 he claimed he did not. Democrats had discovered this apparent discrepancy and sought to use it to question his credibility. This is the reason for Lindsey Graham’s pointed questioning, which sought to establish precedent prior to 9/11 on the issue of Americans classified as “enemy combatants.” Kavanaugh has insisted, “I told the whole truth, the whole truth in my prior testimony. I was not read into that program.”
These issues call into question the War on Terror itself. Kavanaugh appears to be behind it, as well as the PATRIOT Act and other unconstitutional policies enacted in the wake of 9/11 to bolster the US Security State. One might argue that these topics were avoided by Senators on the Judiciary Committee, since many of them were involved. In 2001, the only Senator who voted against the PATRIOT Act was Russ Feingold; only 10 Senators voted against the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2006. And a majority of Senators voted for the USA Freedom Act of 2015 reauthorizing provisions of the 2001 PATRIOT Act. Of those who voted on the bill in 2015, all current Democratic senators (40) voted YES; 12 Republicans voted YES, as did one Independent (Bernie Sanders). Most Republicans voted NO (35), along with one Independent (Angus King).
The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings were a bogus distraction from such major questions. They generated considerable sympathy for Kavanaugh as a victim of slander, although this was not the intended result, but they failed to hold him fully accountable.
Credible or complicit?
With the evidence in, we may conclude as follows. This charade was a scheme by the Democrats to delay and derail the Kavanaugh nomination. Although they did not succeed, they inflicted extensive damage. Ariel Dumas, a writer for Stephen Colbert’s Late Show, tweeted, “Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.”
“He said, she said” – only one of them was telling the truth. Kavanaugh’s testimony was much more believable, with the possible exception of how much beer he drank as a teenager. Ford’s allegations, however, were unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and even denied by the witnesses she named. Many details were unremembered, unclear, or illogical, and several of her statements were shown to be false. Senator Richard Blumenthal invoked falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, “false in one thing, false in everything,” in order to discredit Kavanaugh. This was rich, considering Blumenthal’s lies about his (non)service in Vietnam. According to this principle, it was not Kavanaugh but Ford who was discredited. Her testimony did not hold up. As Rachel Mitchell concluded:
A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them…I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
A new book by Ryan Lovelace reports that Debra Katz has admitted that Ford came forward with her allegations, in part, to taint Kavanaugh and undermine his authority should he support any alteration of Roe v. Wade. This contradicts Ford’s insistence that she was merely trying to be helpful and do her civic duty. A video clip of Katz confirms that she did indeed say the following:
…I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the Court…he will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that was part of what motivated Christine.
Whether wittingly or not, Christine Blasey Ford was complicit in the Democratic Party’s plan to bring down Brett Kavanaugh. In view of the evidence, she and her lawyers appear to have been deeply involved in the process.
VIVIAN LEEis the nom-de-plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university. A life-long advocate for the rights of women, she is a registered Democrat who has walked away.
The original version of this article was published at MemoryHoleBlog.org and JamesFetzer.org; a revised version was prepared for a volume on the Kavanaugh hearings edited by James Fetzer and published by Moon Rock Books (forthcoming). The article posted here is an updated revision.
Militarized law enforcement on the scene at the Cielo Vista Mall, El Paso, where the Walmart shooting allegedly occurred. Image: Daily Mail.
An action-packed summer weekend filled with not one but TWO mass-casualty events! Not to mention the Garlic Festival shooting in Gilroy, CA, of July 28. But the El Paso Walmart shooting and Dayton bar shooting are big ones, with 22 and 9 reportedly dead. That should knock the coming Epstein-related disclosures off the front page – or perhaps the news that the FBI conspired with Hillary to destroy her hard drives – although an additional event may be required for this purpose in the near future. These two “shootings” are highly problematic, however, with little to indicate that they occurred as reported.
THE EL PASO WALMART SHOOTING
On Saturday August 3, just before 11 am MDT, a gunman allegedly walked into a Walmart store in the Cielo Vista Mall and opened fire with an AK-47 type assault rifle, as shown in images from surveillance footage. The rifle was purchased legally, and the suspect, Patrick Crusius, was allowed to carry it openly in Texas, although the mall was apparently a gun-free zone. Without any extra ammunition, Crusius magically killed 20 people (the total has now risen to 22) and wounded another 27 with a single 30-round magazine.
Surveillance frames posted online of suspect Patrick Crusius allegedly walking into Walmart with an assault rifle. Image: Daily Mail.
Eye witnesses saw multiple shooters, dressed in black, but the story soon changed to a single gunman. Fox News reported shots being fired rapidly in multiple locations; more shots were fired 20 minutes later, although this has been dropped from the narrative. The police arrived in 6 minutes, but little information is available as to when and how they engaged and apprehended the shooter. According to Fox, officers found Crusius in his car outside the mall, and he surrendered voluntarily. Images show a lone policeman leading Crusius away in handcuffs, with no protection provided by any of the heavily armed law enforcement officers or SWAT team members on duty.
Patrick Crusius apprehended, being walked away by a single policeman. In the background, a pedestrian appears oblivious to the presence of the alleged mass murderer with his police escort. Image: Daily Mail.
According to witness accounts, the gunman started shooting in the parking lot and then continued inside the store, “shooting everyone, aisle by aisle, with rage.” As with other staged shootings, witnesses did not recognize the sounds they heard as gunfire, saying they were like “balloons popping” or “loud boxes being dropped or something” or “hits, like roof construction.” As with other staged events, cell phone videos show people running and being directed to exit the scene, but no evidence of any real gunshot violence, except for a few red-splattered victims. Although Walmart was filled with security cameras, store footage has not been released to the public.
Alleged victim with blood-like spatters being helped by policemen. Image: Daily Mail.
As of this writing, at least 27 were reported injured and taken to local hospitals. Some of the injured supposedly did not seek medical treatment because of their immigration status. The CEO of the Del Sol Medical Center in El Paso, David Shimp, has urged all those with injuries to seek medical attention, regardless of citizenship status. According to Shimp, “Undocumented citizen or not, we’re going to do everything we can to make sure we’re doing everything we can for them.” Note the new category that this event has produced – the “undocumented citizen.”
News reports attribute the shooting to “white nationalism” or “white extremism,” and some are blaming Trump, calling him a racist. As Cory Booker remarks in an NBC interview, “We have a President of the United States who is particularly responsible…this harvest of hate violence that we’re seeing right now lies at his feet.”
Senator and Presidential candidate Cory Booker.
Crusius, a 21-year-old QAnon follower, reportedly posted a 2,300 word “manifesto,” The Inconvenient Truth, on 8chan at 10:12 am, 27 minutes before the first 911 calls to the police. In the “manifesto,” he indicates his support for the New Zealand “Christchurch shooter” and his “manifesto” (even though the entire NZ event was fake). He states, “This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas…I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.”
There follow the “political reasons” and “economic reasons” for the attack, along with information on his “gear” – AK47(WASR 10) and 8m3 bullets – and “personal reasons and thoughts.” As with other “manifestos” posted by alleged shooters in staged attacks, this one reads like it was written by an employee of one of the government agencies or intelligence services involved in the operation.
In a Twitter post, former deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein calls the alleged massacre “white terrorism.” According to Rosenstein, many such killers “are lone-wolf losers indoctrinated to hate through the internet, just like Islamic terrorists.” A New York Times editorial calls it “white nationalist terror,” aided and abetted by “online communities like 4chan and 8chan.”
This idea conforms nicely to the FBI’s recent assertion that “conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists” are a growing terrorist threat, and that “conspiracy theories” thrive in “the modern information marketplace, occasionally driving both groups and individual extremists to carry out criminal or violent acts.” Such as the “shooting” at the El Paso Walmart, I guess.
Allegedly injured victims being transported via Walmart shopping carts, with no blood to be seen. Image: Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc.
Finally, as with other staged shootings, the participants amble around casually, with no sense of urgency or fear. Emergency protocol was not observed – no colored START tarps are in evidence, and EMTs and ambulances did not swarm the scene. Instead, makeshift efforts to attend to the “wounded” were carried out with the help of bystanders, and shopping carts were pressed into service. A drill or “training exercise” for a “mass killing” had just been held at the Del Sol Medical Center, which is allegedly treating 11 of the “injured.” Witnesses are not credible, and actors were involved. Blood donations were solicited, and pizza was served. Funeral homes have offered their services free of charge. Some Go Fund Me accounts were set up for the “victims” before the “massacre” actually occurred, and news reports were written up days before the event.
Beto O’Rourke reacts to the shooting with levity, earning him the title “the new Robbie Parker.” Image: CBS.
As the evidence suggests, this was a drill gone live, with multiple gunmen shooting blanks and Crusius playing the patsy. Contrary to Mike Adams’s assertion, there is no indication that anyone actually died at the Walmart in El Paso. This alleged shooting looks like a piece of (poorly) staged theater, calculated to push the gun control agenda, bolster illegal immigration and enhance the rights of “undocumented citizens,” reflect poorly on Trump, give the Democrats a boost for 2020, and further terrorize the US citizenry with another freakish psyop. Insider Beto O’Rourke finds it awfully funny.
THE DAYTON BAR SHOOTING
The El Paso “shooting” was followed 13 hours later by a second “shooting” in Dayton, Ohio. Connor Betts, 24, allegedly killed 9 and injured 27 in less than a minute outside the Ned Peppers bar at 1:05 am on Sunday. Betts reportedly wore a mask, body armor, and hearing protection. He supposedly carried an AR-style assault rifle with 100-round drum magazines and also had a shotgun in his possession. The 9 victims were identified within hours and included the gunman’s sister; Betts himself was shot and killed immediately by the police.
Connor Betts and his sister Megan, whom he supposedly killed. Image: New York Post.
Witnesses described the sound of the gunshots as “bang-bang-bang-bang” and reportedly found bodies lying all over the ground outside the bar. Officers at the scene were asking people for their belts to use as tourniquets, and party-goers stripped off their shirts and did CPR. According to one Holly Redman, “It was like World War II.” Cell phone footage posted on Twitter shows alleged bodies lying on the ground covered with sheets.
Screen shot of alleged bodies seen after the Dayton “shooting.”
On the other hand, video from an “unnamed source” obtained by CNN shows the same area with people crouching on the ground and no visible injuries.
Frame from a video from an “unnamed source” obtained by CNN purporting to show bodies on the ground outside the Ned Peppers bar. Image: CNN.
The Dayton police released an audio recording and later a two-part surveillance video that allegedly shows the death of Betts at the entrance to the bar. The footage does not comport with the reports of the attack, however, as troops of people run down the street, followed by Betts, who does not appear to be shooting; no one is hit, and no victims are shown on the ground outside the bar. While several officers are shooting at Betts, one man gets out of his parked car and strolls across the street – an unlikely occurrence if the event were real. The surveillance video – and the shooting scenario – were staged but not well coordinated.
Surveillance video frame allegedly showing Connor Betts on the ground at left outside the Ned Peppers bar, after he was shot by the police. Image: Daily Mail.
Even stranger, alleged photos of Betts lying dead on the ground have surfaced online, showing him wearing tan shorts and a black sweatshirt that reads “No Heart to Feel – No Soul to Steal,” from the song “Ramirez” by the Metalcore band The Acacia Strain – which has disavowed the shooting. What happened to the mask and body armor? And why is Betts not covered in blood, after being strafed with 65 rounds of ammunition? Is this a human corpse or a life-like dummy? Click on the link to view the photos.
Meanwhile, one Connor D. Betts has appeared on the internet, and he seems to have died in 2014 at the age of 22 in Suffield, CT. Watch the 2014 tribute to this long-deceased young man. This other Connor Betts even had a sister named Megan. So what gives, folks? Questions and anomalies, indeed.
As with other staged mass-casualty incidents, we have fabricated accounts about the suspect as well as unbelievable witnesses, officials, and relatives, who behave inappropriately for a tragic event. We have a massive exercise and drill program scheduled to take place in Ohio during the week of August 5-8, with the Dayton drills occurring on August 6-7. We have stories about the “shooting” written before it happened. And we have SHOES – lots and lots of shoes, which show, I don’t know – that this was another psyop?
Hoax shoes piled up in the street near Ned Peppers. Image: Associated Press.
Another weekend, another bunch of massacres. An article by Andrew Marantz in The New Yorker sorts it all out, telling us that “the national conversation will now turn, as it should, to gun control, to mental illness, and to the President’s practice of exacerbating racial tensions.” The author connects the new shootings not only to the New Zealand mosque attacks but also to the synagogue shootings in Pittsburgh and Poway, CA. He cites a Google spreadsheet of shootings posted on 8chan, with the alleged killers referred to as “martyrs.” He neglects to inform his readers that all these events were fake.
The problem is “radical nationalism, unhinged nihilism, and fears of ‘white genocide,’” as well as “free speech” networks such as Gab, 4chan, and 8chan – platforms that “serve as round-the-clock white supremacist rallies,” according to the Anti-Defamation League. First Amendment constraints notwithstanding, Marantz hopes that more pressure can be brought to bear on such platforms. On Monday, The New York Times called for 8chan to be shut down, and efforts are underway to do so.
The New Yorker thinks that the two weekend shootings “should spur democrats to propose big ideas on gun violence.” Certainly, the Democratic Presidential candidates all have their gun-violence-prevention plans. These “Presidential hopefuls” will convene at a forum in Las Vegas on October 2 (following the second anniversary of “the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history”) to discuss the problem. The forum is sponsored by the Giffords group and March For Our Lives. Parkland “survivor,” David Hogg, wants the candidates to discuss “bold and holistic plans” that tackle all aspects of gun violence.
The real problem is not gun violence, however, but staged gun violence. And weather warfare, forced immigration, and the erosion of our rights under the U.S. Constitution. The country came under attack on September 11, 2001, in what was only the opening salvo. With the corporate media in league with the traitors who are perpetrating this program, it is hard to feel optimistic.
VIVIAN LEE is the nom de plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university.
This article was also published at JamesFetzer.org.
The 2018 political thriller, The President Is Missing, co-written by James Patterson and former President Bill Clinton, debuted at #1 on the New York Times best-seller list for fiction in both the print/hardcover and e-book categories. Reviewed in the New York Times Book Review section for June 24, 2018, the novel was touted as “ambitious and wildly readable,” a story of “a president who ditches his handlers and goes rogue from the White House, convinced he is the only one who can foil a huge cyberterror plot.”
Co-authors James Patterson and Bill Clinton promoting The President Is Missing, June 2018. Image: Associated Press.
While the book “unspools smoothly,” it reportedly gets a bit bogged down at the end, with “a few too many unsubtle messages about the current state of our politics.” Nonetheless, the reviewer admires the novel, in its realistic depiction of “the selfless and often nameless people who work in government” who are willing even to lose their lives “because they are compelled to serve their nation,” in its exploration of the thin line between loyalty/duty and resentment/temptation, and in its shining of “a spotlight on the deep commitment of America’s adversaries to tear us apart and weaken our standing in the world.”
Touted as an “Instant #1 New York Times Bestseller,” the book immediately had almost 700 amazon reviews, and now it has nearly 6,500, although it does not top the list when the title is searched at the site. According to amazon, James Patterson “holds the Guinness World Record for the most #1 New York Times bestsellers, and his books have sold more than 375 million copies worldwide.” He had reportedly written 202 books by the time of this publication, and he has contributed to many philanthropic causes, receiving the National Book Foundation’s 2015 Literarian Award for Outstanding Service to the American Literary Community.
Were you wondering about this instant bestseller that seemingly appeared out of nowhere to take the reading world by storm? Not mere happenstance, the book resulted from a political deal between pseudo-author James Patterson (who writes 202 books?) and ageing lothario Bill Clinton, in the service of big bucks and Hillary’s 2016 bid for the presidency. The President Is Missing is tribute to the selfless and often nameless people who work in the publishing industry, compelled to serve the interests of the media stars who bring in the profits. 
Patterson not only writes novels, but also non-fiction, such as his 2016 book, Filthy Rich, another New York Times bestseller – “the shocking true story of Jeffrey Epstein,” the billionaire socialite, sometime scientist, and registered sex offender. Although Patterson gets author’s credit, he collaborated with investigative reporters John Connolly and Tim Malloy, who were responsible for much of the research and writing.
Until recently, Epstein has flown mostly below the radar (and I do mean flown), coming into view from time to time and exposed, partly, by Patterson’s semi-pornographic bio. Filthy Rich details the downfall of Epstein, relatively speaking, who was arrested after a complaint in 2005 and incarcerated in 2008, serving 13 months of an 18-month sentence. With his arrest in New Jersey on July 6, 2019, Epstein is in the spotlight once again.
Jeffrey Epstein – Filthy Rich
Born in Brooklyn, Epstein is a reported billionaire and major donor to the Democratic Party, with residences in Palm Beach, New York City (“reputedly the largest private residence in Manhattan”), New Mexico, Paris, and the island of Little Saint James in the U.S. Virgin Islands, which he owns. Although Epstein worked on Wall Street, eventually founding his own financial management firm, no one has quite been able to explain the source of his purported vast wealth.  This funded a lavish lifestyle and allowed him to dole out piles of C-notes to underage girls solicited to give him erotic “massages,” as detailed in graphic fashion by Patterson in Filthy Rich.
Sexual encounters occurred at Epstein’s residences and on his Boeing 727, dubbed the “Lolita Express,” which was outfitted with a bed for “orgies” with his guests and groups of young girls. Flight logs released in 2015-2016 list such luminaries as Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker, Naomi Campbell, Woody Allen, Alan Dershowitz, and Bill Clinton. The ex-president took 26 trips on the Lolita Express, notably an excursion to Africa in 2002 to tour AIDS projects, and Epstein credits himself as “part of the original group that conceived the Clinton Global Initiative.” Yet Patterson’s Filthy Rich has little to say about Clinton, summing up the relationship as follows:
“Bill Clinton got the use of a jet out of Epstein – a trip to Africa. But he and Epstein weren’t bosom buddies.” 
Although Clinton was an obvious star of the show, and his role should have been investigated, The President Is Missing from Patterson’s 2016 book about Epstein.
Epstein’s “Lolita Express.” Image: John Coates, airport-data.com.
Epstein’s pals include heads of state, entrepreneurs, academics and research scientists, celebrities, and numerous beautiful women, notably Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of media mogul Robert Maxwell (né Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch). Robert Maxwell, head of the Mirror Group Newspapers, was alleged to be a Mossad agent by Seymour Hersh in his 1991 book on Israel’s nuclear program, The Samson Option. Maxwell denied the charge and sued Hersh for libel, but he died in November 1991, and the suit died with him. Hersh countersued and eventually received an apology and a settlement.
Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Image: POLITICO.
This has led to the speculation that Ghislaine Maxwell has Mossad connections as well. She was instrumental in procuring young girls for Epstein, in a constant supply for his use, her own use, and for loans to others. According to the testimony of several of the girls involved, they not only serviced Epstein and Maxwell but also their associates, including Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, and other powerful players. The girls were asked to bring back reports on their liaisons, which were sometimes filmed with hidden cameras.  These look like high-end blackmail operations, with Epstein and Maxwell skimming sex off the top for their own sick pleasure. 
Virginia Roberts, now married and using the name Virginia Giuffre, filed an affidavit in 2015 claiming that Ghislaine Maxwell recruited her in 1999 at age 15 while she had a summer job at Mar-a-Lago. Giuffre says she spent four years as Epstein’s “sex slave” and was also pimped out to Prince Andrew and Dershowitz (although both have strenuously denied the charges). Giuffre claims that she never slept with Bill Clinton but met him twice at Little Saint James, and was sure “Bill must have known about Jeffrey’s girls.” At the very least, Clinton knew what Epstein was up to. 
Prince Andrew and Virginia Roberts in 2001. Image: Daily Mail.
Justice Not Served
Things started to slide in 2005, when the parent of a 14-year-old contacted the Palm Beach Police, saying she believed her stepdaughter had been molested by a wealthy man. The girl had shown up at school with $300 in her purse, and soon she was describing Epstein’s mansion at 358 El Brillo Way and the “massage” she had given him. Palm Beach detectives began to investigate and turned up more girls involved both as participants and solicitors. The girls were interviewed, and a search of the premises netted ”sex toys,” erotic art, and nude photos of underage victims, as well as secret cameras.
Police Chief Michael Reiter and Detectives Joseph Recarey and Michael Dawson began to build a case, culminating in Recarey’s probable-cause affidavit in 2006. This found sufficient cause to charge Epstein with four counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor, as well as lewd and lascivious molestation, both second degree felonies. These would have put him behind bars for years if convicted. However, things changed when the case was handed off to Palm Beach state attorney Barry Krischer, who had a different plan for Epstein. Instead of having him arrested, he convened a grand jury.
The fix was clearly in, as the Palm Beach Police were not informed of the time and date of the grand jury meeting, and witnesses including the victims were not notified regarding their testimony. Recarey eventually learned that Krischer’s office had made an offer to Epstein and his attorneys, Guy Fronstin and Alan Dershowitz. Despite all the evidence amassed, the offer was for one count of aggravated assault with intent to commit a felony, regarding only a single victim (although 47 were eventually identified), and a sentence of five years probation. This was due to the efforts of Dershowitz, who had proceeded to attack and smear the victims (Filthy Rich).
The many interesting details that followed cannot be recounted here (you can read Filthy Rich), but the outcome was a plea deal in 2007, an NPA (“non-prosecution agreement”). By this time, Epstein’s legal team also included Ken Starr, Roy Black, and Jay Lefkowitz. The NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty to two state felony charges, for solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution. He would register as a level 3 sex offender but not be prosecuted for felony offenses involving the sexual abuse of underage girls. The victims were allowed to sue him in civil court, but any potential co-conspirators were immune from prosecution. The deal was negotiated in part by R. Alexander Acosta, then United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida, who is now Secretary of Labor in the Trump cabinet. It was kept secret from the victims until it had been signed by a judge and put into effect.
Jeffrey Epstein in court to enter guilty plea, June 2008. Image: Palm Beach Post.
In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to the charges proposed. He received a 30-month sentence, including 18 months of jail time (of which he served 13 months), with six days off per week for “work release” (requiring him to spend only his nights in jail), and 12 months of house arrest (but allowing him to fly to his various residences). In what has been termed “a slap on the wrist,” he did his stint in the Palm Beach County Central Detention Center, not far from his home on El Brillo. Epstein enjoyed a single cell, in his own wing, with his own security guard, and unlimited visitors. According to the sheriff, “He was astonished that he had to go to prison at all.” 
The Art of the Book Deal
None of Epstein’s victims was consulted before the NPA was drafted, and this gave rise to a complex series of lawsuits, followed by numbers of settlements. In 2008, victims’ rights attorney Bradley Edwards filed a suit citing the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, stipulating that victims of federal crimes have the right to be heard in court and not be precluded from court proceedings. This has been winding through the courts, and new allegations have appeared, keeping Epstein on view as a person of interest. This caused a problem for some of his associates, including Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, and Bill and Hillary Clinton.
By early 2015, Roger Stone, Ken Silverstein, and others began to ask whether the Epstein affair might drag in Bill Clinton, creating a liability for Hillary in her bid for the presidency in 2016. Enter James Patterson, who was working on Filthy Rich with his investigative reporters. By the end of 2015, detective John Connolly announced that he was ready to turn over his manuscript to Patterson, so that the book could appear before the 2016 election. Why the rush, unless Patterson was working with the Clintons to establish a narrative – a narrative in which The President Is Missing from the Epstein saga? In return, Patterson got a lucrative book deal with co-author Bill Clinton, elevating his literary status considerably (his 202 books notwithstanding). However, this move did not help Hillary achieve her objective.
News of Bill’s 26 trips on the Lolita Express came out in May 2016, and in early November, just days before the election, highly-placed sources within the NYPD reported that both Bill and Hillary had frequented Little Saint James (“Orgy Island”), citing the contents of Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Forget James Comey and Hillary’s email server… The evidence from Weiner’s laptop, “enough evidence to put Hillary and her crew away for life,” was likely responsible for Donald Trump’s victory.  The details have not been released, although rumors abound on the internet, and photos have appeared allegedly showing tunnels and underground rooms on Little Saint James with disturbing images of children.
Donald Trump, Melania Knauss (the future Mrs. Trump), Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell at Mar-a-Lago, 2000. Image: Getty.
Not that Trump gets a pass. Although he is said to have barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago over Ghislaine Maxwell’s solicitation of young girls at his club, he was formerly an associate of the two and even an admirer of Epstein:
“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” 
A woman using the pseudonym Katie Johnson accused Trump and Epstein of raping her in 1994 when she was 13 years old, saying she realized only years later that one of her attackers was Donald Trump, after seeing him on “The Apprentice.” She filed suit in April 2016, but the suit was dismissed due to filing errors (the address given was a foreclosed home that had been vacant since the death of the owner). The suit was filed a second time but dropped on November 4 just before the election; no supporting evidence has appeared, and the claims of Ms. Johnson have been deemed not credible. In a recent interview, attorney Bradley Edwards has said that he does not believe that Trump was involved “in anything untoward whatsoever.”
In 2018, Epstein was again in the news. In April 2018, a fire allegedly broke out on Little Saint James. The lawsuit filed by Bradley Edwards against Epstein was scheduled to go to trial in March 2018 in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, but it was further delayed by an appeal from Epstein’s attorneys. In May 2018, the FBI released nine groups of files on Epstein, many of which were heavily redacted. One of the memos includes the sentence, “Epstein has also provided information to the FBI as agreed upon.” Some are speculating that the information he provided may explain the extreme leniency of his sentence.
Meanwhile, former Palm Beach detective Joseph Recarey died unexpectedly in May 2018, “after a brief illness,” at age 50. Recarey, mentioned above, was one of the lead investigators in the case against Epstein. “No other information about the cause of death was released.” The case was summarized in a Daily Beast article, and protesters disrupted a Patterson-Clinton book tour event and a Trump rally, voicing concerns over the Epstein connection.
The Downfall of Epstein?
The story has continued to unfold, with Epstein presumably pursuing his sybaritic lifestyle and his friends lying low – although things began to pick up in late 2018. The secret NPA was again brought to attention through a series of articles in the Miami Herald in late November, which pointed the finger at Alexander Acosta.  This seems to have been an effort to draw in Donald Trump, through his Secretary of Labor, although Acosta was clearly not the one calling the shots. The forces protecting and directing Epstein and his blackmail operation were surely behind the NPA, although “The Cowardly Secretary of Labor” was blamed by the mainstream media.
In February 2019, a Florida federal judge ruled that the prosecutors who brokered the NPA had broken the law by keeping the negotiations secret, in violation of the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat, called the NPA “despicable,” joining 18 other House Democrats in demanding Acosta’s resignation. “The Trump administration needs to get him the heck out of there – this is the person we have enforcing the country’s child labor laws.”
In a related case, 167 court documents were ordered unsealed by a federal appeals court ruling on July 3, 2019. The court decision cited the public’s right to access information about the case, outweighing the privacy concerns of certain individuals, “including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders,” implying that that such persons were involved in Epstein’s sex trafficking schemes.
With the world waiting for the release of these documents, Epstein was arrested on July 6, apprehended after his private jet touched down at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey, arriving from France. The new charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy were brought by the public corruption unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York. According to U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman of New York, the NPA is binding only for the Southern District of Florida and not in New York. Epstein pleaded “not guilty” in court on July 8. He is being held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, pending a bail hearing scheduled for July 15.
Jeffrey Epstein’s townhouse at 9 East 71st Street in Manhattan.
Agents reportedly broke open the door of Epstein’s Manhattan mansion with a crowbar and searched the premises, finding “nude photographs of what appeared to be underage girls.” As Attorney Berman said of the victims, “They deserve their day in court.” Considering the many influential players who risk exposure with the new charges, one wonders if justice will finally be served.
VIVIAN LEE is the nom de plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university.
This article was also published at JamesFetzer.org.
 According to a 2016 piece on Patterson in The New Yorker, “most often he farms out the word processing to co-authors, who receive detailed outlines and send back work that ranges in quality from vibrant schlock to hectic dreck.”
 According to her 2015 affidavit, “Epstein required me to describe the sexual events that I had with these men presumably so that he could potentially blackmail them,” Giuffre said, adding, “I am still very fearful of these men today.” Virginia Roberts Affidavit, section 58, p. 13. https://www.scribd.com/doc/267173868/Virginia-Roberts-Affidavit
 “When I was with him, Epstein had sex with underage girls on a daily basis. His interest in this kind of sex was obvious to the people around him. The activities were so obvious and bold that anyone spending any significant time at one of Epstein’s residences would have clearly been aware of what was going on.” Virginia Roberts Affidavit, section 17, pp. 5-6. https://www.scribd.com/doc/267173868/Virginia-Roberts-Affidavit
 Patterson, et al., Filthy Rich, 82-85, 161-189, 199-200.
On Saturday, April 27, 2019, the final day of Passover, a gunman allegedly burst into the Altman Family Chabad Community Center in Poway, north of San Diego, and shot off ten rounds or so from an “AR-15 style gun,” killing one person and injuring three others. The attack was carried out six months to the day after the alleged shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. President Trump responded: “Our entire nation mourns the loss of life, prays for the wounded, and stands in solidarity with the Jewish community. We forcefully condemn the evil of anti-Semitism and hate, which must be defeated.”
Chabad Community Center, Poway, CA.
According to The New York Times, the gunman “paused when the rabbi of the congregation tried to talk with him. But he fired again, shooting the rabbi in the hand.” Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein reportedly lost a finger in this account, although other reports have him missing two fingers, or all the fingers on his hand. An alleged eye witness said that the rabbi continued with his sermon, even though his hand was bleeding. However, the rabbi himself said that he immediately ran and got everyone out of the sanctuary to safety, “not even knowing that my fingers were blown off.” Only then did he continue his sermon, outside the synagogue.
“I got up there and just spoke from my heart,” the rabbi said. “Just giving everyone the courage to know, it was just 70 years ago during the Holocaust we were gunned down like this, and I just want to let my fellow Americans know that we’re not going to let this happen.”
Which version is correct? Rabbi Goldstein has given an interview detailing the harrowing encounter.
The gunman has been identified as 19-year-old John Earnest of San Diego, a “white nationalist” who “screamed that Jews were ruining the world as he stormed the synagogue.” He then fled the scene in his car, which sustained gunshot damage as he was driving away. So far so good for the gunman, but did he succeed in escaping? No – because he decided to call the California Highway Patrol to report his location on Interstate 15, and then, when approached by a policeman responding to the attack, he jumped out of his car with his hands up. Odd behavior for a determined killer.
The police apprehended the gunman when he pulled over in his car and surrendered, according to the authorities. Image: John Gastaldo, Reuters.
Yes, he was determined, reportedly posting an “anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, white supremacist manifesto” on 8chan before the shooting – “an anti-Semitic screed filled with racist slurs and white nationalist conspiracy theories,” echoing the “manifesto” posted by the New Zealand gunman in the less-than-believable Christchurch attacks of March 15. Reports suggest that he may have tried to stream the shooting “in real time.” The New Zealand and Pittsburgh attacks supposedly inspired Earnest to shoot up the Poway synagogue.
John Earnest, suspect.
As reported by The Daily Beast, Earnest is “a piano-playing nursing student” from a “religious family with a racist secret,” who practiced for hours each day and had a GPA of 4.31 – and who looked up to Adolf Hitler and believed that Jews “deserved nothing but hell” and wanted to be the one to “Send. Them. There.” Earnest’s father was an elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church; the pastor of the church thought that John was not the sort of person to carry out such an attack. “This is a complete surprise,” he said.
As with other staged shootings, those present did not immediately realize they were hearing gunshots, one person saying, “I thought maybe someone was stepping on those little plastic bubbles.” Other problems include the numerous postings of articles about the shooting made in advance of April 27.
A Google search turns up numerous articles on the alleged shooting that were posted before the event. Source: 153news.net.
As to why the shooter did not do more damage, The Times says, “perhaps because his gun stopped working.” Or maybe because “He was a coward,” as reported by ex-military congregant Oscar Stewart, who says he rushed the shooter and scared him away. Finally, even though the injured victims have all been released from the hospital, a Go Fund Me effort is trending, with donations “used to pay for any necessary medical operations for the victims, funeral services, synagogue reparations or anything else the synagogue would need assistance with.” Stay tuned for what will surely be more problems and anomalies as the narrative progresses.
VIVIAN LEE is the nom de plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university.
This article was also published at JamesFetzer.org.
The new pseudo-documentary, “Leaving Neverland,” directed by Dan Reed, hit the scene with a four-hour screening at Sundance on January 25, 2019. The film was then aired with great fanfare on HBO on two consecutive nights, March 3 (part 1) and March 4 (part 2). Following part 2, HBO featured a one-hour special with Oprah, “Oprah Winfrey Presents: After Neverland” (also shown on her channel OWN).
The stars of the film are Wade Robson and James Safechuck, alleged victims of childhood sexual abuse by Michael Jackson, with supporting roles for members of their families. “After Neverland” features Oprah in conversation with Robson and Safechuck. For a total of five hours, we hear their grisly stories of masturbation, French kissing, pornography, and anal rape, in vivid and horrifying detail, but without a shred of corroborating evidence.
The mainstream media was all over this extravaganza, and continues to cover it, despite an increasing number of problems regarding the allegations. With some exceptions, such as Macaulay Culkin and Diana Ross, the big stars are hanging back, reluctant to speak out in Jackson’s defense, although this may change, as the situation is still developing.
This reticence is due to the current #MeToo climate requiring us to #BelieveSurvivors, and also the animus of the press toward The King of Pop – widely considered The Greatest Entertainer of All Time. The new accusations against Jackson are just the latest (all the others having been proved untrue), this time targeting a man who cannot defend himself since he died in 2009. With “Leaving Neverland,” #MeToo vaults into the great beyond, such that anyone and everyone can now be defamed whether guilty or not, whether alive or dead.
“Leaving Neverland” is not a real documentary, but a slick promotional film purporting to tell the true stories of the accusers, which are completely unverified. We are supposed to believe these stories, even though both men have stated repeatedly in past interviews and under oath that they had never been molested by Jackson.
The Jackson Estate called the film “a one-sided marathon of unvetted propaganda to shamelessly exploit an innocent man no longer here to defend himself.” They have sued HBO for $100 million for breach of a nondisparagement clause in a 1992 contract. When Reed was asked why he did not seek input from members of the Jackson family or Michael’s close friends, he demurred, saying, “This isn’t a film about Michael Jackson; it’s a film about Wade Robson and James Safechuck.” Reed did not find it necessary to seek other “eyewitnesses,” since no one else was in the room when the two boys were supposedly being molested.
Wade Robson, Dan Reed, and James Safechuck in a promotional photo for the Sundance premier of “Leaving Neverland.”
Reed asks, “Well, what does the family know about this sexual abuse that happened? Do you think they know about the sexual abuse? … I don’t believe they do.” As to why the allegations were presented in such a graphic manner, he says he found this necessary:
“For many years, Jackson got away with this image of being a bit of a child himself, and, you know, being very affectionate with children, and I wanted to make sure that people understood this wasn’t over-enthusiastic, you know, kissing or cuddling. This was sex. This was the kind of sex adults have, but he was having it with a little child.”
Reed claims that throughout the two years of making the film, he did a “deep dive” into prior allegations of sexual abuse against Jackson. He says he “looked for anything that could cast doubt or undermine Wade and James’s story” and “found nothing at all.” As will be apparent, either he didn’t know where to look, or he is lying, along with the two alleged victims. Asked about how he came to make the film, Reed says it was a story he “stumbled across” in a footnote about Robson and Safechuck litigating against the Jackson estate. Who knew that a footnote reference could be so prolific?
Reed has made the rounds of the networks, promoting the film aggressively with a smirk on his face. This is schlock journalism at its most abhorrent and sensational, meant to overwhelm the viewer with gross, shocking details in the absence of actual evidence.
The lurid effect is further enhanced by clever camera work, multiple takes, background music, images of the men as children, and subtle props, not to mention fine acting by the film’s stars. This is child pornography, once removed, masquerading as a documentary. This is beginning to dawn on HBO, which has cut the film’s run short, and Oprah, who has muted the special on her website and deleted it from her social media accounts
Reed has indicated that he would like to make more films about the supposed victims of Jackson’s sexual abuse: Jordan Chandler, who claimed to have been molested in 1993 at age 13, and Gavin Arvizo, allegedly abused in 2003 at the same age. These two cases led to an inquiry and settlement (1993), and the arrest of Jackson (2003) and his acquittal (2005). We wish Reed good luck with this project, as Jackson was exonerated both times. However, the legal proceedings, invasions of privacy, and adverse publicity took a terrible toll on Jackson, leading, as some think, to his 2009 death. These earlier cases are bizarre in their particulars, and are typically reported inaccurately in the press. Although they cannot be explored here in detail, they are related to the new allegations and are therefore summarized below.
Jordan Chandler and the 1993 Settlement
Jackson met Jordan Chandler and his family at a car rental agency owned by the boy’s stepfather, David Schwartz, in 1992 when Jordan was 12 years old. Jackson became friends with the family and periodically called Jordan, who was a big MJ fan. Visits to Neverland ranch followed for Jordan, his sister, and his mother, June. In 1993, they were invited by Jackson to Las Vegas, where the family claims Jordan began sharing a bedroom with Jackson. Other invitations included trips to Monaco and Paris.
Michael Jackson and Jordan Chandler.
In 1993, Jackson met Jordan’s father, Evan Chandler, who was a screenwriter and celebrity dentist. Evan reportedly became “suspicious” that Jackson had sexually molested Jordan, and he hired a lawyer, Barry Rothman, who agreed to help, supposedly in exchange for dental treatments. David Schwartz taped several phone calls from Evan, which showed that he was clearly out to extort money from Jackson.
“This attorney I found – I mean, I interviewed several, and I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find, and all he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can and humiliate as many people as he can…
If I go through with this, I win big time. I will get everything I want. They will be destroyed forever.”
Schwartz played the first tape for Anthony Pellicano, a private investigator working for Bertram Fields, Jackson’s attorney. Pellicano then questioned Jordan, who insisted that nothing inappropriate had occurred. Despite this, Evan Chandler accused Jackson of sexually abusing Jordan, who supposedly “confessed” to Evan, although this is in doubt. Evan was trying to get custody of Jordan, who had been staying with his father and had not been allowed to return home.
Represented by Rothman, Evan demanded $20 million from Jackson to not go public with the accusation. When Jackson refused, Evan took Jordan to a doctor, who heard his coerced allegations against Jackson. This triggered a criminal investigation, and Jordan was allowed to stay with Evan.
Meanwhile, Jackson had embarked on the Asian leg of his “Dangerous” world tour. While he was out of the country, Neverland was searched under warrant, as well as his Century City condominium and a hotel room in Las Vegas where he had stayed with the Chandlers. Tapes and other items were seized, but nothing incriminating was found. A copy of the report was leaked to the media, and a frenzy ensued; the tapes of Evan Chandler ranting to Schwartz were then released by Pellicano.
Evan sued David Schwartz and ex-wife June for invasion of privacy in leaking the tapes, and Schwartz counter-sued Evan Chandler. In this midst of this fracas, Larry Feldman, the Chandler lawyer, sued Jackson for $30 million. Jordan was then taken to a psychiatrist, where he made more detailed allegations. Jackson’s lawyer countered with a letter to the LAPD complaining about the Chandlers trying to manipulate children into saying incriminating things about Jackson. The police interviewed 40-60 children who had spent time with Jackson, none of whom corroborated the Chandlers’ story. In November 1993, Jackson cancelled his remaining concerts, in poor health and dependent on pain killers. He returned to the U.S. in December.
Michael Jackson statement regarding the strip-search he was required to undergo in 1993.
More unfortunate incidents followed, but we will make a long story short. Jackson was strip-searched and his body photographed and videotaped, for comparison with a description made by Jordan Chandler. Although the media reported that Jordan’s description matched – which is still reported to this day – it did not match, and no arrest warrant was issued. In order to minimize the expense and the ordeal of a trial, Jackson’s lawyers settled the civil case out of court for $15.3 million dollars to be placed in trust for Jordan, plus a reported $1.5 million for each of his parents and $5 million in legal fees. The settlement was paid by Jackson’s insurance company and did not acknowledge any admission of guilt.
After the civil case had been settled, the criminal case continued. But Jordan Chandler refused to testify, and the grand juries disbanded without indicting Jackson. In 1995, Jordan Chandler legally emancipated himself from both his biological parents, and his whereabouts are unknown, although Dan Reed tried to find him for his film. After further attempts to extort money from Jackson, Evan Chandler committed suicide in 2009 after Jackson’s death.
Chilean reporter Victor Gutierrez was one of the players in the case, serving as a source for false information fed to the media. In 1996, Gutierrez published a book, Michael Jackson Was My Lover: The Secret Diary of Jordie Chandler, which was totally fictional but considered by some to be credible (Jordan Chandler never kept a diary). You can get a copy of this slim paperback from AbeBooks.com for $400.
Interestingly, this book contains passages that are suspiciously close to some of the allegations of James Safechuck and Wade Robson against Jackson. It should be noted that both Robson and Safechuck were interviewed by the LAPD and provided witness statements during the Jordan Chandler inquiry, and both denied that anything inappropriate had happened between them and Jackson. In “Leaving Neverland,” they both claim to have lied to the authorities in 1993.
Gavin Arvizo and the 2005 Trial
The second major allegation of child molestation involved the Arvizo family, resulting in a grueling ordeal for Jackson that ended in his trial and acquittal in 2005. Gavin Arvizo, age ten, was dying of cancer in 2000 when he asked to meet Michael Jackson. Jackson was told about his request and called him in the hospital. The Arvizo family met Jackson for the first time at Neverland after the first round of Gavin’s chemotherapy.
Gavin and his brother Star had asked to sleep in Jackson’s bedroom, which he allowed them to do, but only after being begged by Gavin’s mother Janet. Jackson’s two children, Prince and Paris, slept with the kids in the bed, and Jackson slept on the floor with his personal assistant Frank Cascio. The incident nonetheless caused an uproar when it was featured in the 2003 documentary “Living with Michael Jackson,” directed by Martin Bashir. The Arvizos did not accuse Jackson of molesting Gavin that night. However, they later claimed, without evidence, that Jackson and Cascio had shown the children pornography on a laptop that Jackson had given to Gavin.
Gavin Arvizo and Michael Jackson in a scene from the Bashir documentary, “Living with Michael Jackson.”
The Arvizos returned to Neverland in 2002 at the time of the filming of the Bashir documentary. For most of the Arvizo visits, Jackson was not home, but he did things to help them, such as allowing them to use Neverland for a blood drive, and giving them a van as a gift. Gavin’s parents separated in 2001, and Janet sued J.C. Penney over alleged abuse, eventually obtaining a settlement. As it turned out later, Gavin had been caught shoplifting, and his mother avoided the charge by accusing the guards of assault. At Jackson’s 2005 trial, it was found that Janet had lied under oath in depositions in that case. In addition, Janet had committed welfare fraud. Like the Chandlers, the Arvizos were opportunistic grifters.
Martin Bashir was also dishonest, gaining the confidence of Jackson under false pretenses, cajoling and complimenting him on set, while cutting important sections of the film and adding negative commentary for the final version, making Jackson look quirky, negligent, and even dangerous. Jackson did not understand the agenda, speaking openly and allowing himself to be filmed holding hands with Gavin. The dialogue included the following:
-Bashir: But Michael, you’re a 44-year-old man now. What do you get out of this?
-Jackson: I think what they get from me, I get from them. I’ve said it many times. My greatest inspiration comes from kids. Every song I write, every dance I do, all the poetry I write, is all inspired from that level of innocence, that consciousness of purity, and children have that. I see God in the face if children… I just love being around that all the time…
-Bashir: When people hear that children from other families have come, and they’ve stayed in your house, they’ve stayed in your bedroom, … and they say, is that really appropriate for a grown man to be doing that, how do you respond to that?
-Jackson: I feel sorry for them, because that’s judging someone who wants to really help people. Why can’t you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone.
-Bashir: You really think that?
-Jackson: Yeah, of course…you can have my bed if you want. Sleep in it, I’ll sleep on the floor. It’s yours. Always give the best to the company…
-Bashir: Well, haven’t you got a spare room or a spare house here where he could have stayed?
-Jackson: Yes, we have guest units. But whenever kids come here, they always want to stay with me…I have never invited them in my room. They always just want to stay with me. They say, “Can I stay with you tonight?” And I go, if it’s OK with your parents, yes you can.
Toward the end of the film, Bashir returned to this conversation and added his own commentary, saying he had “found this easily the most disturbing moment of the past eight months.” Jackson volunteered that he had “slept in a bed with many children…It’s very right, it’s very loving – that’s what the world needs now, more love.”
A storm of bad publicity ensued, and Jackson’s team moved to control the damage. His own camera man had shot extensive footage, and this was compiled into a second documentary, the so-called rebuttal video, “Michael Jackson, Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See.” “Take Two” was released two weeks later, containing material deliberately omitted by Bashir in order to manipulate the viewers. The Arvizos were filmed for “Take Two,” but in the end their segment was not included. Although they initially backed Jackson, they would soon change their story.
Meanwhile, Jackson was in Florida, where the Arvizos fled, trying to escape the media. Together they returned to Neverland, where the Arvizos were allowed to stay, although they subsequently claimed that they were held captive there against their will and forced to make the rebuttal film. A teacher at Gavin’s school had filed a complaint after seeing “Living with Michael Jackson,” and the Arvizos were visited by Child Protective Services. They supported Jackson at the time but later said they had been intimidated into doing so by “Michael’s people.” This began a long series of changing and conflicting allegations by the Arvizos,
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department also began an investigation, based on a complaint by psychiatrist Carol Lieberman, again due to the Bashir documentary. While all this was happening, the Arvizos claimed, Jackson began to molest Gavin. The Arvizos “escaped” from Neverland on March 12, leaving for good. Between 2003 and 2005, the Arvizos told their story several times, to a psychologist, to the Sheriff’s Department in a series of interviews, to a grand jury in 2004, and finally at the 2005 trial.
The Arvizos accused Jackson of masturbating Gavin at least five times, supposedly observed by Gavin’s brother Star, in some cases when Gavin was passed out after having allegedly being plied with alcohol. The details were subject to change, with fluctuating descriptions, conflicting accounts, and disappearing claims, such that no coherent narrative materialized. With no corroborating evidence for the said molestation, the case eventually hinged on the credibility of Gavin and his family. Initially, some found the Arvizos credible, until it was discovered that they were all aspiring actors. No concrete evidence was ever presented to substantiate their unconvincing story.
Gavin Arvizo 2003 interview.
Gavin and his family were represented by William Dickerman and Larry Feldman, the lawyer who had negotiated the settlement for the Chandlers in the 1993 inquiry. Feldman had reported Gavin’s allegations to the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department, which was already investigating Jackson. In November 2003, a warrant was issued for his arrest; he turned himself in and was released on $3 million bail. Prior to the issuance of the warrant, in Jackson’s absence, more than 70 members of the Sheriff’s Department had raided Neverland, ransacking the house and filming the process. To counteract the publicity from this footage, Jackson’s team hired the film maker Larry Nimmer to produce a documentary on Neverland, which was shown to the jury at the trial. Nimmer has just released an updated version of this film to include a rebuttal of “Leaving Neverland.”
In April 2004, Jackson was indicted on 10 counts of lewd acts upon a child, administering an intoxicating agent to assist in commission of a felony, and conspiracy. The People v. Michael Jackson went to trial in February 2005, under District Attorney Thomas Sneddon, who had overseen the 1993 investigation. Sneddon, who felt cheated out of a conviction in 1993, was determined to get one this time and pulled out all the stops.
Jackson was represented by attorneys Mark Geragos and Thomas Mesereau, who has continued to speak out in support of Jackson. Numerous witnesses testified for the defense, including Macaulay Culkin, and the 22-year-old Wade Robson. Robson’s sworn testimony of May 5, 2005, the equivalent of 86 pages of court transcripts, includes the following.
-Mesereau: Do you consider Michael Jackson your friend?
-Mesereau: Do you consider him a close friend?
-Mesereau: You’re aware of the allegations in this case, are you not?
-Mesereau: And are you aware, as you sit here today, that there’s been allegations that Mr. Jackson molested you?
-Mesereau: Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever molest you at any time?
-Robson: Absolutely not.
-Mesereau: Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever touch you in a sexual way?
-Robson: Never, no.
-Mesereau: Mr. Robson, has Mr. Jackson ever inappropriately touched any part of your body at any time?
-Mesereau: Has Mr. Jackson ever helped you with your career?
-Mesereau: Mr. Robson, has anyone told you what to say in this courtroom today?
-Mesereau: Is everything you’ve said the complete and honest truth?
-Mesereau: Did Mr. Jackson ever do anything wrong with you?
In 2004 at the height of the Arvizo investigation, Evan Chandler’s brother Raymond published All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-up, a book about the Chandler inquiry, widely considered to have been ghostwritten by Evan. Jordan Chandler was visited by prosecutors in the Arvizo trial and asked to testify but he refused, saying that he would legally fight any attempt to make him do so. Thomas Mesereau later revealed that Jordan had admitted to several people that Jackson had not molested him, and these witnesses would have been presented if Jordan had testified. Jordan’s mother June did testify at the Arvizo trial, saying that she had not witnessed any molestation of her son by Jackson.
On June 13, 2005, Michael Jackson was acquitted of all charges.
In 2013, Gavin Arvizo was married at age 24 in Atlanta in a joint Catholic-Baptist ceremony. Guests included Santa Barbara District Attorney Ron Zonen, who prosecuted the case against Michael Jackson. Also present was Gavin’s mother Janet, who has since married Army Lt. Colonel Jay Jackson – so her name is now Janet Jackson.
Leaving Neverland: The New Allegations
The new film features detailed interviews with Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who have radically changed their stories about their relationship with Jackson. Whereas both went on record to defend the star in 1993, and Wade testified under oath in Jackson’s defense in 2005, they are now retailing outlandish stories of sexual molestation. Both say that Jackson tried to turn them against their families and poison them against women.
The two men have sued the Jackson estate and companies for monetary compensation, alleging they were sexually assaulted by Jackson as young boys (Robson fourth amended complaint, ¶5; Safechuck second amended complaint, ¶5). The suits claim that Jackson and his companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, operated what was “likely the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization the world has known.” Really?
Both lawsuits were dismissed in 2017, but the men have appealed. While “Leaving Neverland” is based on the complaints filed, it does not follow them exactly. Additional problems with the narrative were immediately apparent, and important discrepancies have continued to crop up. These and other issues are reviewed in “A Critical Analysis of ‘Leaving Neverland’” and an update is given below. As the film is purportedly about Wade and James, according to director Dan Reed, one must examine these two characters – who, by the way, are both professional actors.
WADE ROBSON (b. September 17, 1982) is a dancer, choreographer, actor, and film maker – and also a known liar, if tweets by his colleagues and others are to be believed. In a note for a 2012 book, he called himself “a master of deception.” In his complaint and in “Leaving Neverland,” Wade says that Jackson molested him starting at age seven for seven years (1990 through 1996). The abuse supposedly began when he was left behind at Neverland by his family, who went on a trip to the Grand Canyon without him. He says that Jackson sexually abused him every night during that week and whenever and wherever he got the chance thereafter.
Wade Robson’s fourth amended complaint, ¶15-16.
Robson alleges that Jackson masturbated while watching him “on all fours,” fondled his genitals, and licked his anus, while moaning and saying, it “feels so good.” On the first night of these alleged capers (around February 4, 1990), Jackson supposedly told Wade, “We can never tell anyone what we are doing…If anyone were to ever find out, our lives and careers would be over.” Jackson’s interest reportedly waned after Robson reached puberty. (Robson fourth amended complaint, ¶14-16). Complete details are available at “The Michael Jackson Allegations.”
In “Leaving Neverland,” Robson is presented as a successful showbiz celebrity, but the reality is somewhat different. He was a choreographer for Britney Spears and NSYNC in the early 2000s, and he has danced in film and on tour. The winner of two prime time Emmy awards for outstanding choreography (2007 and 2008), he aspired to direct his own dance films. In 2010 he was given the chance to direct “Step Up Revolution” (released in 2012), but in 2011 he folded under the pressure and had a nervous breakdown. On May 16, 2011, he began therapy.
Five days later, Robson wrote an email to Cirque du Soleil, asking to be hired to direct or choreograph “One,” the production about Michael Jackson that opened in 2013 and is still playing at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas. However, another choreographer, Jamie King, was hired to direct the show. Despite being passed over, Wade claimed in an interview in July that he had taken on a leading creative role in the production. In March 2012, he suffered a second breakdown, after which he said he was unable to work, with the attendant financial problems. Wade’s wife, Amanda Rodriguez, had reportedly threatened to leave him if he could not pull himself together. Amanda, who is an actress, was a member of the supporting cast of “Leaving Neverland.”
In April 2012 Robson went to a new therapist, and in May 2012 he had his “realization” that he was molested by Jackson. He said this was triggered by his infant son, who “became a profound access point to little Wade.” In late 2012/early 2013 Robson shopped a book about this, reportedly asking for a substantial advance, but he found no takers. On May 1, 2013, Wade filed a creditor’s claim against Michael Jackson’s estate and a civil suit against the Jackson companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, allegedly for $1.5 billion (Robson fourth amended complaint). He claimed that the alleged abuse by Jackson, rather than the pressures of his career, had caused his breakdowns. On May 8, 2013, the case became public with a story at TMZ; on May 16, Robson discussed the allegations in an interview on The Today Show with Matt Lauer.
“Michael Jackson and Wade Robson: The Real Story.”
Wade Robson first met Michael Jackson in Australia on November 27, 1987. Five-year-old Wade won a dancing contest in Brisbane, for which the prize was a “meet and greet” with Jackson, who was then on his “Bad” world tour. Jackson met Wade on his two-day stop in Brisbane (November 27-28) and invited him to join him on stage the following night, as he frequently did with children.
Robson would later claim that “meet and greets” such as the one in Brisbane were an orchestrated “sexual grooming mechanism to acquire minor sexual abuse victims for Michael Jackson, disguised as charitable events for minors” (Robson fourth amended complaint, ¶11).
This allegation was directed against Jackson’s companies MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, although the Brisbane event was actually sponsored by Target, Pepsi, and CBS. Wade’s mother Joy contradicted his claim in her 2016 deposition, revealing that the event was large and Wade had only spent a few minutes with Jackson, invited to dance with him later on stage. Joy sent Jackson a thank you note and received an invitation to meet briefly at his hotel. She followed up with letters and videos of Wade sent to Jackson, but did not get a response.
Thereafter, Joy Robson promoted her son’s career in earnest. The family traveled to Disneyland in early 1990 so that Wade and his sister Chantal could perform there with a talent school. Joy managed to hunt down Jackson and score an invitation to Neverland, his fabulous estate. Wade would later allege that this is when his “abuse” began, at age 7, lasting for 7 years until he was 14. The graphic but unsubstantiated allegations are laid out in Robson’s complaint and aired in “Leaving Neverland” (fourth amended complaint, ¶15).
In September 1991 Joy Robson moved with Wade and Chantal to Los Angeles, so that Wade could pursue a career in show business. According to Robson’s complaint, this was arranged by Jackson and his companies “for the explicit purpose of allowing Michael Jackson access to [Wade] for sexual abuse” (fourth amended complaint, ¶23). However, it was the Robsons’ idea to immigrate, and they asked Jackson to sponsor them, as that was the only way they could stay in the US. After the Robsons moved to Los Angeles, Jackson did not spend much time with them, according to Joy. Their interactions were occasional and sporadic, and it was Joy who had to call Jackson to ask him to help Wade.
Still from the “Black or White” music video, featuring Macaulay Culkin (left) and Wade Robson (right).
Nonetheless, Jackson mentored Wade, coaching him in dance and giving him minor roles in three of his music videos: “Black or White” (1991), “Jam” (1992), and “Heal the World” (1992). Robson idolized Jackson from the age of two when his mother showed him a video of “The Making of Thriller.” He spoke fondly about Jackson, often praising him effusively, and he repeatedly denied that he had ever been sexually abused. Until he came to the “realization” that he had been molested, calling Jackson a pedophile.
One can speculate on the origins of Robson’s story. Clearly he had done research on victims of sexual abuse and child pornography. He had certainly read Victor Gutierrez’s fictional book, Michael Jackson Was My Lover: The Secret Diary of Jordie Chandler, where Wade appears as one of Jackson’s “lovers” and even has his own chapter. Wade also plied his mother with questions about their relationship with Michael, and relied heavily on her recollections. The exact narrative was devised by his legal team in order to get around the statutes of limitations and other requirements for filing, with certain features taken from the book by Gutierrez, particularly regarding the alleged culpability of Jackson’s companies. Robson, as well as Safechuck, was initially represented by Gradstein & Marzano, and switched to Manly, Stewart & Finaldi in 2016. Thus, the outlines of Robson’s convoluted story were established by his first team of lawyers, with amendments made later.
As noted above in terms of the Chandler and Arvizo allegations, Robson testified in both cases that Jackson had never molested him. So was he was lying then, or is he lying now? As to why he has now changed his story, he says that Jackson had warned him not to say a word about their relationship, because if anyone found out, “our lives and careers would be over” (fourth amended complaint, ¶16).
For the requirements of his legal claim, he needed to state that he did not realize that his abuse was “abuse” until recently. Thus the phony man-boy “love” story between Robson and Jackson, which harks back to the main premise of the fake diary by Victor Gutierrez. After Wade’s civil suit was dismissed in 2017, he declared himself “healed,” presumably since he had to go back to work for a living. He filed an appeal, which is now pending.
Wade, Michael, and Brandi, who appeared together in 1991 in an LA Gear commercial.
“Leaving Neverland” has put Wade Robson back in the spotlight, along with his allegations of child sexual abuse. With the imprimatur of Oprah Winfrey and Dan Reed, Robson has enjoyed an outpouring of media sympathy. Unfortunately for Robson, however, Jackson’s niece Brandi has come forth to say that Wade had asked her to be his girlfriend when they were first introduced as youngsters. From 1991 to around 2000 they were close friends and then a couple, dating for 7 years. This includes the period when Wade says that Jackson molested him. Brandi says that it never occurred. She calls Wade Robson a liar. Not only had Jackson not tried to poison Robson against women, he had fixed him up with his own niece.
At Wade’s 2016 deposition, the Jackson family presented a memo he had written: “My story of abuse and its effects will make me relatable/relevant.” Brandi has tweeted: “…now the only time you are #relevant is when you headline with my family’s name next to yours. It’s time to stop these lies and live your own life.” Jackson’s nephew Taj has also been giving interviews and is planning a documentary. In a two-part radio interview with John Ziegler, Taj and Brandi discuss the claims of Robson and Safechuck and why their preposterous allegations should not be taken seriously. This has gotten limited play in the media, although lots of exposure on YouTube and Twitter, with numerous short films and thousands of “likes” at @BJackson82, @TajJackson3, #MJFam, #MJInnocent, #MJJLegion, #LeavingNeverlandLies, #WadeRobsonIsALiar, @Hammertonhal, and elsewhere. The story of Wade and Brandi is a bombshell waiting to fully detonate.
More bad news: Jackson biographer Mike Smallcombe has challenged a major contention of Robson’s – that he stayed alone at Neverland with Jackson in 1990 while the rest of his family went to the Grand Canyon. It is at that time, Wade says, that he was first molested by Jackson. However, Joy Robson testified in 1993/1994 that the entire family went to the Grand Canyon and then returned to Neverland the following weekend. No mention of leaving little Wade behind at the mercy of Jackson. Joy said that Wade was never at Neverland without her before 1993.
JAMES SAFECHUCK (b. February 28, 1978) is a dancer, film director, and actor, who, like Wade Robson, was unable to meet his expectations for success in show business. He is now a computer programmer. His IMDb entry shows he is “known for” work as an editorial assistant on “Dude, Where’s My Car?” When his wife first met him, he was playing guitar with a band in a bar. Safechuck alleges that he was molested by Jackson for four years, from 1988 through 1992 (Safechuck second amended complaint, ¶36). According to his complaint, when James “fully reached puberty,” Jackson’s “sexual abuse” finally stopped (¶63). As with Wade Robson, this alleged abuse was supposedly not recognized as “abuse” but nonetheless left a lasting impression.
In May 2013 James saw on the news that Robson had filed suit against the Jackson estate, and his “feelings of panic and anxiety heightened” (second amended complaint, ¶81) After this, he met with a psychiatrist in 2013, when he was first able to discus the alleged abuse during treatment. Because of the statute of limitations, Safechuck – like Robson – needed to show that his realization of this abuse was recent, such that he could not have brought the claim earlier. And although he reportedly knew he had been abused in 2005, as claimed by Reed, he had not connected his life problems with this abuse, which he was finally able to do in 2013. Nonetheless, he has not been successful with his lawsuit. After substantial resistance from the Jackson legal team, James was forced to amend his complaint several times, and in 2017 his suit was dismissed.
James Safechuck in the Michael Jackson Pepsi commercial.
“Jimmy” Safechuck was a child model who had been acting in commercials, when he scored a Pepsi commercial with Michael Jackson in 1986/1987. His mother, Stephanie, was a tough stage mom, like Joy Robson. In “Leaving Neverland,” Stephanie says she was told by a friend to put her young son in commercials, and an agent told her, “He’s money in the bank.” Like Wade Robson, Jimmy Safechuck is featured in Victor Gutierrez’s book, and his story draws on Gutierrez’s material. Safechuck’s claims are similar to those of Robson, and he too finds a way to accuse Jackson’s companies. His story is constructed in much the same manner, organized around the statutes of limitations and other legal restrictions pertaining to his lawsuit; the two men have the same team of lawyers.
Some months after the Pepsi commercial, Jackson invited the Safechuck family to dinner at his Hayvenhurst home in Encino, CA. On Thanksgiving (November 26, 1987) Jackson was supposedly on the phone with James, and the Safechucks invited him to their house for Thanksgiving dinner. Jackson reportedly accepted, and the family drove to Hayvenhurst to pick him up (Safechuck second amended complaint, ¶13). Unfortunately for James’s account, however, Jackson was traveling for his “Bad” tour on Thanksgiving 1987. November 26 in California was November 27 in Brisbane, where he was performing that very day. It seems that instead of having dinner with the Safechucks, Jackson was meeting Wade Robson in Australia. Safechuck’s story starts to fall apart here, and has continued to crumble.
After the alleged Thanksgiving dinner, Jackson was supposedly in constant contact with James and “had become like a part of” his family. In 1988, James and his mother traveled with Jackson to Hawaii for a convention where the Pepsi commercial was featured. Jackson supposedly asked if James could sleep in his room, although his mother did not allow it. Jackson had rented out an amusement park in Hawaii for everyone to visit, and James met Michael J. Fox at the convention. The Safechucks were treated like VIPs, which made a big impression (second amended complaint, ¶19-21).
In 1988, Jackson allegedly began to sleep over at the Safechucks’ house, where he supposedly stayed in James’s bedroom (second amended complaint, ¶24). The same year, James and Stephanie traveled with Jackson to New York and Florida, and then to Paris on his “Bad” tour, where the first instance of alleged abuse occurred. This was reportedly described by Jackson as “showing love” (¶31). On another occasion, Jackson supposedly masturbated while having James “rub and suck” his nipples (¶38), which he also mentions in “Leaving Neverland.” This is straight out of Gutierrez’s book. Other activities alleged are much like those described by Robson.
James Safechuck’s second amended complaint, ¶33.
The jewelry episode in “Leaving Neverland” is one of the most poignant fake moments in the film. Safechuck pulls a few rings and a gold charm out of a small jewelry box with a shaking hand. He talks about his love for Jackson and says “we were like this married couple” that had a “mock wedding ceremony” in his bedroom. This “fake marriage,” along with a wedding ring and signed certificate, also appears in Safechuck’s complaint (second amended complaint, ¶54). “It’s hard to go back to that moment,” says James in the film, looking pained. The media jumped on this episode, digging up an old report about Jackson (in disguise) and Safechuck shopping for jewelry at Zales. This was caught on CCTV, although the tape actually shows the two in the nearby “Gift Bazaar,” and they are not buying jewelry. Of course, none of this constitutes proof of the allegation.
Safechuck’s brand new jewelry box with rings he says Jackson gave him when he was a boy.
James says that Jackson “engaged in sexual acts” with him “hundreds of times,” on tour and at his various houses (second amended complaint, ¶56). This included a romantic trip to New York City for James after Jackson’s performance at the Grammy Awards in February 1989, where he allegedly slept with Jackson in his hotel room and was sexually abused (¶35). The only problem with this incident is that it never happened. In 1989 the Grammy Awards were held in Los Angeles. And Jackson performed at the Grammy Awards in 1988 in New York. This blooper did not appear in “Leaving Neverland.”
Michael Jackson and James Safechuck, 1988. Image: The Sun.
One of the most curious anomalies in Safechuck’s allegations is his mother’s statement in “Leaving Neverland” that she danced for joy when Jackson died in 2009, because he would not be able to harm any more children. This is strange, because James allegedly did not even realize he had been abused until 2013. According to Dan Reed, James told his mother about the abuse in 2005. However, James claims that told his mother that Jackson was a “bad man” and “not a good person” – he says he told her only that “something had happened” but nothing more specific (Safechuck supplemental declaration, ¶15). This is not the same as telling her that Jackson had sexually abused him, although he alluded to this in his second amended complaint (¶74).
Indeed, we don’t know if James told his mother anything in 2005. This episode is supposedly related to the allegation that Jackson had begged James to testify in his defense in the 2005 trial. According to James, Jackson had contacted him about testifying and, when James said no, he “got angry and threatened him.” (Safechuck second amended complaint, ¶73). Jackson then reportedly called James’s mother Stephanie to get her to convince James to testify, and to ask both parents to testify as well. However, this entire scenario was invented. Actually, James was never a candidate for testimony in the 2005 trial. For the purposes of this trial, he had been considered a “non-entity,” as he was deemed unrelated to the Arvizo allegations. Furthermore, Jackson would not have contacted either James or his mother about testifying, as this was the job of court officials.
James’s story in “Leaving Neverland” has now been poked full of holes, most recently in terms of his allegations regarding the train station, where he said he and Jackson “would have sex” in the upstairs room many times. However, he had said his molestation lasted from 1988 through 1982, ending when he was 14 years old. Unfortunately for James, the train station was not built until 1994, which was discovered by Jackson biographer Mike Smallcombe. John Ziegler’s tirade on this blunder is hilarious.
The stories of Safechuck and Robson were carefully constructed so that their lawsuits could proceed within the legal limitations. Not carefully enough, however, as research shows. Still, although their lawsuits have been thrown out of court, both men have appealed. Along comes “Leaving Neverland,” providing support for the stories and the accusers, who hope to get their cases reinstated. Meanwhile, the film’s director, Dan Reed, is also a person of interest.
DAN REED is a freelance British film director and producer who specializes in “documentary reconstructions of major terrorist attacks.” He has made numerous TV movies and documentaries, working with HBO, Channel 4, PBS Frontline, the BBC, and, by his own admission, certain intelligence assets that have been instrumental for some of his films. In an interview for his 2008 TV movie, “Terror in Mumbai,” he characterized himself as “a bit of a gun for hire.”
“I tend to make films which go behind a big news story or go behind something that has made headlines, and try to show the more complex side of it, and to try and kind of unpack the hidden truths…I’m hired on a job-by-job basis. And I do the projects that I like and the projects that, for some reason, turn me on.”
Dan Reed on his work with intelligence assets in India for “Terror in Mumbai.” Image: MsFlying Fairy.
Reed has specialized in terrorism-related films, such as “Terror in Mumbai,” and also “Frontline Fighting: Battling ISIS,” “Terror at the Mall,” and “Three Days of Terror: The Charlie Hebdo Attacks,” which serve to promote the official narratives of these staged and otherwise-suspect events and activities. At university, Reed majored in French and Russian and spent quite a bit of time in Russia; his knowledge of Russian, he says, got him a job as a researcher with a documentary series, and he “kind of took it on from there.” He has clearly been hired to take out Michael Jackson.
Reed admits to the directorial and cinematic tricks he uses to push these narratives, using behind-the-scenes stories and intimate, personal details to reveal the “hidden sides, hidden complexities behind stories we think we’re familiar with from the news media.”
“…Telling the inside of these big stories, using very personal accounts. It’s a mode of storytelling I specialize in and have developed…everything from the camera angles, the lighting, the manner in which I interview people. That has all been incredibly useful in “Leaving Neverland.” You see the same techniques being repurposed from one subject matter to another.”
Yes, the same techniques, including the use of scripted text that is made to appear spontaneous, off-camera coaching, multiple takes from which the most convincing are selected, lighting tricks and special camera angles, as well as graphic details of alleged sex meant to stand in for real evidence – all calculated to convince the viewer that Wade Robson and James Safechuck are real victims. The interviews with Wade and James were filmed in one week in February 2017; the families were interviewed later that year, and the “wedding ring” scene was added in July 2018.
“Leaving Neverland” builds on the previous 1993 and 2003/2005 child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson, and returns to the topic to accuse him anew. Reed claims he made the film over the course of two or three years, although what he did all this time is a mystery, as he certainly didn’t research Michael Jackson. Reed has given numerous interviews to promote the film, with few challenges to his authority. This, although he has admitted that he knows little about Jackson.
“…my knowledge of Jackson’s biography is so restricted and my interest in his music and in his career was pretty much non-existent before I began the three-year journey of this film…”
Anyway, according to Reed, not a lot of research was required, because “This isn’t a film about Michael Jackson.”
“It’s a film about Wade Robson and James Safechuck, two little boys to whom this dreadful thing happened long ago. It’s the story of their coming to terms with that over two decades and the story of their families.”
Elsewhere, Reed claims to have done extensive research into the earlier allegations against Jackson:
“You know, I did a huge amount of work, and my team did a huge amount of work digging into the 1993 and the 2003-2005 criminal investigations against Jackson by the LAPD, by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department. We spoke to investigators. We looked at documents. We found nothing that contradicted, and we found quite a lot that corroborated Wade and James’ stories specifically.”
What? Jackson was thoroughly investigated, his body was photographed and his homes raided by the authorities, he was tried in 2005 and declared innocent on all counts, and nothing was ever found to substantiate any allegations of child molestation. And both Robson and Safechuck are on record, under oath and in interviews, saying time and time again that they were never abused by Jackson. One wonders, then, why Reed is so insistent.
Besides his interest in terrorism, Reed also walks the seamy side, with films like “Escorts” and “The Paedophile Hunter,” which tracks a vigilante group in the UK that exposes pedophiles who use the internet to find their victims. So Reed knows a lot about pedophilia. This expertise has allowed him to state with authority that Wade Robson and James Safechuck are telling the truth.
“…In common with many pedophiles out there, [Jackson] believed that pedophilia is a valid sexual orientation and that the world simply doesn’t understand that and they haven’t caught up with it yet. That’s speculation of course, because he never discussed the subject in public, perhaps never articulated it himself. There were so many people around him enabling him and very rarely challenging him that he found it very easy to sneak in little boys, so maybe he thought he had a God-given right to do so…he was so ruthless and manipulative when it came to abusing little children and grooming their families that I can’t really exonerate him.”
Repeated again and again in Reed’s film and interviews is the idea that the pedophilia alleged in “Leaving Neverland” is a “love story.” This harks back to Victor Gutierrez’s pornographic work of fiction and echoes the stance of NAMbLA – the North American Man/Boy Love Association. The group was founded in 1978 and lobbies for the normalization of pedophilia. Due to infiltration by law enforcement, the group no longer holds regular national meetings, membership has declined, and many associates have moved online. All the accusations of Michael Jackson have had this fake “love story” angle, stemming originally from Gutierrez and the 1993 Chandler allegations and fed by the tabloid press. Reed’s obsession with this dubious notion is explored in “Leaving Neverland: Echoes of a Pedophilia Apologist.”
Reed is very sure of himself. He has evidenced a distaste for anyone who criticizes the film or disbelieves his narrative. Such people are now called “truthers.” As for Michael Jackson fans, “One can only compare them to religious fanatics, really,” says Reed. “They’re the Islamic State of fandom.”
“We fact-checked and re-fact checked and re-fact checked and scrutinized. I feel pretty comfortable with the amount of preparation we did and therefore I don’t think there’s anything anyone can say that cast any real doubt on it…Most of the challenges that have come from the Jackson fan community are not valid. They are based on false information.”
In response to the news that Brandi Jackson dated Wade Robson between 1991 and 2000, and has called him a liar, Reed says, “I don’t follow the logic.” Regarding Safechuck’s sex in the train station between 1988 and 1992 (the dates of his alleged abuse given in his second amended complaint), although the station was not built until 1994, Reed has tweeted, “Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse.” With this reckless tweet (which he has since deleted), he has presumed to speak for James Safechuck, effectively accusing him of perjury.
Many in the media have come to Reed’s aid, like Diane Dimond in her article, “‘Leaving Neverland’ and the Twisted Cult of Michael Jackson Truthers.” One exception is Piers Morgan, who interviewed Reed on Good Morning Britain, calling him out for his complete lack of evidence. An even more astounding confrontation appeared on French TV, where Reed was skewered by journalist Olivier Cachin and MJ fan Hector Barjot. Reed’s response to anyone or anything casting doubt on his story is to double down and hit back hard. In fact, part of his job seems to be the discrediting of Jackson with negative publicity, which he spreads unstintingly in interview after interview. Reed is a deep-state lackey of the intelligence services who works as a mercenary for the highest bidder.
“Just because it’s in print doesn’t mean it’s the gospel.”
-Michael Jackson, 2003 (60 Minutes interview)
Wacko Jacko (selection)
The media hounded and vilified Jackson with lie after lie, promoted in the tabloids and then picked up by the mainstream press. These bogus allegations were fueled by The Sun, The Daily Mirror, The National Enquirer and other tabloids, which might pay up to $500,000 for a salacious story reflecting negatively on Jackson. This practice is still continuing, as shown by this notice in The Mirror following an article of April 8 about “Leaving Neverland”:
Jackson experienced many health problems. He had a skin disorder, vitiligo, which caused his brown pigmentation to disappear in blotches, requiring him to wear makeup when he performed. As his skin turned predominantly white, he began to use light makeup, causing the tabloids to scream that he was bleaching his skin. Jackson had also been diagnosed with lupus. He had plastic surgery on his nose, undoubtedly because his father had told him his nose was too big. He was badly burned in an accident on the set of a Pepsi commercial in 1984, which required reconstructive surgery on his scalp and several follow-up operations. He injured his back during a concert in Munich in 1999 when part of the set collapsed – he gamely finished the performance. Due to these accidents, Jackson was on pain medication and became dependent on prescription drugs. Despite these adversities, he continued to write, choreograph, record, and perform, bringing joy to millions. But this was lost on the media, which branded him a freak, a wacko, and, of course, a pedophile.
Michael Jackson after the 1984 accident that led to reconstructive surgery. Image CNN.
The press happily bought fake stories from former employees of Jackson and followed the lead of several predatory “journalists” and “investigators” who exploited the star for decades. Chief among these are Diane Dimond, currently still writing fake news about Jackson, Maureen Orth, also still on the scene, and Victor Gutierrez, the author of the fictional “diary” of Jordan Chandler. Gutierrez was the only person who claimed to have “seen” the “diary.” His lies were out and about long before his book was published in 1995/1996, and he was a source for the 1993 Chandler extortion scheme. It is tempting to dismiss Gutierrez as a sleazy NAMbLA low-life, but that is not recommended.
Gutierrez has been lurking in the shadows ever since the Chandler allegations. He reported the existence of a 27-minute video, supposedly captured by a security camera, that was said to show Jackson molesting one of his nephews. This story was passed to Dimond, who announced it on her radio show in January 1995. It developed that no one but Gutierrez had “seen” the “video,” which turned out to be a complete fabrication. Jackson sued Dimond and Gutierrez, won the case against Gutierrez for $2.7 million, but he fled the country and never paid up. (Dimond managed to escape, with the help of Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon.)
Victor Gutierrez and his book were important sources for the prosecution in the 2005 trial, in which Jackson was completely exonerated. Gutierrez has provided false information for numerous documentaries on Jackson, including Martin Bashir’s 2003 defamatory film, “Living with Michael Jackson,” and he is still a source of fake news in the media. Gutierrez and his phony allegations are behind the lies of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, and the NAMbLA man-boy “love” theme that persists in “Leaving Neverland.”
Oprah Winfrey’s special, “After Neverland,” which aired for one hour following “Leaving Neverland,” featured a sit-down conversation with Robson, Safechuck, and Reed. Not a penetrating interview, the Oprah component was a platform for the men to repeat their allegations, unhindered by any demands for actual evidence. Oprah hit the pedophile “love” and “grooming” themes heavily, supporting the narrative uncritically. She had assembled an audience of 100 adults who had been sexually abused as children; sadly, these actual survivors hung on every word of the fake victims.
Oprah, “the most famous survivor of childhood sexual abuse in the world,” who has featured survivors of childhood abuse in 217 episodes of her talk show program, purports to speak out against pedophilia. In 2010 she recruited 200 male sexual abuse survivors as props for two episodes, showing them posed as a group, holding up photos of themselves as children. Back in 2010, “grooming” was on her agenda, but the “love” theme had not yet developed. Now, the message she says she tries to convey is that sexual abuse is not just “sexual abuse” – it is also “sexual seduction.” However, with her prolonged focus on child molestation, “grooming,” and the alleged “love” relationship between abusers and their victims, it can be argued that she is actually popularizing pedophilia and promoting its normalization.
A huge amount of information discrediting the film is available, but it is mainly on YouTube, Twitter, and several major websites (see Resources below). So far, Mike Smallcombe is the only person who has managed to breach the mainstream media firewall. The errors and discrepancies have been picked up by elements in the press, with recent brief articles in Ebony Magazine, Billboard, Vanity Fair, and People, as well as numerous international venues, including The Mirror, The Sun, and The Daily Mail. Still, some diehards are insisting that trauma victims cannot be expected to remember details such as dates (Cosmopolitan), while others pretend that real MJ fans have been dissuaded by “Leaving Neverland” (The New York Times). These approaches may lose ground, however, as the film comes under scrutiny.
Some real journalism has appeared in the British tabloids, in a reversal of their years-long denigration of Jackson, while the US press is more reticent. British journalist Charles Thomson has also spoken out, but his American colleagues are curiously accepting of the stories of Robson and Safechuck. The reasons are outlined by John Ziegler: the short attention span of the US news media (unless we’re talking about “Russian collusion”), the strategic use of Oprah Winfrey to endorse and legitimize the accusers, and the #MeToo movement and its mandate to #BelieveSurvivors – weaponized and heavily promoted. Yet the facts are getting out. Is this the beginning of the end for Reed, Robson, and Safechuck?
Many people have benefitted from the “Leaving Neverland” scam, or they hope to in the future. Heading the list are Wade Robson and James Safechuck. Dan Reed has stated unequivocally that neither was paid for the film – they are really interested in “justice” and it’s not about money. Then why are they each suing the Jackson estate and companies for hundreds of millions of dollars? Obviously, it’s about the money. They were apparently hoping for a settlement from the Jackson estate, but this was not forthcoming. Their lawsuits were dismissed in 2017, pending appeal; both men now owe the estate a substantial sum for court costs.
Estate attorney Howard Weitzman believes that Wade and James are using the “Leaving Neverland” film to aid their appeals. Perhaps they think that the publicity from the film will help their chances. But this is a long shot, considering the weakness of their claims. So did they think this through? What’s in it for them? Perhaps they have indeed been paid to participate in the film through some indirect channel. If so, by whom were they paid?
In October 2013, the concert promoter AEG won against the Jackson estate in the wrongful death lawsuit filed in 2010. AEG Live was under contract to present Jackson’s tour, “This is it,” which was cancelled after the star’s death in June 2009. AEG had hired Conrad Murray, Jackson’s doctor, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter relating to his administration of the anesthetic propofol, said to have led to Jackson’s death. Some have found it curious that Robson “realized” that he had been abused by Jackson in 2012, during the run-up to the 2013 trial. Attorney Thomas Mesereau has noted this coincidence. The estate had sued AEG for $1.5 billion, based in part on the loss of projected income for Michael Jackson. Certainly, if Jackson’s reputation – and worth – were diminished, then that would help AEG’s case.
One wonders whether AEG hooked up with Robson, who first met with his lawyers in March 2013, just before the case went to trial. If so, did AEG give Robson the idea for his “realization” and hire his lawyers? Or did they hear about it and then decide to provide support? On April 29, 2013, the first day of the trial, AEG’s lawyer, Marvin Putnam, said that AEG had no choice but to “show some ugly stuff” to defend themselves against the estate’s allegations. Two days later, Robson filed his lawsuits, and on May 16 he gave his interview on the Today Show. It looks like that was the “ugly stuff” to which Putnam was referring.
Putnam is a trial lawyer with extensive litigation experience in the entertainment industry. His wife, Keri Putnam, is also in the entertainment industry. She is Executive Director of the Sundance Institute and oversees all programs, including the Sundance Film Festival. Keri Putnam previously held positions at Miramax, founded by Bob and Harvey Weinstein, and HBO. In another curious coincidence, the Robson/Safechuck allegations were the subject of a film shown at Sundance in January 2019 – “Leaving Neverland” – which sought to further diminish Jackson’s reputation. Since the Jackson estate was denied its appeal in 2015, why pursue the denigration of Jackson? Possibly because there were other forces at work in addition to AEG.
Meanwhile, James Safechuck had “realized” he too had been abused by Jackson, after seeing Robson on the Today Show. He had supposedly contacted Robson’s lawyers, engaged them, and filed suit in 2014. However, it seems more likely that it was Robson and his lawyers who contacted Safechuck. As part of their strategy, the team is collecting “victims” and is now on a “manhunt” looking for Jordan Chandler. According to Dan Reed, Wade and James were not in contact and did not meet as adults until the film was shown at Sundance. However, in Robson’s 2016 deposition, he stated that he had spoken to Safechuck in 2014.
According to Reed, he was the one to approach Robson and Safechuck about making the film, which was done through their lawyers in 2016. Luckily, the complaints of the two accusers were already available to serve as the script. Channel 4 supposedly initiated the project. As Reed tells Rolling Stone:
“I was having breakfast with a guy called Daniel Pearl, who ran a series called ‘Dispatches,’ which is like a current affairs show on Channel 4 News. And he said, ‘What are the big, unresolved stories that everyone’s heard of?…What about Michael Jackson?’…I didn’t know much about Michael Jackson, to be honest. And I didn’t know much about his music. I was approaching this as a cultural phenomenon.”
Then, supposedly, Reed “stumbled across” Wade and James in a footnote. Channel 4 and HBO, partners that Reed had worked with previously, launched the project and hired Reed to produce and direct. This was a good deal for Reed, who would get paid a substantial amount for a very high-profile film that would (he thought) enhance his reputation. Who then was behind the idea for the “documentary”?
The AEG – Sundance – Harvey Weinstein – Oprah connections. Image: MJMedia09 Returns.
Oprah Winfrey’s special, “After Neverland,” was a love fest for the alleged victims. Her support for “Leaving Neverland” was instrumental for the promotion of an otherwise-bogus film. Oprah celebrated her birthday on January 29 with Gayle King and David Geffen aboard Geffen’s 450-foot yacht, “Rising Sun,” with a private viewing of “Leaving Neverland.” At the time of the HBO broadcast, King promoted the film in interviews with Dan Reed, Robson and Safechuck, and also members of the Jackson family.
In addition to Winfrey and King, Geffen is also a person of interest. He and his friends were once heavily involved in Jackson’s career and his contract with SONY; Geffen ousted John Branca and installed Sandy Gallin as Jackson’s manager in 1990. Jackson and Geffen had a falling out, however, and Geffen reportedly topped a list of Jackson’s “enemies.” Jackson had said that Geffen had sunk his career. Geffen is famously vindictive, and some have tied him to the 1993 allegations against Jackson. Considering Geffen’s proximity to “Leaving Neverland,” it looks like he may be a part of this latest smear campaign too.
Oprah has long been a friend of disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. The scandal over Weinstein’s pattern of assault and abuse began to unfold in October 2017, but this was no trade secret. Weinstein, who had abused many women over the years, was too big to fail until October 5, when The New York Times published a detailed article in which some of his accusers went on record.
But Harvey had seen it coming, and in the fall of 2016, he hired several private security firms to collect information on women and journalists he thought were trying to expose him, in order to suppress the allegations. In a New Yorker article of November 2017, Ronan Farrow revealed that Weinstein had hired Kroll, one of the world’s largest corporate investigation companies, and Black Cube, run by former Israeli intelligence officers. The contracts were routed through law firms, so that the activities could be kept secret under the cover of attorney-client privilege.
On December 6, The Times published an article on Weinstein’s “complicity machine” of “enablers, silencers, and spies,” which included David Pecker, publisher of American Media Inc., Dylan Howard, editor of The National Enquirer, and A. J. Benza, former gossip columnist for The New York Daily News. As far back as 2003, Benza was engaged in writing fake stories particularly for the tabloids about several celebrities to divert attention from Weinstein. One of these celebrities was Michael Jackson. Benza was selling defamatory articles about Jackson already at the time of the Chandler allegations, claiming he had a hand in breaking the story in 1993. Benza is still slandering Jackson on Twitter.
Harvey Weinstein and Oprah Winfrey with Kadian Noble.
Oprah was not only Harvey’s good friend, but allegedly his procurer. Kadian Noble, shown above looking apprehensive, filed suit against Weinstein for sexually assaulting her in the bathroom of his hotel room in Cannes in 2014 – and for destroying her dreams of acting. The actress said that Weinstein used Winfrey to dupe her into believing that he would advance her career. The Weinstein scandal spawned #MeToo, of which Oprah is a big supporter. You can sign a petition telling Oprah to “disavow Harvey Weinstein” at change.org started by Paul Joseph Watson.
Weinstein was closely associated with Sundance for much of its history. In 2018, he reportedly missed “his first Sundance in memory,” but he was spotted hanging around in 2019. How interesting that a film about Weinstein was showing at the festival: “Untouchable,” with colleagues and accusers detailing “the method and consequences of his alleged abuse.” By another coincidence, I am sure, the Weinstein film aired on January 25, 26, 27, 31, and February 2. “Leaving Neverland” was a last-minute entry that aired on January 25 and 26, obliterating “Untouchable,” which got no media buzz whatsoever. Has anyone heard of this real documentary, “Untouchable”?
To sum things up: Did AEG Live team up with Wade Robson to promote his story and file his complaint – to diminish the reputation of Michael Jackson and defeat the estate in its civil suit? Did AEG bring on the lawyers to research possible victims and manage to recruit James Safechuck? Have Robson and Safechuck been paid for their services? Did AEG team up with Weinstein, Channel 4, HBO, and Sundance, and hire Dan Reed to make the fake documentary? Did Oprah jump on the train leaving Neverland to help David Geffen undermine his “enemy” Michael Jackson – and help Harvey Weinstein divert attention away from the screening of “Untouchable” at Sundance? Is Victor Gutierrez still driving the narrative? The attempt to normalize pedophilia, using Michael Jackson as a vehicle, began in earnest in 1993 and continues up through the present with “Leaving Neverland.” Meanwhile, no one is really listening to the real victims of child sexual abuse, conveniently for the perpetrators. Quite the conspiracy theory, this scenario looks plausible, and there’s something in it for everyone.
Who was Michael Jackson?
In this age of fake news and identity politics, the media merchants don’t appreciate Jackson’s lyrics: “Just because you read it in a magazine or see it on a TV screen don’t make it factual” (Tabloid Junkie) and “It don’t matter if you’re black or white” (Black or White). And certainly not his outlook: “Lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons.” His millions of fans, however, do. Much has been written about Jackson, including several books; one can start with his 1988 autobiography, Moonwalk. So much is now available online that the truth is easily found. In relation to “Leaving Neverland,” some brief comments are in order.
Certainly, Jackson was not a pedophile. As the facts prove, he is completely innocent of all allegations of child sexual abuse. But don’t believe me – you can do your own research. The documentation is available and can be accessed through the List of Resources following this article.
Jackson with Diana Ross, Lisa Marie Presley, Debbie Rowe, and his three children.
Michael Jackson was heterosexual, and he loved women. One of his best friends was Elizabeth Taylor, and he was in love with Diana Ross. He was married twice, to Lisa Marie Presley and Debbie Rowe, and had three children, Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. (Prince), Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson (Paris), and Prince Michael Jackson II (“Blanket”). Both marriages were derided by the press, said to be stunts, but this was not true. Lisa Marie was interviewed in 2003 by Diane Sawyer, who was dismissive of Jackson and surprised by Presley’s response:
“It’s unfortunate that not a lot of people know who he really is – he doesn’t let anybody see it. And he has some idea about how he should represent himself to the public that he thinks works for him…which is not anything like how he really is…
When he wants to lock into you, and he wants to intrigue you or capture you, or whatever he wants to do with you, he can do it. He’s very capable of doing that. He was very quick to, the first time I met him, sit me down and go, listen, I’m not gay – I know you think this, I know you think that – and he started cursing and he started, you know, being a normal person, and I was like, wow…
I fell in love with him, I did…Everything I said was the truth.”
Jackson was a wonderful father, according to everyone who knew him, and he loved children:
“They notice everything. They aren’t jaded. They get excited by things we’ve forgotten to get excited about any more. They are so natural too, so unselfconscious. I love being around them. There always seems to be a bunch of kids over at the house and they’re always welcome. They energize me – just being around them. They look at everything with such fresh eyes, such open minds. That’s part of what makes kids so creative. They don’t worry about the rules. The picture doesn’t have to be in the center of the piece of paper. The sky doesn’t have to be blue. They are accepting of people too. The only demand they make is to be treated fairly – and to be loved. I think that’s what we all want.”
He built an amusement park to entertain the hundreds of children he invited to Neverland, many of them poor or sick, and he worked with numerous children’s charities worldwide. He loved animals and kept a zoo at Neverland that children could visit. Something of his private life was revealed in his TV special, “Michael Jackson’s Private Home Movies” (2003).
The Jackson 5 on the Ed Sullivan Show, 1969.
Michael Jackson was born in 1958 in Gary, Indiana, and raised a Jehovah’s Witness. He and his eight brothers and sisters lived in a two-bedroom house with his parents. The boys all slept in one room, as they did when they were on tour. He was performing with his brothers by 1964. Starting with The Jackson 5, Michael sang and danced through 16 concert tours, including his world tours “Bad,” “Dangerous,” and “HIStory.”
His musical achievements are legendary. He is the first and only artist to have five albums selling over 30 million copies worldwide. He won a vast number of awards, including 13 Grammy Awards, 26 American Music Awards, 16 World Music Awards, and he holds 39 Guinness World Records, including one for “Most Successful Entertainer of All Time.” Jackson is credited with supporting 39 charities, more than any other artist.
He was highly intelligent and an avid reader who owned more than one million books. He was an expert on photography, a talented designer and draftsman, and well versed in the history of art. An astute businessman, he acquired ATV Music Publishing, which included the Lennon-McCartney song catalogue; the company later merged with Sony Music Publishing, and Jackson retained half. Vilified by the press for alleged mismanagement of his finances, Jackson has reportedly made $2 billion for his estate since the time of his death. And, of course, he was The Greatest Entertainer of All Time, a phenomenal musical genius, spectacular singer, dancer, composer, choreographer, and poet, magnetically attractive, with a legion of fans worldwide.
The whole story cannot be told here; many readers will know it already. For those still in doubt, I urge you to click on the links, and investigate the full range of Michael Jackson’s accomplishments and activities. Ask yourself if Jackson – with a packed schedule of meetings, charity events, rehearsals, and performances, while writing and recording songs, making videos, arranging and choreographing, working with musicians and dancers, designing his concert sets and wardrobe, keeping up with trends in film and music, and attending to his business – had the time and inclination to devote years to the “grooming” and romantic pursuit of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, molesting them at every opportunity.
Mandatory Credit: Photo by Karl Schoendorfer/REX/Shutterstock (954381b) Michael Jackson Michael Jackson in concert, Vienna, Austria – 1997
Michael Jackson, his legacy, and his estate are again under siege by unscrupulous grifters and their promoters in the press. In a sense, Wade Robson and James Safechuck are the worst of the lot – former friends who were mentored and supported by Jackson, turning on him after his death. Regarding the attempts to cancel MJ or mute his music, that is unlikely to happen. The more one listens (and watches), the better it gets. But things may get rough for Reed, Robson, and Safechuck. To quote Evan Chandler, “The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight.” In this case, not Jackson, but the fake accusers of “Leaving Neverland.” In the opinion of many, it’s just a matter of time. At least Jackson himself is now safely out of reach – unless you believe he is still alive.
VIVIAN LEE is the nom de plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university.
This article was also published at JamesFetzer.org.
 The last airing on HBO is scheduled for April 17, although the film was originally set to run until September. The films can be streamed at HBO NOW, which requires subscription but offers a free 7-day trial period, after which a subscription can be cancelled.
 Michael Jackson, Moonwalk, (1988; re-issued 2009 with an introduction by Berry Gordy). Also the following: Damien Shields, Michael Jackson: Songs & Stories from the Vault (2015, 2018); Richard Lecocq and François Allard, Michael Jackson – All the Songs: The Story behind Every Track (2018); Mike Smallcombe, Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson (2016); Bill Whitfield and Javon Beard with Tanner Colby, Remember the Time: Protecting Michael Jackson in His Final Days (2014); Michael Bush, The King of Style: Dressing Michael Jackson (2012); Joseph Vogel, Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson (2011); Jermaine Jackson, You Are Not Alone: Michael, through a Brother’s Eyes (2011); J. Randy Taraborrelli, Michael Jackson: The Magic, the Madness, the Whole Story, 1958-2009 (1991, 2003, 2004, 2009); Aphrodite Jones, Michael Jackson: Conspiracy (2007); Geraldine Hughes, Redemption: The Truth behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations (1997, 2004).
 Michael Jackson, Moonwalk, 274.
 For problems and anomalies surrounding Jackson’s death, autopsy, and burial, see “Alive 1: Is Michael Jackson Really Dead?” and “Alive 2: The Great Xscape” (Pearl Jr). https://vimeo.com/191251878