099: Leaving Neverland Q&A

As Leaving Neverland continues to reverberate through the Michael Jackson community, many questions have risen to the surface. In this special Q&A episode, Jamon Bull is honored to welcome two experts to the show to answer listener-submitted questions. The MJCast Legal Correspondent, Charles Thomson, along with author, journalist and Friend of the Show, Mike Smallcombe, have both been vital advocates for Jackson during this difficult time, appearing on television interviews as well as publishing articles to spread the truth about these accusations.

Charles and Mike cover a wide range of topics in this special discussion, ranging from the history of the 1993 and 2005 allegations, the facts about Robson’s and Safechuck’s interactions with Michael Jackson and the Jackson Estate, inconsistencies in the Leaving Neverland film, how things might play out with a possible appeal, the effects on Michael Jackson’s legacy, going forward, and much more.

The MJCast team appreciates the overwhelming response in preparation for this episode, which resulted in over 200 submitted questions. They also thank listeners for understanding that not each and every question could be addressed in detail, though they did their best to curate a list which covered all topics. The team hopes that the insights from this episode are helpful, both in terms of listeners’ own understanding of this situation, and in providing guidance and guidelines when speaking to those outside the fan community.

Participants
• Jamon Bull – Co-Host of The MJCast
• Charles Thomson – Award-winning investigative journalist and Legal Correspondent for The MJCast
• Mike Smallcombe – Journalist and author of Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson 

Questions
1. Mercedes Donis (email) – General MJ. Negating the “predator profile.” Can you briefly outline all the differences between EACH accuser and how they show differences in MO?
2. Elsa Anderson (Email) – The 1993 case settlement has sorts of two explanations. Could you shed some light on how they fit together or what is true? Explanation a)The insurance company paid against MJ’s will,which is supported by Mesereau and Scott Ross and was brought into the 2005 trial as a legal document. It’s said to be possible to go against the client’s will, when it’s litigation and the settlement of course was on the litigation charge. Explanation b) It was MJ’s legal team that, after not being able to postpone the civil trial (until after the eventual criminal trial) and especially after Mr. Cochran joined the team, talked MJ into settling and that Cochran made sure the insurance company would pay, before settling. This is supported by Geraldine Hughes – the legal secretary of Rothman and writer of the book Redemption, who also claims an insurance company can’t do anything against their client’s will. Only thing clear is that MJ’s, Cochran’s and Weitzman’s signatures are on the settlement, as leaked to the press, early on in the Arvizo case.
3. @tafattsbarn (Twitter) – Can Thomson explain the alleged match of Jordan’s description of Jackson’s genitalia in 1993? People who believe MJ is guilty are now completely convinced the photos matched even though I know that the narrative before was that it didn’t match. They often reference Dr. Richard Strick and Gary Spiegel as people that confirmed it matched. Moreover, if it did match, then why did the prosecution try to enter it into evidence so late in 2005, only to be declined? Wouldn’t it have been incriminating and so they should’ve entered it earlier?
4. @Devon_DaVinci (Twitter) – I know, I may be in the very small minority, but I feel kind of bad for Jordan Chandler. I know, hear me out. From all of the sources I have studied, which was a LOT. Jordan was dragged into the accusations by his parents and was influenced to stick to it. And even when he went with his dad’s team to meet with Michael and his team, Jordan was described running up to and hugging Michael as if nothing ever happened. After the case was settled he quickly cut contact with his family and I have heard that the main reason was because of what they did to his friendship with Michael. And Jordan has gone out of his way, even leaving the country, to not testify against Michael in court. I know he was barred from talking to the media so that’s why he never made a book or documentary. He was assaulted by his father around the same time he was being asked to go to testify in the 2005 trial. I heard a rumor that the two incidents may have been related. I know this is speculation but what if Jordan is just an MJ fan that go the chance of a lifetime to meet his idol and play and hang out with him, but due to corrupt parents was dragged into a situation that found him now against his Idol and hated by the community he wants to still be apart of? Before you ask, no I’m not Jordan Chandler, lol.
5. @ZoroastersChild (Twitter): On Evan Chandler’s suicide, Geraldine Hughes had said in the Nicole’s View interview on YouTube that she believes he was murdered. Any thoughts on that?
6. @ZoroastersChild (Twitter): Why isn’t Geraldine Hughes invited onto mainstream platforms to speak about the 1993 case?
7. Domna Stavridou (email)- Hello Mike and Charles, thank you so much for doing this! You are such great people! I’m still stuck in something, which I can’t quite understand. Can you please explain once again, after the Martin Bashir documentary, why did Gavin Arvizo and his mother turn their backs on Michael? I still don’t get it. Did his mother force him into it (like Even Chandler did)? Or did they both develop hate? Did they want to destroy Michael just because they felt abandoned and wanted money? What was the reason again? Thank you so much, keep doing what you are going! Many regards from Greece, Domna Stavridou!
8. @tafattsbarn (Twitter) – Is it true that two of the legal art books that were depicting nude boys were found in “a locked filing cabinet in Jackson’s bedroom” as stated by the prosecution and later during Rosibel Smith’s testimony (page 10 onwards)? It sounds pretty suspicious.
9. Martina van der Linden (Facebook): I’d like to know how long Michael’s FBI investigation really was. There are many versions out, from 10 years to 12 years or even 17 years. I know Charles was one of the people who back in 2009 asked for those files to be released, so he might know more about this subject and what kind of investigations the FBI did. I think it’s important to know more about what type of investigations the FBI did in order to get your argument right in case you need it.
10. Caroline Lewis (email) – Hi MJCast!I would love to hear Mike and Charles’ position on Jim Clemente. I’ve heard a few podcasts where he says things like Jordan and Gavin’s experiences completely corroborated; that a computer was seized at Neverland that had the drive completely wiped; and that Jordan was ready to testify at the 2005 trial against Michael. Jim said that Jordan didn’t due to a family illness but that Jordan wanted to pursue a criminal case against Michael if he was acquitted, but ultimate didn’t because of the statute of limitations. Are these points credible/verifiable? Why would a former FBI agent lie? Also are there no implications for him to be going on air discussing Michael molesting Gavin as if it’s fact, when Michael was acquitted of these charges – or do the same defamation laws apply? Thank you both for your hard and thorough work! Best wishes, Caroline.
11. @deepika1038 (Twitter) – Can you tell us what are the inconsistencies between wades own court documents and his Leaving Neverland documentary? Now we know about grand canyon, is there anything else like that?
12. @f861c5b3a4ea4f9 (Twitter) – Also, do you think all the family members are lying? The mothers and also the siblings and the grandmother too? Or are they being lied to too, so they’re reactions are real?
13. @drhajarat (Twitter) – What is the real story about video of [Michael] in disguise shopping for a ring with the young James Safechuck?
14. Debbii Longshaw (Facebook) – Do you think that Dan Reed is actually complicit in all the lies (apart from lack of research) or do they think that like us, he was hoodwinked by Wade & James, and is just another unfortunate pawn in the larger game?
15. @MJJRepository (Twitter) – What is your interpretation of Dan Reed admitting (in the Billboard interview) that the footage from Wade’s “1st take” of telling his abuse story was lost due to his camera breaking? Seems like a convenient excuse to film numerous takes and cherry pick which clips are more believable.
16. @annettaaa (Twitter) – Could you talk about how Dan seems to try sweep important things under the rug and how we are not accusing Wade and James of perjury in 1993 or 2005 (they were telling the truth then) and that when we say they are perjurers it is in their 2012/2013 cases? He always brings that up incorrectly.
17. @KingLeahMay (Twitter): Why are there no updates about what is happening with Wade and James? I find it interesting how *every last* detail about people like Jussie Smollett, or Nipsey Hussle, or R Kelly are leaked to the public but no word on wade and James. they’re literally gone from the scene.
18. @Tina_the_Kitten (Twitter) – Does anybody know when the appeal is going to take place? Any dates of a new court process for James Safechuck & Wade Robson?
19. Simon Clarke (email) – Hi Guys, question: Do you think if Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck lose their appeal, that could change the opinion of those who think Michael Jackson might have abused them? If they win, is it effectively game over for MJ’s legacy?
20. @AngryAngel87 (Twitter): With all of the evidence against them coming out (plus their previously failed lawsuits) do you honestly believe they have any chance with this appeal in a court? Also if this appeal fails, again, do you think that’ll change the current narrative on MJ?
21. Denise Lim (Facebook) – I first saw Mike Smallcombe getting the word out through The Mirror and I know about Charles Thomson on BBC radio. Even with your professions, how challenging was it to get the facts onto these public platforms, given the total anti-MJ climate previously?
22. @TheMJAP (Twitter): My question, mainly for Mike: SO many lies and SO many inconsistencies in Leaving Neverland (compared to trial transcripts). Smoking gun, however, was the train station – tangible, physical evidence of a fraudulent claim. How did you even *think* to investigate it’s build date?
23. @ViolaKl00485493 (Twitter): Can you name any other journalists that you think are doing a great job at scrutinizing the current allegations?
24. @mixinghistory (Instagram): Do you agree that us, the fans, should stop supporting people like Paul McCartney and Ellen after their comments on the film?
25. @SeanJoeFitz (Twitter): Are Michael’s kids able to sue for pain and suffering that this tv show has caused them? This will get these twoguys into court under oath.
26. @wceliam2 (Twitter): You are walking down a street and bump into Wade. What do you say to him?
27. Claudia Sanchez Maureira (Facebook) – There has been a theory in the fan-world that Harvey Weinstein might have financed Leaving Neverland as a strategy to deviate the attention on his own allegations. To me, that theory is a “little bit too much”. Do you know if there are concrete reasons for suspecting this or is it just because there are pictures of Oprah with him on friendly terms that some fans are saying that?
28. Let Mino (Facebook): In the Zeitgeist we are in now, isn’t it true that we *have to* take allegations like that from alleged victims seriously? And serious allegations need serious investigations? At first, we as a society have to take them seriously and then investigate *seriously* to see if they make any sense? If we call alleged victims liars immediately, what does that do to actual victims that didn’t speak out yet? I have no answer, I am just thinking of all the abuse victims that are connected directly to the current discussions…
29. @kustecanja (Instagram) – In your opinion, what are some of the reasons that so many people judge MJ for his eccentricities and call him a weirdo and believe literally every single lie about him, but turn a blind eye when it comes to other celebrities, who are also not perfect?
30. @look.over.your.shoulders (Instagram) – What do you think is the concise yet effective response to people in real life who bring up the documentary or say something negative about Michael regarding these accusations?

Connect with Us
• TheMJCast.com
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Instagram
• YouTube

If you have any thoughts, opinions, or feedback on this Michael Jackson podcast episode, we’d love to hear from you. Contact us at [email protected] or find the links to our many social networks on www.themjcast.com. Stay BAD!