Story of Jury
In 2013, I was called alongside hundreds of Montreal citizens to participate in a Jury Casting Selection. For a big trial involving the Russian Mafia and their Female Slavery Business. Horrible human traffic where 8 or 9 people were accused of all the most horrifying misogynist crimes. Accusers saving their own skins through their personal lawyer. In sum, an international incident that required, like all trials necessitate, a rigorous selection of jurors. Who could bring out an unbiased and thoughtful verdict. During this jury selection was a classmate I knew. A woman who, like me, got rejected as juror by the prosecution due to our Information Sciences background. Meaning that the Crown’s intent was to employ panellists with the least access to medias and press. Which makes sense as people with such access could have preconceptions and give a biased verdict.
So although I wasn’t selected as juror, the whole casting process made me realise the importance of a court of justice to employ unprejudiced panellists. That way, Prosecution can work without detrimental elements affecting their team or the Defence. So since then, I always praise such selection process as it creates an earth-grounded and civil debate platform for Court cases. Whether it is that Female Slavery Affair which had minuscule Press articles — stunning considering the gravity of that Human Rights subject — or the Michael Jackson 2005 trial; which was so mediatised that several readers/reporters made their trials by newspapers. Biased and ignorant verdicts about the singer.
School of Facts
So when I researched Michael’s life, ups and downs, the trial, and the Leaving Neverland BS, those readers/reporters’ reactions horrified me. People declaring him guilty, a pervert, a freak, an asylum case. Despicable accusations based on the words of deranged parents who exploited their kids out of greed and revenge. All of them going first at civil lawsuits instead of the police. All of them with sick histories and sordid criminal activities. And regarding Robson and Safechuck, young adults with the same despicable nature. People with well-accounted cases of unethical behaviours. On Wade Robson’s side, a pathological liar with an “Uncle Pervy” notoriety the whole dance industry knows while for his mother, creepy decades long infatuations for the singer. Whereas for James, cases of lies and narcissism. With a false train allegation that doubly obliterates his word. And a Associates Civil-Fraud Lawsuit that triply shows him and his whole family as dodgy individuals. Stuff fans know, industry people also, and which detractors (press and witch hunt mobs) either never knew, or ignored by playing ostriches. In other words, total bad faith from those haters that makes you realise how much parasites surrounded Michael’s life and how his attackers are either prejudiced, ignorant, or in denial. About his skin condition, his Neverland Ranch, his success, his attackers, and a biased documentary where Martin “Human Garbage” Bashir slandered him.
Looking at the horrors Michael went through explains the tabloids’ success. Indeed, those rags played with the claims of dubious people by trying him as guilty in their sheets and played on people’s ignorance over the singer’s life.
And I do insist on the word Ignorance. Regarding the information they got and their gullibility. At believing a tabloid culture which attacks and destroys anybody’s reputation, including their own readers/viewers/family members if they had that chance. For sales, viewer ratings, and clicks. And that readers don’t realise this tabloid culture affects both rag pieces and mainstream newspapers is shocking. Now I do not know who told these people that they should always believe what they read, but having seen from an early age what Osamu Tezuka denounced in his mangas (racial profiling, witch hunt cultures, yellow journalism, propaganda pieces camouflaging human right abuses as humanitarian work), I am glad to not being naive over the Press and Medias. Which is why I have never bought newspapers, nor any flashy magazine and have boycotted stuff like TMZ and other sleazy channels.
As for the recent Leaving Neverland BS, I wrote of fans and their implications to defend the singer, but there are also reporters on the job. Like Charles Thomson, who educated many BBC Radio morning hosts about Michael Jackson. Basic facts on the accusers and Jackson’s life which threw them off guard. Even embarrassed them before their audiences as you could tell they didn’t do their homeworks. Didn’t check the other side as they were originally treating Michael as guilty.
More interesting, after a BBC Morning show interview, an employee spoke to Charles of her 1980s work in Rupert Murdoch’s Today newspaper archives. One day, she saw a headline reporting bad news over Michael Jackson and when she searched the newspaper’s pages to index that article in their digital collection, she couldn’t find it anywhere. And she contacted the reporter, who told her there was no article and no incident at all; adding that the newspaper’s higher heads have ordered everyone to spread on their front pages fake Michael Jackson headlines. For sales figures, although the indication implies that people were out to hurt Michael and attack his name. Here is the reporter Charles Thomson recounting the incident in this MJCast podcast excerpt.
Now as to why certain people have developed a tooth over Michael Jackson, I think his growing success is one of the main reasons. For from his Jackson 5 days, Michael was the one who got the most press and praises. For his talent and charismatic personality. And back in these days, nobody would have attacked him because of his age. For adults don’t bully a kid, that would be mean and cowardice. But when he became older and developed bigger success with his solo career, this is where malevolent figures started attacking him. Like Mozart experienced when he became older and was no longer a child. Slanders and gossips where two-faced individuals were plotting against him. For here was a kid who became bigger than the American Music Industry, richer than his colleagues, more powerful than them. Obtaining half of the Sony Catalogue and the Beatles songs, and a success with his Thriller album that made him the biggest music sale ever. And just about then did the press and Hollywood culture started to badmouth him. Among them Paul McCartney, which makes sense since he wanted the Beatles catalogue, but didn’t had the money. And that he still attacks Michael’s name today is even more disgusting. Like the others, that man has exposed himself as someone terrified and jealous of Michael’s success.
In a way, I guess success can distort and divide people. In Michael’s case, it gave him the comfort to live his life his own way and to help others in need. But for others, it unmasked their envy and jealousy over Michael’s money and popularity. A greed that I also recognise in the attacks J K Rowling has had since her Harry Potter success; and those that Johnny Depp has had for a couple of years. And which has forced both of them to protect themselves the same way Michael did. By doing less interviews, more careful public encounters, and deal with people who might try to exploit them. In Johnny’s case, a gold-digger ex-wife who used the MeToo Movement to slander him and which other parasites jealous of him (Hollywood stars and Rita Skeeter columnists) exploited as well to diss him. For their careers advancement. Media parasites Michael endured too, alongside families with malevolent intentions who crooked him up. Who exploited his kindness and intent to help the world and children. Who exploited a man whose lack of childhood and social interactions (due to his success and work schedule) made him see the outside world and a normal childhood as a paradise free from the disgusting horrors in showbiz and clubs where he performed. Made him see our daily routines in such a utopified/naive way that this lack of social interaction in his youth made him unprepared about its darkest reality. That parents can exploit their kids out of opportunism. That children can lie under pressure. That children can be vicious rotten brats. That parents and their kids can be as greedy as the music/Hollywood executives Michael faced in his career and could detect. In sum, I think that Michael’s greatest mistake, like the queen Marie-Antoinette did with her entourage, was to think that all the people who wanted to befriend him cared about his causes and interests when they just wanted to exploit him. Now of course there have been genuine families and friends in Michael’s circle like Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes, and other families I mentioned in my editorial. But, on the other end, stood snakes like the Robsons, Safechucks, Arvizos, and Chandlers.
And I think that had Michael lived a childhood, he would have sorted out those parasites even before they meddled themselves into his life. Would not have given them the attention he offered them during his life. Would not make them believe he owed them things. Success, money, valuables, and careers they took for granted thanks to their interactions with Michael. Because when you realise how sordid and despicable all his accusers are, it is evident that they are unreliable individuals who all have a tooth against a man whom they felt owed him more than he did.
Furthermore, I think that had Michael lived a childhood, he would have developed better communication skills to express himself in interviews or with his sound engineers who, as they explained in their TheMJCast Interviews, sometimes felt his indications a bit vague when he gave them the beats for certain songs and left the studio too quickly for them to clarify his ideas.
As for those who are still attacking Michael Jackson’s name, I think it is due to ignorance, but also intellectual laziness. Because what is more intellectually convenient nowadays? To click online at free articles available on newspapers websites who may have, or not, unreliable documentation? Or purchasing expensive, but detailed, books/videos Michael Jackson experts wrote/filmed with reliable sources?
If your answer is the first choice, then you have won the golden prize for unveiling the intellectual research skills and wallets of today’s readers. People who refuse to spend two hours or a couple of dollars to get their facts straighten out. And that nowadays newspapers are all digital, what an easier way to spread information. The recent records, never those published decades ago with more reliable infos.
And this is something my grandmother (97 years old), who has always admired and respected Michael Jackson, has felt for years. That younger generations are not careful with the facts they read today. They take for granted everything on the recent news and TV as if it is the gospel truth. And regarding those accusers, she is disgusted at how liars as cheap and callous as them can be given a speaking platform. Just like she is outraged that reporters who attack the singer don’t know their facts about him.
To me she expressed her support for Michael Jackson and for his humanity she has always loved. Like other artists did with their tweets. Among them Lori Petty ‘s messages I mentioned in the second part of my review.
Other supports came as well from people like David Lachapelle, Vincent Paterson, Kellie Parker, Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes, and so many other figures. People who interacted with Michael. Just like others were with him at Neverland. Regarding the singer Prince, his support for Michael has always been great. Indeed, during the 2005 trials, he got so angry when some jerks attacked Michael’s name on his Message Boards he threw them out of his forum. And when Michael passed away, he asked all his colleagues to leave the studio and he didn’t leave his house for a couple of days. And since then, he started doing Michael Jackson songs in his shows in honour of his fallen comrade. Like he did here a few days after Michael passed away. During a show in Australia where he asked an audience member to sing Billie Jean. And having known what Wade Robson did behind his back, such as cheating with his first wife, I am certain Prince would have explained to the medias how Wade is an asshole. Or maybe sent a subtle message regarding that man’s nature.
And I can tell you that if people took time to do proper research and watched videos like Michael Jackson’s Private Home Movies, a podcast like The MJCast or a book like The Dangerous Philosophies of Michael Jackson, then everyone would have a clearer grasp as to who Michael is. As a musician and as a human being who couldn’t harm anybody. Facts about his life. From fans and non-fans (ex: the reporter John Ziegler) who did their research. Who have read the court documents, studied the history of the people who attacked Michael’s name, and have proofs backing up their facts. Who know what they are talking about.
And about those that have tried to mute the singer or attacked his name, this is where I think fans can perform their own protests. Through their personal or public tributes. Like these three in Russia, New York and the UK.
And for those who want to go beyond that, fans should also boycott all those that have tried to mute the singer. Whether it is an institution like Musee Grevin Montreal. Or a TV series like The Simpsons. Who did the worst muting ever.
The pull off of their episode Stark Raving Dad, where Michael Jackson, for that Season Premiere, had an uncredited guest role. An episode rated among the best of the Simpsons show. 8.6/10. And one of the most original use of character presence of a pop culture figure. Very humbly, without fanfare, with a perfect script.
A jewel in the Simpsons pedigree.
But because of the allegations from the BS that is Leaving Neverland, Matt Groening, Al Jean, and Sam Simon have decided to pull off that episode from TV rebroadcasts, future DVD releases, and online viewings on Itunes. Even going as far as to detach themselves from Michael by saying, through Al Jean, that Michael Jackson was using that episode to groom children. Which is a lame way to say, “Oh, we didn’t originally want Michael to appear on the show. He told us he liked The Simpsons and wanted to be in it and so we put him in to satisfy him.” Really, then if you did not want Michael in your show, why did you exploit his name again for your Do The Bartman video clip and tune? Why did you also exploit him through your Itchy and Scratchy movie episode by saying Michael Jackson had a cameo in that film the Springfield folks watched. Was that grooming from Michael as well?
Total Bullshit! Total cowards!
And by the way, what about that Dustin Hoffman episode Lisa’s Substitute; where he plays a substitute teacher whom Lisa Simpson admires? Why haven’t you pulled off that episode considering all these MeToo allegations the actor has had in 2017 which resulted him having a clash at a movie Q&A with John Oliver? Why haven’t you also pulled off Stan Lee’s episode since he has had allegations (which I do not believe by the way)? Or George Takei’s following the witch hunt he endured (until he proved his innocence and exposed his accuser as a liar)? Or anybody else on your show who has had allegations/disgusting behaviours during their careers? Why do this toward Michael Jackson’s name ONLY when he has passed away but not during the 1993 and 2003 allegations? Is it because you know that as he has passed away, he won’t be suing you for your slanders toward his name?
You know, back in 1997, everyone saw The Simpsons’ integrity die when the show did their The Principal and The Pauper Show, where it was revealed through an absurd plotline that Principal Skinner was not Skinner, but a Capitol City scoundrel who passed himself for his general. Which caused a big protest over the show’s precedent plotlines and sense of logic into the character’s heart. A fall which the video down below described as the passing of The Simpsons into an era called Zombie Simpsons, where the plotlines became over-the-top, where the humour wasn’t earth-grounded but instead slapstick, and where pop culture, instead of being deconstructed and ridiculed, was praised in complacency.
Well, I think it is not just them who have become Zombies. It is also their show runners. No longer having the guts to defend their work, they now are Hollywood’s muppets. Sheeps who follow the latest trends or whatever their bosses are telling them to do. But also afraid of offending anybody, which is what happened when they did an episode set in Brasil that presented the Favelas’ criminal reality; and its government was so angry that the show apologised instead of standing up to themselves. That is until the Rio 2016 Olympic games allowed the world to witness Brasil’s chaotic criminality. Which the movie City of God also exposed.
How is it that one of the most gutsiest 1990s tv shows could become a manufactured product of cowardice? How can such showrunners who did the episode Homer BadMen, which tackled tabloid witch hunts and trials by medias, could betray themselves and demonize Michael Jackson the same way the Springfield community attacked Homer Simpson in that storyline? Shame on all its showrunners for falling into this witch hunt like all those institutions and media whores who have tried to mute Michael. And shame on those showrunners for not respecting the principles of the characters and stories that have given them their gazillions.
To me, I think the best way to protest against this Simpsons censorship is to either quote or speak about that Michael Jackson episode as much as possible on social medias, but also to boycott The Simpsons releases and products the same way people are now boycotting HBO. Indeed, like one angry viewer said to the CEO of the Itchy and Scratchy company in a Simpsons episode, I will never watch on TV channels like Fox, V, and Global, any other episodes of The Simpsons or on streaming services. I will never purchase any of their tie-in products (or if I do, it will be in used shops, so the show won’t make money). I shall boycott all their future series, and if a scandal in the show runners/crew’s lives or the Simpsons production would be exposed to the public, then that would be to me their best Karma and Michael Jackson’s way — from his heaven seat — of punishing them for acting like Judases.
And this boycott should also be applied on anybody who has attacked Michael Jackson’s name. MeToo activists, radio shows, playwrights, writers, directors, and anybody else who try to implement any Mute Campaign on Michael’s name.
Because none of these people have the right to force their silly Mute campaigns on anybody. For I am sure that if one of these artists advocating the muting of someone were accused of the same things they accused Michael Jackson — or anybody else they accused — then they would all want to be treated with “Due Process”, “Innocence Until Proven Guilty” and not through a “Trial By Newspapers/Social Medias”. Which they have been doing since the beginning of that movement.
And for all those who think their Muting campaigns have any effect of blocking an artist’s art and voice, well they should take a look at me. Since 2017, people have tried to boycott Woody Allen’s films. Which some people have done. But for me, it has just motivated me in watching them for the first time. Of purchasing his movies. And I can say that thanks to their pseudo-boycott campaigns, I have become a fan of Woody Allen, who has indeed much more humour and originality than so many lame-ass comedians in today’s business (ex: Amy Schumer, Sarah Silverman, Hari Kondabolu, etc.). Even better, their boycott attempts have encouraged me to do my researches on the Woody Allen case between him, Mia Farrow, Ronan Farrow, and Dylan Farrow. And I can say that it has made me a defender of Woody Allen. Especially after reading the following posts that have confirmed his innocence. First, his son Moses’s testimonial…
…Daphne Merkin’s interview with Soon-Yi Previn, Woody Allen’s wife at the center of the conflicts….
…then Robert Weide’s two reports on this case,…
… and also the “Woody Allen Mob Lynching”; a great website detailing the events between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow. From fans who have backed up their documentations with court documents, articles, and interviews from various figures around the case.
Woody and Michael
Of Woody Allen, I see him as a man who has been witch hunted the same way Michael Jackson was. And who has suffered the same kind of easy judgements from people with their own prejudices over his relationship with his wife Soon-Yi Previn; a woman who has always been the adoptive daughter of Mia Farrow and Andre Previn; not Woody and Mia’s.
For Woody, I am glad that he not only got the support from actors like Angelica Huston, Dianne Wiest, Kate Winslet, and Scarlett Johannson, but also individuals like Samantha Jane Geimer, whom most people have branded as “the victim of Roman Polanski”. A kind woman who forgave Roman decades ago. Who has denounced the way Hollywood and the medias have exploited her incident for their opportunism. Who has condemned Mia Farrow for casting out Polanski when MeToo happened. Who has brushed off Mia Farrow’s twitter apology by telling her she forgave Roman Polanski since a long time and is wishing him all the best. And who has condemned the Oscars for throwing out Polanski’s membership. Saying he deserved better than the Academy, whose members are nothing more than a pack of douchebags and jackals devouring each other.
So it is quite refreshing to see her support for Michael Jackson in denouncing both Leaving Neverland as a Trial by Documentary and what those MeToo activists do as Trial by Twitter. A drop of common sense into this Social Media Frenzy.
Now I can understand if some people might be opinionated over Woody’s relationship with Soon-Yi Previn. And if you are uncomfortable watching his films because of that, do as will. I mean, I am not forcing anybody to not watch or watch something. I present suggestions as to what people can do and they then do what they want after that. It’s their lives, not mine. But if at anytime you think and treat Woody Allen guilty mainly because of his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn while omitting all the criminal and court investigations that occurred in the 1990s, then to me you are no more different than the mob who has been lynching Michael Jackson and has ignored the investigations and court trials documents that confirmed him as Innocent.
Because in the ends, facts say and confirm Woody Allen and Michael Jackson are both innocent just like how their accusers have questionable and dubious histories as well. And when people read the facts about these two, those who accused them of being guilty realised how they are innocent.
Here are below two threads from Bob Weide regarding Woody Allen that are worth reading.
The artist from the Art. The Art from the Artist
You know, I will tell you something. As someone who has followed artists for many years, I have realised that you can’t control others’ lives. You might be friends or fans of certain people and their work, but you can’t control the movie of their existence. You can give them a couple of advices as to how they could travel through this road call life.
But in the end, it is their lives, not ours.
So if an artist has done a painting, movie, book, or novel that I like, I can still separate those artefacts from other events in his/her life. Like for instance Rurouni Kenshin of Nobuhiro Watsuki. I can separate the sordidness of his private life — which he has expressed regrets and will seek treatment — from his works that have nothing to do with his psychological demons. Besides, as I said before, an author/filmmaker/painter/composer/mangaka is like a medium who, through the help of his team or by himself, is trying to use his quill/canvas/paper/opera/film stock as a crystal ball to lay down all his visions of events that happen in a parallel universe. Which is how Stephen King and Jean Cocteau saw their works as creators. As clairvoyant archaeologists/sculptors who try to convey as faithfully and honestly as possible their visions over what happens in a parallel universe. Without letting the noises of parasites trying to disrupt their concentration.
Whereas for a singer, I see his songs as the builder of mechanical robot birds whom he offers to the world by letting them free from his cage and into our jungle. Singing their melodies while we can decide by ourselves if we want to listen and study them or not.
So for me, it is imperative to separate an artist’s life and his work. Whether or not the person is a Saint or a Jerk. And if for two people (an arrogant Canadian writer and my former prima donna “Joan Crawford” friend), I do not want to read or see their stuff, it has to do with how they have been rude at me and others. But those who are comfortable seeing their stuff, they can go ahead.
Because for me, the modicum of how I like an artist is not just his work, but also his/her humanity toward fans. Which is to me the best test to detect an artist’s heart. If he/she is nice with fans, then he/she is a good person. If he/she has the opposite behaviour, then you can be sure he behaves like this with his/her family and his/her colleagues and friends. Which is how the individuals I called Caligula, Joan Crawford and Bellatrix Lestrange (in the first part of my editorial) treated others and their entourage as “Yes Men”. Which is what a co-writer of Caligula denounced Caligula as. And which I recognised through his ex-girlfriend Joan Crawford and their daughter Bellatrix Lestrange. Who, as I stated in the first part of my editorial, was involved in the MeToo movement and displayed in it her misandry and sanctimonious preaching; until a frenzy of scandals exposed her as a hypocrite and made her lose the support of fans, friends, colleagues, and has stained her family’s reputation. (And no, I will not reveal the real name of those three because I refuse to give publicity to those snotty/outdated/opportunistic has-beens who have bottles of champagne shoved up their asses.)
Again, the involvement of Bellatrix is one of the main reasons why I have always been critical over that movement. Indeed, if it was capable of letting in its ranks a woman as neurotic and mysandrist as her, then I knew this movement would become a splatter of double standards and sexism toward men. As for my other reason of criticism, it is also knowing that they let in their ranks several artists who have displayed toxic diva behaviours on movie/TV sets; comparable to what Harvey Weinstein did in his career. Such as cat fights between co-stars, power struggles, monarchy ranks, unprofessional behaviours, nastiness toward fans/co-stars/assistants/crew members, disproportionate demands nonconstructive to a movie’s production, extras/crew members fired for silly reasons (ex: looking at an actor, standing up to his/her antics, etc.), and unacceptable behaviours in public (ex: restaurant, bar, etc.). Stuff that I cannot tolerate.
The Dark Side of Show business
Again, it is primordial to deal with assholes, jerks, and bullies in the music/movie/TV industry. For too long nastiness has been vehiculated in those places; which authors like Mario Puzo have denounced for decades. Exposing in their novels horrible behaviours from movie moguls and movie stars (of both genders). Affecting newcomers who want to start in the business, but also crew members who don’t have much power to defend themselves; unlike movie stars who can use their ranks to fire people in cruel ways. And we need to stop these bullies.
But if these MeToo activists want to improve their movie/music/comedy industry, they also need to take a look at themselves, observe the Man in the Mirror within their hearts, admit to the world that they have been divas/assholes/bullies/jerks, and make that change. Then again, so many won’t do that because it would affect their image and expose them as hypocrites since so many have used that movement to up their careers and give themselves a good image. Especially when they also gave the voice to troubling individuals like Amber Heard. A well-noted bully and abuser who has assaulted her ex-girlfriend, but also her ex-husband Johnny Depp. Exploiting the hate/Jealousy culture which the press and certain actors vehiculated around him since 2012 to demonise Johnny and sell herself as a pseudo-martyr.
Whereas those that have been attacking him because it was a trend have exposed themselves for who they are. And I hope they realise the boycott they shall endure for attacking Johnny, but also denying the abuse he suffered, which his fans have exposed on Social Medias and which he has revealed through his latest lawsuit against Amber Heard. Because yes, these same activists who say “Believe All Victims” have been dead silent when the trial documents revealed who Amber Heard is. The same Amber Heard they have promoted and which some are still defending. Either because they are friends with her, or knew what she did and played ostriches, or have made so much money/publicity out of this Johnny-demonising they know they could lose their image and career.
Now about Johnny, it is good that fans of Michael Jackson and of Woody Allen are ready to defend him also. Even backing each other up as I have seen fans of those three groups stick together and share facts on all three cases. For many in these fandoms are not stupid and they know that liars, truthers, accusers, and abusers are not gender-specific. That they are universal. Of all ages and all genders. That female accusers can also abuse. And be liars too. Which is what happened in those three situations down below. Three liars who are now facing the Justice System for destroying lives due to their false accusations.
And for those in the public/showbiz who cannot think possible that artists can, out of pure vengeance, attempt to destroy the reputation of another artist following professional circumstances, take a look at the actor Michael Anderson. Whom we all know as the Man from Another Place in David Lynch and Mark Frost’s Twin Peaks. When this man — a former friend and frequent colleague of David — was refused chance to work on Twin Peaks due to money reasons, he decided to throw this slanderous Facebook post that has disgusted all Lynch fans.
Fortunately, a fan quickly reported those slanders to Jennifer Lynch on Instagram and she replied fast saying that Michael was lying and needed serious help.
Whereas for Michael, he has completely lost the support of many fans. Me included.
Now I know some people came into that MeToo movement with good intentions and reasons. To help others and I do agree. But unfortunately, some of them came into that movement with their troubled baggage and have brought them into their activism. Creating erratic reactions and behaviours. Transferring their past problems into people they accuse guilty; such as Michael Jackson, Johnny Depp or Woody Allen. People who have nothing to do with these activists’ troubled histories. And it is not by insulting people who have constructive criticisms and serious concerns over the erratic/radical way that movement behaves that these activists will gain supporters. Instead, it will just alienate people from their cause. And by meddling Michael Jackson in the equation, they have just done that as these fans have found more proofs of Michael’s innocence and of the accusers’ BS. Homework that when they display it to some MeToo activists, they unfortunately witness from them a bad faith and refusal to recognise the truth that makes us realise how these activists are in denial and fools.
To me, these activists, like the artists they are in their careers, should stop a minute and be reflective over their work, at the way they speak with others and how they behave themselves. Need to realise that it is not by accusing people left and right with all sort of accusations, and confusing “allegation” with “proof of guilt”, that they will win support. Nor will it be with their social media trials where I see more people getting angry at that frenzy of accusing people left and right and declaring them “guilty” without proof. Without letting an accused the chance to defend himself and to let him speak.
Only a trial in a proper court of justice is the proper platform to solve these matters. To let both sides present facts, testimonials, counter-testimonials, and proofs calmly. Without letting parasites (press, opportunists, etc.) meddling their noses and airs when they should be sorting out their own shit instead.
Only in these proper trials and their verdicts can we decide once and for all whether or not someone is guilty or innocent. Because again, I can tell you that if one of these activists or their friends/relatives were also accused of what they allege on these artists, they’d want to be treated with “due diligence”, “innocence until proven guilty”, and not get their name judged and tried on the same social medias they have used to attack people like Michael Jackson, Johnny Depp, Woody Allen, Alfred Hitchcock, and Lars von Trier. Especially when each of these people accused have in their defence testimonials of various people, video accounts, proofs, and documents that show how their accusers are liars with agendas and troubling histories. With many controversial acts in their lives.
People who want to know more about Hitchcock can check out this website that gave voice to many actors, actresses, and work colleagues who worked with Hitchcock, praised his kindness and professionalism, and defended him.
And those who want to know more about the work relationship between Lars von Trier and Björk should read this informative editorial I wrote last March. Where I show proofs that Björk is an unreliable narrator of her life, but also a bully, and a control freak out of control who has exploited the favouritism of the medias who overpraise her to slander those who stood up to her antics (ex: Lars von Trier, her ex-boyfriend Matthew Barney, and the reporter Julie Kaufman).
And for those who want to know more about Michael Jackson and the various allegations he has endured, here are two great websites to check out.
Alongside with this great link to the FBI documentation. Detailing all their decade long investigation of the singer; documenting his every doings.
And as a conclusion to my Michael Jackson editorial, I would like to say to all fans the following message.
Keep doing the good fight. Keep doing the good work. Don’t worry if some artists/public folks ignore your proofs and documentation. Believe me, their behaviours speak not only about their attitude toward Michael, but also how they react to any info they receive from colleagues, family relatives, and fans. Even better, it shows how they also treat those same people in their everyday lives. And don’t worry if some reporters try to downplay Michael’s name or musical importance. Remember that they have never been the ones who made him a historical figure. You are the ones who made him. You are the ones who make History. These reporters are only those who report it. And with the social medias, you can spread worldwide and more quickly reliable documentation that in the 1990s wasn’t as accessible before. Use that to your advantage. Educate the world with those medias. Including those who follow you. For they will also stumble on your knowledge and learn from it. And regarding those that refuse to recognise the truth, consider it their loss of gaining cultural knowledge from an artist who has helped millions and their loss of your friendship toward them.
Heal the World with your social medias. Be part of History.
Make that Change.