No one had heard anything about Leaving Neverland until its screening at Sundance was announced in January of 2019. At first glance it looked like a rushed film that was planned and shot in a few days just to cover up the Harvey Weinstein documentary that was also scheduled to air at Sundance on January 25<sup>th<\/sup>. But how rushed was it really? Or was this horrendous film planned decades ago?\r\n\r\nAccording to Dan Reed, he had breakfast with a Channel 4 executive in the UK one day to discuss potential \u2018big stories\u2019 that never had been conclusively examined. Michael Jackson came up in the conversation and the idea for Leaving Neverland arose. Supposedly\u2026\r\n\r\nAccording to Dan Reed himself in interviews he did and his reviews on AirBnB for the homes they rented to shoot the film in, we know that they started filming as early as February of 2017 and filmed additional scenes as late as July 2018, even though they tried hard to make it look like it was all shot on the same day.\r\n\r\nTherefore we can safely assume that there was more planning behind Leaving Neverland than many initially assumed. But a little bit of research shows that there is a possibility that this was not just planned a couple of years ago, but that the idea of it arose maybe even as early as 1986, when a man called Victor Gutierrez attended a NAMBLA conference.\r\n\r\nVictor Gutierrez is a freelance writer who appeared on the U.S. tabloid television show \u201cHard Copy\u201d to claim that there was a videotape of Michael Jackson molesting a boy. Some background on his story can be found in the book\u00a0\u2018Jackson Family Values\u2019, by Jermaine Jackson\u2019s ex-wife,\u00a0Margaret Maldonado. She writes in early 1995:\r\n<blockquote><em>\u201cI received a telephone call from a writer named Ruth Robinson. I had known Ruth for quite a while and respected her integrity. It made what she had to tell me all the more difficult to hear. \u201cI wanted to warn you, Margaret,\u201d she said. \u201cThere\u2019s a story going around that there is a videotape of Michael molesting one of your sons, and that you have the tape.\u201d<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>If anyone else had said those words, I would have hung up the phone. Given the long relationship I had with Ruth, however, I gave her the courtesy of a response. I told her that it wasn\u2019t true, of course, and that I wanted the story stopped in its tracks.<\/em> <em>She had been in contact with someone who worked at the National Enquirer who had alerted her that a story was being written for that paper. Ruth cross-connected me with the woman, and I vehemently denied the story. Moreover, I told her that if the story ran, I would own the National Enquirer before the lawsuits I brought were finished. To its credit, the National Enquirer never ran the piece.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>\u201cHard Copy,\u201d however, decided it would. \u201cHard Copy\u201d correspondent Diane Dimond had reported that authorities were reopening the child molestation case against Michael. She had also made the allegations on the L.A. radio station KABC-AM, a morning talk show hosted by Roger Barkley and Ken Minyard. Dimond\u2019s claims were based on the word of a freelance writer named Victor Gutierrez. The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true. I\u2019d never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.\u201d<\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nAfter the \u201cHard Copy\u201d story aired, the LAPD told the\u00a0<em>Los Angeles Times<\/em> that they had seen no such videotape, they were not looking for it, and there was no renewed investigation into molestation allegations. Jackson subsequently filed a $100 million slander lawsuit against Gutierrez, \u201cHard Copy\u201d, and KABC-AM for perpetuating the story. None of these parties ever produced the videotape or any evidence it existed.\r\n\r\nBecause Jackson\u2019s lawyers could find no sign of the videotape or the origin of the tale, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Reginald Dunn ruled that Gutierrez was no longer protected by the California Shield Law, and ordered him to name his source. Gutierrez refused, instead claiming that a host of people, including Elizabeth Taylor and Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti, could verify the existence of the videotape. None of these people in fact supported him.\r\n\r\nConsequently, on October 15, 1996, Judge Dunn ruled that Gutierrez\u2019s story was false and that he had acted with malice, and was therefore liable for presumed and punitive damages, the amount of which would be determined at a later date. The writer then fled the country and published a book in June of 1997 called \u201cMichael Jackson Was My Lover: The Secret Diary of Jordie Chandler\u201d.\r\n\r\nIn October 1997, a legal action to assess the amount of \u201cpresumed and punitive damages\u201d to be paid to Jackson by Gutierrez was delayed due to Gutierrez filing for bankruptcy. Jackson\u2019s lawyers stated that the assessment of such damages would be determined and that Gutierrez would not be protected indefinitely by his action.\r\n\r\nOn\u00a0April 9, 1998 Michael Jackson won the slander suit against Gutierrez. A Los Angeles jury ordered Gutierrez to pay Jackson 2.7 million dollars for failing to prove the existence of a videotape that allegedly showed Jackson in an inappropriate conduct with a young boy.\r\n\r\nGutierrez\u2019s book is fiction. As there are no \u201cdiaries of Jordan Chandler\u201d. If there were, you can be sure they would have been in Sneddon\u2019s possession and Jackson would have been on trial back in 1993. Or they would have at least popped up during the 2005 trial. Also, Evan Chandler wouldn\u2019t have had to go through the hassle of drugging his child to get a so called confession of any alleged abuse.\r\n\r\nThere\u2019s a chance that Gutierrez worked with a source close to the Chandlers when he wrote the book, presumably either Evan Chandler, Ray Chandler or Diane Dimond. The book has several photocopies of \u2018confidential\u2019 documents in it such as a letter from the LA district attorney\u2019s office to the Chandlers which was verified as authentic in an independent interview by the sex crimes department individual who initially wrote it. At least a portion of these same documents and Gutierrez\u2019s writings have since appeared in\u00a0Ray Chandler\u2019s book as well as Diane Dimond\u2019s.\r\n\r\nThe actual written portions of the book seem about 5 to 10% accurate (based on Jordan\u2019s \u2018sworn declaration\u2019) and 90 to 95% fictitious. The book can easily be called disturbing, a pedophile\u2019s dream<em>. <\/em>A revolting, completely fictional\u00a0<em>fantasy<\/em> written BY a paedophile FOR paedophiles. It is certainly NOT something that Jordan Chandler or any other real molestation victim would had ever written in aforementioned diaries if there were any. It is doubtful that ANY SIDE of the case, nor ANY party of the case, would had supported what was written.\r\n\r\nGutierrez makes it out as though Jackson is in fact a masterful \u201clover\u201d and that he and Jordan actually had \u201cconsensual sex\u201d. He goes on to describe each of the sex acts in such lurid detail that it likely rivals most published \u201cadult\u201d sex fiction stories out there, except in this case we are dealing with a minor and it is being passed off as a true story.\r\n\r\nWhen the media talks about \u201ckiddie sex charges against Jackson\u201d or \u201cJackson raped little boys\u201d, \u00a0they are implying penetration by Jackson with small, toddler age children. The allegations are already bad enough, yet the media manages to turn it into something even worse. Dan Reed also calls it rape, but if Jackson had ever been accused of penetration, it could have been medically disproven and\u00a0<em>no one<\/em> could have disputed this.\r\n\r\n\u201cNot Guilty\u201d does not equal innocent to most. Nothing was PROVEN by the trial and that\u2019s why a lot of people still think he\u2019s guilty, and just \u2018got away with it\u2019.\r\n\r\nIf Jackson would have been accused of penetration it could have been indisputably, medically proven\u00a0false. There wouldn\u2019t be this uncertainty that there is by some people with these molestation allegations because it\u2019s so hard to disprove.\r\n\r\nThis is exactly the reason why Chandler, Arvizo, Robson and Safechuck didn\u2019t make the accusations of actual rape, although Robson and Safechuck did try to imply that fingers were used and according to Robson the actual act of penetration was attempted by Jackson, enough to cause bleeding.\r\n\r\nApparently Jackson was extremely well endowed because even with all the Vaseline in the house, as alleged by one of his discredited employees, and with Robson supposedly so in love with him, he couldn\u2019t manage to penetrate the then 14 year old boy who likely had bowel movement larger than Jackson\u2019s penis.\r\n\r\nFact of the matter is that penetration was only mentioned in Gutierrez\u2019s book, it was\u00a0NEVER filed in\u00a0<em>any <\/em>report. Gutierrez claimed on Spanish television that Jackson \u201cviolently anally raped\u201d Macaulay Culkin and Jordan Chandler which allegedly sparked Sneddon\u2019s interest into\u00a0photographing Jackson\u2019s buttocks during the body search in 1993 even though there were no allegations by Chandler of penetrative sex.\r\n\r\nAs soon as Gutierrez\u2019s book was published, DCFS, Gloria Allred, and every other alleged children\u2019s advocate should have been screaming, demanding that whoever worked with Gutierrez and gave him photos of a semi-naked, drugged looking Jordan to put in his book, be prosecuted for child abuse.\r\n\r\nBut nobody screamed.\r\n\r\nInstead, they salivated because it was a book about Jackson and Chandler, and it didn\u2019t matter that the book was equal to child abuse, on a child that they all claimed had already been abused; so much for children\u2019s rights and advocacy.\r\n\r\nAccording to an article in the September 2006 issue of the UK version of GQ Magazine, Gutierrez\u2019s book was commissioned by\u00a0Randy Barbato and Fenton Bailey, founders of the World of Wonder production company<em>,<\/em> to be made in to a movie. This film was not created back in the day for two reasons.\r\n\r\nFirst of all, Jackson was still alive and since there are laws against defamation of character, he could have sued for a substantial amount of money. Gutierrez already owed Jackson $2.7 Million and his book was banned in the US, so if World of Wonder would have made any kind of movie based on Gutierrez\u2019s book, chances would have been slim it would be shown in the US any time soon.\r\n\r\nSecondly, the book is extremely graphic and back then there was no movie theatre or TV channel that would have burned themselves on a pedophilia apologist film based on Gutierrez\u2019s book.\r\n\r\nAccording to Barbato and Bailey, the film would have served the agenda of portraying supposed child molestation as a consensual, romantic relationship, just as the book has. Bailey is quoted as:\r\n<blockquote>\u201cDespite the explosive nature of the events it describes, the script is actually a model of amorous propriety. \u201cWe wanted to capture the intoxicating feeling of the first love which was what it was for Jordie.\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cThe only way the general public can view somebody like Jordie is as a victim. The fact that he might have entered into the relationship with Michael Jackson of his own volition is, for many people, tremendously problematic.\u201d<\/blockquote>\r\nEarlier in the article Barbato is quoted as saying:\r\n<blockquote>\u201cIn America we are up against the \u2018eek\u2019 factor. The Europeans don\u2019t have that kind of squeamishness. America can deal with the sanitized version of the story, but our story is based on the tabloid version.\u201d<\/blockquote>\r\nBarbato also acknowledges that their movie \u201cgoes outside of any of the acceptable norms\u201d. He says:\r\n\r\n\u201cHowever, the producer remains understandably cautious about the ultimate success of his undertaking. Indie movies have gone mainstream in the States. They\u2019ve become a genre. But this project is independent in the true sense of the word. It goes outside any of the acceptable norms.\u201d\r\n\r\nAccording to the article, after Gutierrez visited <em>a conference of the North American Man Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, in 1986<\/em>. Gutierrez reported that he heard at the conference that <em>Jackdson was one of them, a pedophile.\u00a0 And that Jackson was treated like an idol there, <\/em><strong><em>as <\/em><\/strong>a celebrity poster child and \u201chope for social acceptance\u201d of pedophilia.\r\n\r\nGutierrez then goes on a mission and strikes up friendships with some of Jackson\u2019s employees, the so called \u2018Neverland 5\u2019, all of who would later make allegations against Jackson.\r\n\r\nIt is important to mention that one does not just visit a NAMBLA conference, as this FBI agent explains.\r\n\r\nThe GQ article states that the film would be a \u201cfictionalized\u201d portrayal of the events. Since the book is a \u201cfictionalized\u201d portrayal of events, it doesn\u2019t really make much of a difference.\r\n\r\nSomething can not be a \u201cfictionalized portrayal of events\u201d. Either you are copying the events in the book, or you are doing something totally on its own.\r\n\r\nLike Leaving Neverland\u2026\r\n\r\nLeaving Neverland\u00a0 portrays the alleged abuse as romantic love stories as if it were consensual relationships between two adults, yet in this case it involves minors. This makes Dan Reed\u2019s film eerily similar to Gutierrez\u2019 book and what World of Wonder envisioned for their movie.\r\n\r\nEven the mock wedding between Safechuck and Jackson is based on Gutierrez\u2019 book. The parts about full penetration were left out of Leaving Neverland for reasons already explained earlier, although Jackson attempting penetration was alleged in the film.\r\n\r\nWith celebrities like Barbra Streisand now coming out of the woodworks making comments that Jackson \u2018just had his sexual needs\u2019 and that the alleged sexual abuse didn\u2019t kill the accusers, it\u2019s obvious that through Leaving Neverland, Jackson is being used as a poster child for the acceptance of pedophilia, just like the NAMBLA members had discussed and wished for back in 1986.\r\n\r\nBut there is no way they could have made this film in 1986, or even in 2006. First of all because Jackson was alive and able to sue for defamation, and second because people would have been outraged and disgusted by not just the film, but also Streisand\u2019s comments. But with the push for pedophilia acceptance over the past few years, times are completely different now. Denouncing pedophilia as sick, abnormal and disgusting is hardly allowed anymore in this time and age where everyone feels offended even when it doesn\u2019t even pertain to them.\r\n\r\nCould it be that the film based on Gutierrez\u2019 book that was commissioned by World of Wonder, is actually the film we have recently seen called Leaving Neverland?\r\n\r\nThere is of course no way to answer that question with absolute certainty, but what we can do is look at what we do know to be facts, the people and companies involved and the links between them.\r\n\r\nWorld of Wonder\u00a0 Productions is a production company founded in 1991 by filmmakers Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato. The company produces reality and documentary television programs, feature films, and new media, primarily specializing in documenting erotica, sexuality and the sex subculture.\r\n\r\nThey have produced programming for HBO, Showtime, Logo, VH1, IFC, Discovery, OWN, TLC, E!, HGTV, PBS, and Channel 4. Interestingly enough given the fact that it\u2019s an American based company, their first client listed on IMDB back in 1991 when the company was founded, is Channel 4.\r\n\r\nSo if World of Wonder commissioned the movie back in the mid 00\u2019s and they produce for both HBO and Channel 4, then why wasn\u2019t Leaving Neverland produced by them?\r\n\r\nFor that we should wonder if it was indeed commissioned by World of Wonder, or by one of their clients.\r\n\r\nAccording to the listings on IMDB, Channel 4 remained a loyal client of World of Wonder until the mid 00\u2019s. After a few productions in 2007 and 2008, there is no collaboration listed on IMDB between World of Wonder and Channel 4 anymore. Around the time World of Wonder started to produce less and less for Channel 4, Dan Reed\u2019s work for Channel 4 seems to increase rapidly as did his work for HBO. Reed being a so called \u2018gun for hire\u2019 seems to do anything for money and fame and so he got the job.\r\n\r\nLastly, is there a link between Channel 4 and HBO? Yes, there seems to be. It is none other than SONY.\r\n\r\nHBO is owned by Warner Media, which is owned by AT&T. AT&T is connected to SONY through 550 Madison Avenue, New York. The building is formerly known as the Sony Tower or Sony Plaza and before that the AT&T Building. Other links are the Game Show Network and Hook, which are both owned in joint-ventures between Sony and Warner.\r\n\r\nChannel 4 is a publicly-owned but commercially-funded UK public service broadcaster. Going through the list of sponsors in Channel 4\u2019s financial report of, there are a few companies that stand out. MGM, Sony Music Entertainment, Sony Pictures and Tristar Productions. Tristar is owned by Sony and MGM has a long history with SONY. In 1987 MGM vacated Culver City and rented office space in the Filmland building (now Sony Pictures headquarters) until 1992. In 1989 Culver City is bought by Sony. In September of 2004, MGM is on the verge of bankruptcy and is purchased by Sony.\r\n\r\nMGM also owns the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas, which hosts the Michael Jackson One show.\r\n\r\nThere seems to be a push in the media lately to claim that SONY is losing money because of Leaving Neverland since Sony signed a $250 Million distribution deal for Jackson\u2019s recordings in 2018.\u00a0 So SONY wouldn\u2019t be behind this, right?\r\n\r\nWell SONY has been working with Jackson for decades. Like PT Barnum said \u2018There is no such thing as bad publicity\u2019. Michael Jackson is back in the news and his music streams and sales increased.\r\n\r\nIt seems that Leaving Neverland has multiple purposes for multiple companies, organizations and individuals.\r\n\r\nRobson and Safechuck need the money. Dan Reed wants the fame. NAMBLA members want to be accepted and have pedophilia normalized. Harvey Weinstein needs people to focus on Michael Jackson instead of his own scandals and in the process there are big companies making a lot of money off of Jackson\u2019s name.\r\n\r\nBut hey, what else is new?