# most of my New York friends (including Jewish pals) are unashamedly racist about black Americans.

The New Lynching of Michael Jackson: Dan Reed’s Leaving Neverland May, In Fact, Leave Blood on Many Hands
by Linda Woods

America has a long and sordid history of lynching or unfairly convicting African-American men based on the false allegations of white accusers. The names known to history echo loud and long .

The current hype that has been built around Leaving Neverland, a film directed by Dan Reed and funded and distributed by HBO in the U.S. and Channel 4 in the U.K., may appear deceptively at first as an important film for the #MeToo era, highlighting the alleged sexual abuse that Michael Jackson inflicted on two young boys who idolized him and fell-by grand and parental design-into his circle. At least, that is according to the hype that has been drummed up around it. But a closer look reveals many disturbing reasons to argue that this agenda-driven film has little to do with either journalistic integrity or concern for sexual abuse victims

medium.com/@lrixwoods/the-new-lynching-o...lood-on-2a9e2193f818

This is fascinating Hedda - thanks for posting the link; the sad thing is - how many people prepared to have an opinion and state it will bother to read the entire forensic piece?

Thanks for this hedda. The article is not without its flaws – not least that the author has not seen the film – but it's still well worth a read. Some fascinating elements...not least this:This might seem like the kind of typical paranoia that the media routinely likes to accuse of Jackson fans, but not so fast. An explosive 2017 New York Times article on Weinstein’s numerous pay offs revealed that Michael Jackson was, in fact, one of the celebrities for whom Weinstein would routinely pay gossip mongers to create stories about, in order to deflect from his own scandals.

Misa wrote:
Thanks for this hedda. The article is not without its flaws – not least that the author has not seen the film – but it's still well worth a read. Some fascinating elements...not least this:This might seem like the kind of typical paranoia that the media routinely likes to accuse of Jackson fans, but not so fast. An explosive 2017 New York Times article on Weinstein’s numerous pay offs revealed that Michael Jackson was, in fact, one of the celebrities for whom Weinstein would routinely pay gossip mongers to create stories about, in order to deflect from his own scandals.

from what I hear from reliable viewers..it presents nothing new but also fails to provide anything from the other viewpoint..that Jackson is innocent.

I don't see why I or others should put ourselves through 4 hours of hand wringing and I particularly object to how the mass media is almost demanding it be watched and MJ condemned on the strength of it when afterall , it's just a movie.

So I shall never watch it just as I will never watch All the Money in the World after kevin Spacey was replaced even though I like Christopher PLummer.

## Latest from the The Neverland Watch folk..the so-called wedding ring one of his accusers fondles (how bizarre..supposedly keeping a ring bought for you by your abuser) is way too big for a small boy's hand and is adult size.

### Apparently the film ends with a bonfire of Jackson memorabilia but the Jackson family claim one item burnt must be a fake as they own the original and Wade Robson last year sold up to $140,000 worth of memorapbilia at auction (confirmed by the auction house)

That's a very interesting article, and I also thought the point quoted by Misa about Weinstein's possible involvement intriguing.

You're not missing anything by not watching Leaving Neverland. I wasn't going to watched it but had seen the first 30 minutes, then the next 30 and had some time on my hands recently so watched to the end. It's essentially very one-sided, self-indulgent and far too long, clearly aimed at the prurient for whom explicit descriptions of child abuse are titillating. That's the only reason why I can see anyone would dress it up as "compelling".

The two men seemed quite unemotional about it all, Safechuck even having an odd giggle or too occasionally, and actually seemed more hurt about being replaced with a new "favourite" boy than about the alleged abuse. If you'd realised you'd been abused, would you really still feel offended that your abuser had turned his attentions elsewhere? The only emotion came from Robson, when he got tearful describing how he revealed the alleged abuse to his wife and other relatives, throwing a hand grenade into their lives, as described by his sister. His mother said she could not forgive herself for leaving her son with Michael Jackson and her other son said he didn't forgive her either. Her husband had committed suicide several years before.

We're supposed to believe that both men reacted in precisely the same way by reaching adulthood without realising they'd been abused and both only supposedly twigged that this had happened to them when their wives gave birth to baby boys and they imagined the same being done to them. I just don't believe that not one but two adults would react like that and don't fancy the chances of the kids with fathers with such putrid imaginations.

hedda wrote:
## Latest from the The Neverland Watch folk..the so-called wedding ring one of his accusers fondles (how bizarre..supposedly keeping a ring bought for you by your abuser) is way too big for a small boy's hand and is adult size.
Safechuck had a small black box containing several gold rings and put one on the end of his finger. It did look too small to slide over the first knuckle, so it looked to me like a small ring. He said that he liked jewellery as a child, so perhaps Michael Jackson just gave him presents that he thought he'd like, no expense spared. As eccentric as Michael Jackson was, I'm not convinced by the film that he was anything more sinister than a doting uncle figure.