Michael Jackson sex abuse documentary coming to Sundance & HBO

Reply #542 posted 02/06/19 1:32pm

alphastreet	As annoying as the others were with their questions, his reactions were weird. I’m not sure how that’s not seen as odd. I really think he was trauamatized and reacted that way as a defence mechanism or dissociated. But it may not come off that way to others who could try to spin it is what I’m worried for
	- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator

Reply #543 posted 02/06/19 1:59pm

PatrickS77

avatar

Is there a text- or guidebook on how one should react to annoying, embarrasing, insulting, laughable and stupid questions? He reacted accordingly with laughing it off, annoyance, embarrasment, resignation and help from his lawyer. Also the whole thing was edited to make him look (supposedly) bad. Why not show the full 3 hour deposition? Probably because that wouldn't help the media's case.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #544 posted 02/06/19 2:02pm

alphastreet	It was sad to watch, period.
	- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator

Reply #545 posted 02/06/19 2:28pm

PeteSilas	when did michael not come across as odd? to be honest. that was always part of his charisma. he was once reportedly diagnosed as schizophrenic as a teen. that might not be true but he was certainly schizoid as are all of our great musicians. It's part of their draw to us. It is sad to see the face though, i have to wonder if they had any choice about the cameras, probably not.
	- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator

Reply #546 posted 02/06/19 2:46pm

alphastreet	Oh yeah, I did hear that, had forgotten. Not sure how true that report was though
	- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator

Reply #547 posted 02/06/19 4:10pm

PeteSilas said:

when did michael not come across as odd? to be honest. that was always part of his charisma. he was once reportedly diagnosed as schizophrenic as a teen. that might not be true but he was certainly schizoid as are all of our great musicians. It's part of their draw to us. It is sad to see the face though, i have to wonder if they had any choice about the cameras, probably not.

I have never heard ANYONE say or claim that Michael was diagnosed as schizophrenic as a teenager. It sounds like crap and something a tabloid would throw outg for idiots to consume.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #548 posted 02/06/19 5:31pm

I just rewatched the 1996 deposition. I hadn’t watched this since 1996. I wanted to watch it again, because the way certain people on this org were talking, I thought SURELY I missed something when I first saw this. OF COURSE, I should have known that those speaking about this were overreacting, and manipulating what was actually there. Michael didn’t act weird, he seemed amused and annoyed at the bullshit questions. I would have probably reacted the same way. Who knows? As Patrick said, there is no guide on how a person is is supposed to act under these circumstances.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #549 posted 02/06/19 6:03pm

MoBettaBliss	PeteSilas said: that might not be true but he was certainly schizoid as are all of our great musicians. It's part of their draw to us. you're confusing schizophrenea with autism i'm not saying mj had autism
	- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator

Reply #550 posted 02/06/19 6:42pm

MoBettaBliss said:

PeteSilas said:

that might not be true but he was certainly schizoid as are all of our great musicians. It's part of their draw to us.

you're confusing schizophrenea with autism

i'm not saying mj had autism

not confusing anything, just saying I saw an article after he died where the author claimed that Michael was diagnosed schizophrenic as a teen, i'll try to find it later and you can judge for yourself. It was in one of the bazillion articles put out after he died. being diagnosed schizophrenic and really being schizophrenic can be two different things and if he was schizoid, which he was, then they could try to say he had "undifferntiated schizophrenia" or mild schizophrenia. He wasn't seriously afflicted with it if he had it, schizophrenics can't function at high levels like he did during the next couple decades.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #551 posted 02/06/19 6:43pm

Free2BMe said:
PeteSilas said:

when did michael not come across as odd? to be honest. that was always part of his charisma. he was once reportedly diagnosed as schizophrenic as a teen. that might not be true but he was certainly schizoid as are all of our great musicians. It's part of their draw to us. It is sad to see the face though, i have to wonder if they had any choice about the cameras, probably not.

I have never heard ANYONE say or claim that Michael was diagnosed as schizophrenic as a teenager. It sounds like crap and something a tabloid would throw outg for idiots to consume.

i'll try to find the article later, where the author came by the info i don't know but it does sound plausible.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #552 posted 02/06/19 6:45pm

Free2BMe said:
I just rewatched the 1996 deposition. I hadn’t watched this since 1996. I wanted to watch it again, because the way certain people on this org were talking, I thought SURELY I missed something when I first saw this. OF COURSE, I should have known that those speaking about this were overreacting, and manipulating what was actually there. Michael didn’t act weird, he seemed amused and annoyed at the bullshit questions. I would have probably reacted the same way. Who knows? As Patrick said, there is no guide on how a person is is supposed to act under these circumstances.

to me it seems kinda sad, he seems that he's either bluffing that he's not taking it seriously or that he really isn't which would indicate that he really did think he was powerful enough to get away from whoever might mean him harm. He learned later that wasn't true.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #553 posted 02/06/19 7:33pm

avatar

ChocolateBox3121 said:

Free2BMe said:
ChocolateBox3121 said: Why did you have to say”not even her brother Michael has accomplished all of that.” Why is it necessary to tear Michael down , in order to build Janet up?You do NOT hear Michael fans bring up or tear her down in order to lift him up. The same goes with Prince fans, they always have to tear Micheal down to elevate him. Why? Is it insecurity, pettiness, jealousy, vindictiveness, etc. I have always wondered why you people feel the NEED to do that. It is so immature and weak.😏 [Edited 2/5/19 22:42pm]

I'm not tearing MJ down. Also MJ fans have said far worse about Janet in his forums & most can't stand her. Plus I learned how to sing listening to MJ's early albums with his brothers on Epic Records. He was a groundbreaking artist. Also LOVED him in his ONLY co-starring lead role motion picture "The Wiz".

[Edited 2/6/19 8:27am]

Many were critical of her after her comments about interventions and going along with Randy's plan in 2013 involving their mother but many MJ fans ARE Janet fans and have supported her, including spreading the info about Moonves sabotaging her after 2004

Your comment is not at all accurate

"We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #554 posted 02/06/19 7:36pm

avatar

PeteSilas said:

Free2BMe said:
I just rewatched the 1996 deposition. I hadn’t watched this since 1996. I wanted to watch it again, because the way certain people on this org were talking, I thought SURELY I missed something when I first saw this. OF COURSE, I should have known that those speaking about this were overreacting, and manipulating what was actually there. Michael didn’t act weird, he seemed amused and annoyed at the bullshit questions. I would have probably reacted the same way. Who knows? As Patrick said, there is no guide on how a person is is supposed to act under these circumstances.

to me it seems kinda sad, he seems that he's either bluffing that he's not taking it seriously or that he really isn't which would indicate that he really did think he was powerful enough to get away from whoever might mean him harm. He learned later that wasn't true.

It was a deposition. If I remember correctly, he won the lawsuit or it was thrown out

Possibly when Evan Chandler sued him again after the Diane Sawyer inteview. Chandler wanted more money AND a record contract that time.

"We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #555 posted 02/06/19 8:33pm

PeteSilas said:

Free2BMe said:

PeteSilas said:

when did michael not come across as odd? to be honest. that was always part of his charisma. he was once reportedly diagnosed as schizophrenic as a teen. that might not be true but he was certainly schizoid as are all of our great musicians. It's part of their draw to us. It is sad to see the face though, i have to wonder if they had any choice about the cameras, probably not.

I have never heard ANYONE say or claim that Michael was diagnosed as schizophrenic as a teenager. It sounds like crap and something a tabloid would throw outg for idiots to consume.

i'll try to find the article later, where the author came by the info i don't know but it does sound plausible.

I am looking forward to seeing this article. I am highly suspicious that the “author” knows nothing and is using speculation, innuendo, “arm chair” diagnosis
as fact. As usual when it comes to Michael.Of course, anything IS plausible with ANYONE, even you or I.
[Edited 2/6/19 20:36pm]
[Edited 2/6/19 20:36pm]

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #556 posted 02/06/19 8:55pm

bboy87 said:

PeteSilas said:

RJOrion said:

to be clear, i have always been a fan of Michael Jackson music, and before him, The Jackson 5's music...but i am also aware that successful/wealthy child-to-entertainment"icons", are usually very emotionally flawed and damaged people, due to the lack of normalcy in their social, physical and emotional (even spiritual) development...also, there are so many CONFIRMED stories of pedophilia and overall hedonism and deviant behavior within the industry and in and around LA/Hollywood..as a parent, i would NEVER approve of ANY ADULT MAN OR WOMAN SHARING A BED WITH A CHILD...especially if the adult has been as much as accused of pedophilia before...i dont care how good he can sing or moonwalk...i dont know for sure that MJ is/was gulity, but it damn sure looks suspect...so much so that family members would warn him about it...where theres smoke theres usually fire...would YOU leave YOUR kids at MJs overnight, if he were here?...that strange looking man who carved up his face and had test tube babies and talked to llamas and chimps and snakes?...and had an amusement park built on his property?...just because he was one of the greatest entertainers on Earth? ..how come MJ NEVER sued anyone about these socalled slanderous accusations???...nah, MJ played victim (limping all disheveled,in and out of court) and paid off his accusers...what innocent man acts like that?...most of MJs actions, reactions, and even some of his family members reactions point to his possible guilt...i love the music, but im a parent FIRST...MJ acted like a guilty man... im not gonna ignore that just

because "Cant Let Her Get Away" or "Remember The Time" is among my favorite joints of alltime... these socalled entertainment icons are strange people...their deviant behaviors and secret lifestyles are being exposed more and more everyday...after all, who would have EVER thought that Prince would die at 57 of an alleged drug overdose?...these people are NOT always who you think they are, or who youd like them to be...at all [Edited 2/2/19 15:10pm]

someone here said he sued victor guitierez successfully, i didn't hear about that if it was true. All the jacksons except for joe were submissive people, you see it in the interviews. barbaric walters be asking insane shit and reebie just be grinnin when she should be saying "what bitch"" Michael wasn't no fighter, none of them are, i watched an interview with jermaine last night, that greasy fuck was crying and begging to be left alone, not exactly a fighting man. Sweet people, fucked up a little but sweet. now, joe on the other hand, joe was a motherfucker, and even he sounded like a sweet old man in his interviews. you're right about heroes though, i really don't have them as such so not much really shocks me.

one other thing, don't know how true it is but paul mooney has told the story many times of how mj called him and asked him to stop joking about him, paul refused and mike asked him how much he would liike to be paid to stop? sounds like michael just had one way of dealing with problems, throw money at them.

Jet magazine- January 30, 1995

then April 27, 1998

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/victor-gutierrez-and-his-role-in-the-allegations-against-michael-jackson/

https://variety.com/1997/scene/vpage/jackson-s-hard-copy-suit-dismissed-1117341899/

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-13/local/me-19724_1_michael-jackson

[Edited 2/2/19 21:50pm]

Thank you for posting these articles. This pretty much kicks that “submissive” bull crap in the ass. Michael was never submissive to anyone.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #557 posted 02/06/19 10:22pm

siccing lawyers on people don't make anyone assertive, that's just getting someone to do your dirty work. if mike was more assertive he woulda kicked bashirs ass out of neverland after he started asking crazy questions.

Free2BMe said:
bboy87 said:

Jet magazine- January 30, 1995

then April 27, 1998

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/victor-gutierrez-and-his-role-in-the-allegations-against-michael-jackson/

https://variety.com/1997/scene/vpage/jackson-s-hard-copy-suit-dismissed-1117341899/

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-13/local/me-19724_1_michael-jackson

[Edited 2/2/19 21:50pm]

Thank you for posting these articles. This pretty much kicks that “submissive” bull crap in the ass. Michael was never submissive to anyone.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #558 posted 02/07/19 1:09am

PatrickS77

avatar

bboy87 said:

PeteSilas said:

to me it seems kinda sad, he seems that he's either bluffing that he's not taking it seriously or that he really isn't which would indicate that he really did think he was powerful enough to get away from whoever might mean him harm. He learned later that wasn't true.

It was a deposition. If I remember correctly, he won the lawsuit or it was thrown out

Possibly when Evan Chandler sued him again after the Diane Sawyer inteview. Chandler wanted more money AND a record contract that time.

That depostition was regarding those 5 Neverland employees, he fired in '93 or so, who sued for wrongful termination. And I find nothing sad, odd or bluffing about this (little excerpt of a 3 hour) deposition (and like Free2BMe I also had to re-watch it, thinking I missed something, but should have known better). The only thing that is sad, is that he was constantly confronted with this bullshit and that it now gets used to manipulate the public. How is it right, that a deposition in a civil case gets leaked to the public? And really, that you can get sued for firing someone working at your home (but I guess every employer has to deal with that problem).

[Edited 2/7/19 1:12am]

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #559 posted 02/07/19 2:25am

PatrickS77 said:

bboy87 said:

It was a deposition. If I remember correctly, he won the lawsuit or it was thrown out

Possibly when Evan Chandler sued him again after the Diane Sawyer inteview. Chandler wanted more money AND a record contract that time.

That depostition was regarding those 5 Neverland employees, he fired in '93 or so, who sued for wrongful termination. And I find nothing sad, odd or bluffing about this (little excerpt of a 3 hour) deposition (and like Free2BMe I also had to re-watch it, thinking I missed something, but should have known better). The only thing that is sad, is that he was constantly confronted with this bullshit and that it now gets used to manipulate the public. How is it right, that a deposition in a civil case gets leaked to the public? And really, that you can get sued for firing someone working at your home (but I guess every employer has to deal with that problem).

[Edited 2/7/19 1:12am]

he didn't need all those people, as i've said millions of times, it's the people closest to you that fuck you the hardest, same for all of us. But the only thing i thought was sad was how his face looked, his nose looked like it was about to fall off and he did seem to be taking it lightly. I don't see how anyone can look at this and say "gee, ya, look at his reactions, he's a molestor".

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #560 posted 02/07/19 3:11am

PeteSilas said:

PatrickS77 said:

bboy87 said:

It was a deposition. If I remember correctly, he won the lawsuit or it was thrown out

Possibly when Evan Chandler sued him again after the Diane Sawyer inteview. Chandler wanted more money AND a record contract that time.

That depostition was regarding those 5 Neverland employees, he fired in '93 or so, who sued for wrongful termination. And I find nothing sad, odd or bluffing about this (little excerpt of a 3 hour) deposition (and like Free2BMe I also had to re-watch it, thinking I missed something, but should have known better). The only thing that is sad, is that he was constantly confronted with this bullshit and that it now gets used to manipulate the public. How is it right, that a deposition in a civil case gets leaked to the public? And really, that you can get sued for firing someone working at your home (but I guess every employer has to deal with that problem).

[Edited 2/7/19 1:12am]

I noticed that the video seems as if it is filtered into a different lighting. This makes Michael’s face and nose look different than the origrinal video of this deposition. In the original video, Michael’s nose didn’t have these “craters” in it. This video has been manipulated. This was a common occurrence by the media, especially the tabloid media. Btw, not only does Michael look amused at the bullshit questions, you can tell he is annoyed. This video portrays the body language of a 100% innocent man. The only sad thing is having to watch this beautiful man have to go through what he had to endure from greedy employees and people he tried to help. Rewatching this edited video, just brought back a flood of emotions about his mistreatment and how he had to cope. I love him even more, if that is possible, after watching this attempt at manipulating the public.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #561 posted 02/07/19 3:16am

ChocolateBox31
21

avatar

bboy87 said:

ChocolateBox3121 said:

I'm not tearing MJ down. Also MJ fans have said far worse about Janet in his forums & most can't stand her. Plus I learned how to sing listening to MJ's early albums with his brothers on Epic Records. He was a groundbreaking artist. Also LOVED him in his ONLY co-starring lead role motion picture "The Wiz".

[Edited 2/6/19 8:27am]

Many were critical of her after her comments about interventions and going along with Randy's plan in 2013 involving their mother but many MJ fans ARE Janet fans and have supported her, including spreading the info about Moonves sabotaging her after 2004

Your comment is not at all accurate

prince

[Edited 2/9/19 20:10pm]

"That mountain top situation is not really what it's all cracked up 2 B when eye

was doing the Purple Rain tour eye

had a lot of people who eye

knew

'll never c again @ the concerts.just screamin n places they thought they was suppose 2 scream." prince

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #562 posted 02/07/19 3:26am

ChocolateBox3121 said:

bboy87 said:

ChocolateBox3121 said:

I'm not tearing MJ down. Also MJ fans have said far worse about Janet in his forums & most can't stand her. Plus I learned how to sing listening to MJ's early albums with his brothers on Epic Records. He was a groundbreaking artist. Also LOVED him in his ONLY co-starring lead role motion picture "The Wiz".

[Edited 2/6/19 8:27am]

Many were critical of her after her comments about interventions and going along with Randy's plan in 2013 involving their mother but many MJ fans ARE Janet fans and have supported her, including spreading the info about Moonves sabotaging her after 2004

Your comment is not at all accurate

Janet has NEVER been a controversial artist. So any of those instances was just a way to put the BLAME on her. Also my experiences with MJ fans maybe different than your experiences. it is people in this very thread that has ATTACKED Janet's talent to NO END. So my comment is VERY ACCURATE!

As far as the sabotaging by Moonves it's THE TRUTH so why wouldn't they support it after he has been exposed? Use common sense! rolleyes

You are exaggerating your experiences with MJ fans. MJ fans do NOT attack Janet, EXCEPT when discussing two things: her INTENTIONAL portrayal of her own deceased brother as a drug addict, and her vindictive participation in the coup to take over Michael’s estate and try and wrestle this from his children.
I know the forum you are speaking of and MJ fans have always supported Janet except they don’t like what she did in those aforementioned instances. Just think, would any of you JJ fans have supported MJ if he had done the things she did’ especially after she was dead? Spare me your weak excuses.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #563 posted 02/07/19 1:22pm

avatar

ChocolateBox3121 said:

bboy87 said:

Many were critical of her after her comments about interventions and going along with Randy's plan in 2013 involving their mother but many MJ fans ARE Janet fans and have supported her, including spreading the info about Moonves sabotaging her after 2004

Your comment is not at all accurate

Janet has NEVER been a controversial artist. So any of those instances was just a way to put the BLAME on her. Also my experiences with MJ fans maybe different than your experiences. it is people in this very thread that has ATTACKED Janet's talent to NO END. So my comment is VERY ACCURATE!

As far as the sabotaging by Moonves it's THE TRUTH so why wouldn't they support it after he has been exposed? Use common sense!

Did you even read what I wrote?

MJ fans supported Janet when the Superbowl fiasco happened even before Moonvesgot exposed. When the official news came out, they helped spread the word

The fans on the forums and other sites have had her back. But hey, go ahead and put the whole fanbase into one box, champ

[Edited 2/7/19 13:30pm]

"We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #564 posted 02/07/19 1:31pm

avatar

When we did the Michael Jackson Opus we did a chapter on Wade Robson who bragged about his 20 year relationship with his Mentor Michael. I don’t believe his being in that trashy movie. Our book examined every aspect of Michael’s life don’t believe Wade
— Jeff Wald (@JeffWald) February 7, 2019

"We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #565 posted 02/07/19 1:37pm

avatar

From Brad Sundberg, Michael's assistant engineer (1985-2001)

A few words about the movie at Sundance.

I decided to not even mention the movie by name, but I wanted to share a quick recap of a conversation I had with one of my daughters about the movie.

Clearly there is a minor buzz about the movie, and she asked my feelings about it. I gave it a few moments of thought, and said something along these lines:

I wasn't with Michael 24/7.
I have never claimed to be his best friend.
I did, however, know him pretty well.

I also had very unique access to his personal space - meaning I have literally pulled speaker wires under his bed. I have moved boxes in his closets to install amplifiers. I have been in his apartments and hotels, setting up dance floors and playback systems. I have set up his personal lounges in studios - and maintained them. I have seen his books and magazines. I have seen his video collection. I have been places - private places - that very few people have been allowed to enter. This was part of my job.

The same can be said of many celebrities and non-celebrities I have worked with. There is a trust that goes along with working so closely with them, in the most private parts of their home.

You overhear conversations and comments. You learn how to make the client feel completely comfortable around you. They need people around them to provide services (in my case, building music and video systems) without the sense of being "watched".

I have seen and heard things in OTHER homes that were - for lack of a better word - sad. But not in Michael's.

Nothing.

Honestly, nothing.

When I started doing seminars about my work and friendship with Michael, more than one person mentioned the accusations - and "what if..."

My response was, and continues to be, if there was even a hint of concern that Michael somehow harmed a child, I would not offer my seminars.

Michael was a very unique person. I didn't experience his childhood, but I did get a very close look at his adult life. I did have remarkably comfortable conversations with him. I have heard him make funny comments under this breath - but never hurtful, never tawdry. Never.

It isn't my job to defend him, nor to get riled about a tasteless movie. But I can be one voice saying that over the course of my 18+ year association and friendship with Michael - being allowed into his more personal spaces, bedrooms, lounges, hotel rooms, cars, etc., there is simply nothing I have seen or heard to offer even a shadow of doubt in my mind. Nothing.

Was he perfect? No.
Did he make impeccable decisions every moment of the day? No.
Was there even the smallest of hints that he could harm a child? Absolutely not.

The movie will come and go, and along the way a few people will make some snarky comments on social media.

As for me, I will maintain that I am proud - very proud - to have worked so closely, in so many places, over such a long period of time, with someone I had so much respect for. I love sharing stories from the studio, tours and Neverland. I love meeting his fans, and re-uniting with old friends. I was blessed to have been a small part of his team - allowing so many opportunities along the way.

But mostly, I'm proud that we were friends.

"We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world."

- E-mail - orgNote -

Reply #566 posted 02/07/19 4:51pm

Free2BMe	bboy87 said: When we did the Michael Jackson Opus we did a chapter on Wade Robson who bragged about his 20 year relationship with his Mentor Michael. I don’t believe his being in that trashy movie. Our book examined every aspect of Michael’s life don’t believe Wade — Jeff Wald (@JeffWald) February 7, 2019 👏 [Edited 2/7/19 16:54pm]
	- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator

Reply #567 posted 02/07/19 4:53pm

bboy87 said:

From Brad Sundberg, Michael's assistant engineer (1985-2001)

A few words about the movie at Sundance.

I decided to not even mention the movie by name, but I wanted to share a quick recap of a conversation I had with one of my daughters about the movie.

Clearly there is a minor buzz about the movie, and she asked my feelings about it. I gave it a few moments of thought, and said something along these lines:

I wasn't with Michael 24/7.
I have never claimed to be his best friend.
I did, however, know him pretty well.

I also had very unique access to his personal space - meaning I have literally pulled speaker wires under his bed. I have moved boxes in his closets to install amplifiers. I have been in his apartments and hotels, setting up dance floors and
playback systems. I have set up his personal lounges in studios - and maintained them. I have seen his books and magazines. I have seen his video collection. I have been places - private places - that very few people have been allowed to enter. This was part of my job.

The same can be said of many celebrities and non-celebrities I have worked with. There is a trust that goes along with working so closely with them, in the most private parts of their home.

You overhear conversations and comments. You learn how to make the client feel completely comfortable around you. They need people around them to provide services (in my case, building music and video systems) without the sense of being "watched".

I have seen and heard things in OTHER homes that were - for lack of a better word - sad. But not in Michael's.

Nothing.

Honestly, nothing.

When I started doing seminars about my work and friendship with Michael, more than one person mentioned the accusations - and "what if..."

My response was, and continues to be, if there was even a hint of concern that Michael somehow harmed a child, I would not offer my seminars.

Michael was a very unique person. I didn't experience his childhood, but I did get a very close look at his adult life. I did have remarkably comfortable conversations with him. I have heard him make funny comments under this breath - but never hurtful, never tawdry. Never.

It isn't my job to defend him, nor to get riled about a tasteless movie. But I can be one voice saying that over the course of my 18+ year association and friendship with Michael - being allowed into his more personal spaces, bedrooms, lounges, hotel rooms, cars, etc., there is simply nothing I have seen or heard to offer even a shadow of doubt in my mind. Nothing.

Was he perfect? No.
Did he make impeccable decisions every moment of the day? No.
Was there even the smallest of hints that he could harm a child? Absolutely not.

The movie will come and go, and along the way a few people will make some snarky comments on social media.

As for me, I will maintain that I am proud - very proud - to have worked so closely, in so many places, over such a long period of time, with someone I had so much respect for. I love sharing stories from the studio, tours and Neverland. I love meeting his fans, and re-uniting with old friends. I was blessed to have been a small part of his team - allowing so many opportunities along the way.

But mostly, I'm proud that we were friends.

👏

- E-mail - orgNote -