Rebuttal to the "Lies of Leaving Neverland"
Oct 13, 2019
As award season approached, for which Leaving Neverland was nominated in multiple categories, a 32-minute video magically appeared on YouTube on August 13, 2019, titled "Lies of Leaving Neverland," which as the name suggests, highlights lies within Dan Reed's documentary (supposedly, at least).
The video was uploaded by a anonymous "Mark Hostetler," the first of its kind under that name. There are no interviews with the creator, and its only promotion was via a paid ad on celebrity gossip website theblast.com (an offshoot of TMZ), on 13 August, a day before the video's YouTube release.
Unlike other rebuttals to Leaving Neverland, this video appears a little bit more professionally made, and includes footage from Wade Robson's 2016 deposition.
Exactly how this "Mark Hostetler" gained access to the footage remains unknown. However, it's reasonable to believe that the entire thing was made by the Jackson estate. In fact, many of the claims that are presented in the video are exactly the same as the Jackson estate “Petition to Compel Arbitration” to HBO's parent company, WarnerMedia, including the bogus claim that a judge disregarded Wade Robson's sworn declaration.
The video is artfully pieced together in a dramatic, conspiracy-theory style, primarily using content from other YouTube videos, news interviews, and various anti-Leaving Neverland sources. It is laden with 'gotcha' moments designed to appeal to fervent Michael Jackson supporters.
Let's begin.
Timeline: 0 - 6:30
The video begins with Wade Robson's 2016 deposition, where one of the Jackson estate lawyers reads out his past defence of Jackson, which is confirmed by Robson. The focus then turns to Leaving Neverland, which according to "critics" is all about money by two individuals who previously declared under oath that Michael Jackson never engaged in inappropriate behaviour with them.
Subsequently, there are clips of Piers Morgan questioning Dan Reed about the potential financial motives of the two men, and Charles Thomson (the guy who perpetuated the Sodium Amytal conspiracy in Square One), who not only emphasizes the serious credibility issues with both individuals but also alleges that one of them committed perjury in their creditors' claim. Hmm, not sure about that one, Charles?
Essentially, there is a strong emphasis on labelling both James and Wade as perjurers, who at one point had nothing but positive things to say about Jackson before changing their story in an effort to secure hundreds of millions of dollars from the estate.
However, at no point does the video include any of the reasons why James and Wade defended Jackson, including those presented in Leaving Neverland and other interviews. It also fails to explain the grooming and seduction tactics that child sex predators use on their victims. Additionally, it does not discuss why Jackson felt the need to surround himself with young boys and invite them into his private quarters and bed.
When it comes to James and Wade seeking hundreds of millions of dollars, this is once again a misrepresentation from both the Jackson estate and fans. James and Wade have never specified the amount of money they would seek as compensation, if they seek any at all. Instead, it is referred to as a "prayer of relief," a legal term denoting a request for reparation or specific damages without quantifying the sum.
Consider the evidence. Wade disclosed in 2013, and James in 2014. Their cases have been dismissed multiple times, not due to their credibility, but initially on the grounds of the statute of limitations, and later due to the inability to hold Jackson's companies legally responsible for the abuse. This decision was eventually overturned in 2023, and a trial date will be set in the near future.
Both men have dedicated approximately a decade getting their cases to court. It would have been much simpler for them to profit from praising Jackson, such as through book deals or other ventures. The fact that they have not done so indicates that they are more focused on seeking justice than financial gain.
Read more about it in post 6.
And let's not forget, it's the Michael Jackson estate that has a financial interest in safeguarding their incredibly lucrative cash cow. If anyone has hundreds of millions of reasons to lie, it's them.
Timeline 6:30 - 8:38
The Neverland Train Station Discrepancy
Once again, we hear the voice of Charles Thomson, who claims that James Safechuck vividly describes the interior of the station, indicating that the abuse occurred between 1988 and 1989. In fact, this isn't true, James never specifies a date.
Watch the clip below.
However, based on building permits and photographic evidence, the grand train station did not exist until at least the latter part of 1993, falling outside James's timeframe of abuse between 1988 and 1992 when he was aged between 10 and 14. Thomson also posits that the overarching narrative of Leaving Neverland implies that Michael Jackson abandons boys as they reach puberty, meaning, in his mind, James couldn't have been abused in his 15th or 16th year. This claim is once again inaccurate. In both his civil complaint and Leaving Neverland, James clearly states that he maintained limited contact with Jackson until his mid to late teens. Read more in post 20.
The completion date of the train station has been contradicted by Harrison Funk, a former photographer to Jackson. In a MJ Cast Interview, which ironically also included Charles Thomson, Funk describes photographing features at Neverland ranch, only to be interrupted by a telephone call by Jackson himself, who explicitly told him to not photograph the train station, as it had been constructed without a permit, initially. Strange that the "Lies of Leaving Neverland" don't mention this.
Watch the clip below.
Nonetheless, my personal opinion is that a grand train station was not present until the latter part of 1993. However, this does not automatically discredit James Safechuck's account in its entirety. Inconsistencies in timeframes and locations are not unusual among genuine survivors of prolonged sexual abuse.
Furthermore, there is a possibility that within the extensive 2,700-acre ranch, James may have mistaken the train station for another location, such as the "train room," which was also accessed by going up a narrow staircase.
For further details, refer to post 9.
Timeline: 8:38 - 11:46
1. Wade Said the Abuse Happened on the 2nd Night When His Sister Was Present, but in Leaving Neverland, He States the Abuse Started after His Family Left for the Grand Canyon
The video claims that Wade Robson stated in his deposition that the abuse started on the second night when his sister was present. However, in Leaving Neverland, Wade asserts that the abuse didn’t begin until his family left for the Grand Canyon between Monday and Friday.
There is no way to fact-check this claim, as both Wade's and his mother's deposition transcripts are only partially available online, with significant sections missing. Interestingly, the creators of this video seem to be aware of this and have opted not to include what Wade said five minutes before and after that statement.
What we know for certain is that in Leaving Neverland, Wade describes being awoken in the middle of the night on the second night by a sobbing Michael Jackson, who then manipulated the 7-year-old into convincing his parents to leave him behind while they visited the Grand Canyon.
We also know from a CBS This Morning interview that Jackson initiated physical contact with Wade, including "a hand on his leg, numerous hugs, kissing his forehead, and rubbing his hand," during the first two days. Wade also states this in his 2016 deposition.
If you listen to the deposition video, Wade only states that the "abuse" started the 2nd night. He never mentioned sexual abuse.
So, was Wade referring to the abuse, in the sense that Jackson started emotionally manipulating him and/or initiated light touching? Probably.
2. Joy Robson Previously Stated Her "Entire Family" Went to the Grand Canyon
In 1993, after the Jordan Chandler allegations, Joy stated she had taken her "entire family" to the Grand Canyon, most likely to gloss over her dubious parenting decisions, and to appease to Jackson.
In the 2016 deposition video, Joy Robson appears to be repeating what she originally stated in 1993. However, the editing creates the impression that she is reiterating it in 2016, leading viewers to believe that she completely altered her account when she participated in the filming of Leaving Neverland several months later.
Just as with Wade, Joy's deposition transcript is only partially available online, where, surprise surprise, this part is missing. So, again, there is no way to fact-check this.
In my opinion, Joy was reaffirming what she had said in 1993, but the footage has been manipulated to make you believe otherwise
Both Wade and Joy's testimonies from 2005 align with the statements made in Leaving Neverland, including the detail that the family visited the ranch on two separate weekends, while Wade stayed for "about a week" during his first visit.
Timeline: 11:46 - 12:45
It is not unusual for filmmakers to reshoot clips, and present them as a continuous clip. It's a natural part of filmmaking.
Dan Reed, nor his production crew, were trying to fool anybody, by filming it in the same location, with James wearing the same clothes. It’s called continuity.
Reid said:
It took him a long time. The house was not big. He found it eventually, and we went back to the location, for continuity, and he sat down and opened this box. It was incredible, just like opening up some kind of physical memory, literally his hands started to shake and he became short of breath, overwhelmed by feelings that washed over him from the past, the intensity of emotion when he took out the ring when he got married.
Source: indiewire.com
On a more disturbing note, Thomas Mesereau, Jackson's lead lawyer in 2005, appeared convinced that James Safechuck had gotten married at Neverland Ranch.
During the March 17, 2005 cross-examination of reluctant prosecution witness Kiki Fournier, a former housekeeper at the Ranch, Mesereau brought up the detail about Jimmy’s purported Neverland wedding:
Q. Okay. Now, the prosecutor for the government asked you some questions about other young boys, as he put it, that Mr. Jackson knew through the years, right.
A. Yes.
Q. And would you agree that, like most people, Mr. Jackson sometimes became a closer friend of some families rather than others, correct.
A. Yes.
Q. And the so-called “young boys” the prosecutor referred to would come with their families, correct.
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, Jimmy Safechuck was married at Neverland, wasn’t he. Do you remember that.
A. I didn’t even know he was married.
James got married for the 1st and only time in 2008 to his current wife. The wedding did not take place at Neverland Ranch.
So why was Thomas Mesereau under the impression that James got married at the ranch? Well, is not unreasonable to believe that Jackson told him that James got married there, but left out the detail that it was one of his paedophilic fantasies.
Thomas Mesereau was contacted for comment but provided no reply.
Timeline: 12:45- 13:32
The video claims that Wade Robson had auctioned off Jackson memorabilia via Julien's auctions, therefore items that were burnt at the end of Leaving Neverland are fake.
Reality: Wade never claimed he burnt valuable items that belonged to Jackson. He burnt a small number of remaining items that he had, including his childhood Jackson costumes.
Timeline: 13:32 - 15:20
1. Leaving Neverland Fails to Mention That Wade Robson Had Been Looking for a Lucrative Book Deal
Wade provided the following answers in his 2016 deposition:
Q. BY MS. KLEINDIENST: Why did you stop pursuing a book deal?
A. I realized that it was very possibly not going to be, meaning doing a book, not going to be as impactful in that form as, as I wanted the message, as I wanted the truth of Michael's sexual abuse of me to get out there and be of help.
Q. Why?
A. Because I realized that possibly doing what we are doing now, a lawsuit, would give me a platform to do a lot more than a book could do, meaning, take depositions, gather evidence to support the truth. And eventually have a jury, you know, of 12 people or whatever it is, proclaim that it is the truth. Whereas, a book scenario, which, you know, once released, is essentially out of my control, that it could be, it could be exactly what I didn't want it to be in the beginning, meaning, it being a tabloid, sensationalism sort of thing that, you know, has some attention on it for a minute and then fades away.
Q. What do you mean by "out of my control"?
A. I don't know, just what I mean. Once you -- meaning how it's -- yeah, once you release it, what else can you -- there it is, what else can you do about it, meaning, how people are going to receive it and it just becoming that sensationalism, you know, media tabloid sort of thing. Not being powerful enough, meaning, just as I said, you know, being able to go through the process of gathering evidence and prove that my truth is the truth.
Q. Do you feel like litigating a lawsuit is more in your control?
A. More in my control. No, I don't think I would, I don't think I would flip meaning of control in relation to a lawsuit. It would just be the other... [the rest of the transcript is missing].
So, again, this idea that Wade failed to shop a book, before turning his attention to the estate, is totally false. Wade himself decided to stop pursuing a book deal as a legal lawsuit was the more morally sound option.
2. When Writing His Book, He Remembered so Few Details, He Had to Ask His Mother to Fill in the Blanks
We are led to believe that Wade Robson's memory seemed unnaturally flawless in the filming of Leaving Neverland, yet when writing his book, his memory appeared markedly less reliable—so much so that he sought significant details from his mother in 2012.
However, the deposition video clearly shows that Wade asked his mother to write down bullet points of her memories, including the specifics of their first visit to the ranch and how the events unfolded. These are straightforward details meant to assist Wade in remembering events more clearly, rather than to construct a false story.
Timeline: 15:20 - 20:45
1. The Pre-Testimony Dinner That Never Happened
In Leaving Neverland, Wade states that he partook in a pre-testimony dinner at Neverland Ranch, where he witnessed a fragile Jackson, surrounded by his adoring children, which further built up his conviction to testify on his behalf.
However, Taj Jackson contends that this dinner took place after he testified, rather than before. To contextualize this, if one accepts Taj Jackson's perspective, it would also require believing in a lengthy list of falsehoods, such as the assertion that the FBI conducted a secret investigation into his uncle.
Brett Barnes, who gave evidence on the same day as Wade, testified that he had spoken to him at the ranch "yesterday", and his sister, Chantal Robson, who testified the day afterwards, stated that the entire Robson family were present at the ranch "a couple of nights ago."
Read more about it in post 18.
2. Wade Robson Says He Was Subpoenaed, but According to Scott Ross and Thomas Mesereau This Is Not True
During an interview on YouTube Channel "djvlad" which was published on 5 June 2021, Scott Ross now claims that he did indeed subpoena Wade Robson and his family.
Watch the clip below.
3. Wade Robson Now Says He Committed Perjury on the Stand, despite Rigourous Cross Examination
Parts of Wade Robson's 2005 testimony are read aloud by the Jackson estate lawyer, highlighting his previous denials. There is considerable emphasis on the experience of prosecutors, such as Tom Sneddon and Ron Zonen, leading us to believe that Wade underwent the most intense and rigorous cross-examination ever faced by any individual, implying that he could not have falsely denied the abuse. However, this is not accurate. If you review Wade Robson's testimony, you'll find that he primarily had to respond with "yes" or "no" to questions regarding sexual abuse, making the process far less challenging than it is made out to be.
4. James Safechuck Was a "Nonentity" and Wasn't Allowed to Testify
To quickly provide context, Scott Ross initially claimed that he did not subpoena Wade Robson, but later retracted that statement. In the same interview where he refers to James as a "nonentity," he also asserts that Jackson did not pay the multi-million dollar settlement to Jordan Chandler; instead, he states it was enforced by an insurance company beyond Jackson's control. In short, you cannot trust a single word that comes out of this man's mouth.
Even if James was considered a nonentity, that never prevented Jackson or any of his employees from picking up the phone to contact him.
Read more about it in post 11.
Timeline: 20:45 - 21:45
Wade Robson Now Claims That Neverland Was a House of Horrors
The video presents past clips where Neverland is described as one of the best places on earth by Wade. However, now that Wade has accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse at the ranch, it leads us to believe he characterizes it as a house of horrors.
Reality: Wade never describes Neverland as a house of horrors in Leaving Neverland. Throughout the documentary, he (as well as his family) describes all the joys and wonders of the ranch, even claiming that it was like travelling to another planet.
Timeline: 21:45 - 23:04
Mark Geragos was Michael Jackson's initial lawyer before being replaced by Thomas Mesereau. In a clip featured in Leaving Neverland, Mark Geragos appears very aggressive, stating they would "land like a ton of bricks" on anyone who besmirched Jackson's reputation. However, this comment was reportedly in reference to the individuals who secretly filmed Jackson on the private jet they were travelling on.
Regardless of whether he was specifically warning those individuals, it's important to note that Mark Geragos was hired by Jackson to defend him against the Arvizo allegations. Immediately before the "ton of bricks" comment, he clearly states that he is referring to "any outlet" and "any person" that comes forward.
View the video at YouTube.
Timeline: 23:04 - 23:20
Victor Gutierrez's Book
Apparently, James story of abuse is similar to what was stated in Victor Gutierrez's "discredited" book "Michael Jackson Was My Lover." However, the video never discloses exactly what those similarities are.
The video then goes on to claim that Jackson successfully sued Victor Gutierrez for $2.7 million, even showing an on-screen article validating this. However, they made a bit of a blunder. The article clearly shows that Jackson successfully sued Victor in relation to his claim that he had seen a video of him having sex with a boy. Jackson never sued him for anything he published in his book.
If Victor is a bad egg who makes up stories, that doesn't discredit those who say they were abused by Jackson. I guess he's just another easy target to demonise, which then leads to the demonisation of everybody else.
Timeline: 23:20 - 32:43
1. Wade Robson Begged the Michael Jackson Estate to Give Him a Job Directing Cirque Du Soleil
This is untrue. The estate approached Wade via his agent Julie McDonald, and he later met in February 2011, with John Branca, to discuss creative concepts and their vision for the show.
In May 2011, Wade expressed regret in an email for accepting the opportunity without being certain he could fulfil the role. After pulling out, Wade then expressed a desire for another opportunity, however, the estate had already chose somebody else.
Read more in post 17.
2. Leaving Neverland Implies That Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin Were Abused
The inclusion of Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin was to demonstrate that there was a pattern of boys in Michael Jackson's life, and the transition between them. At no point does the documentary imply that they were abused, as evident by on-screen statements, stating they deny "any sexual contact with Michael Jackson."
If Leaving Neverland had skipped over the fact that both Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin were involved in Michael Jackson's life, around the same time as James and Wade, apologists of Jackson would have criticised Dan Reed for not stating this (take the Wade-Brandi childhood relationship, for example). But when he does briefly include them, along with their denials, he's still criticised. In short, Dan Reed can't win.
3. Brett Barnes Contacted His Lawyers and Asked for His Name and Likeness to Be Removed
The lawyer who issued a statement on behalf of Brett, an Australian citizen, was actually based in Los Angeles, and goes by the name of Allen Grodsky. Guess what? He's a long-term lawyer for the Jackson estate.
The document contains a lot of contradicting statements, including that Brett Barnes has been living a quiet and private life, and wants nothing to do with Leaving Neverland. However, Brett has had a Twitter account since 2009, and has criticised Wade and James as early as 2013 and 2016, and compared the documentary to the fictional space alien movie “Independence Day” before its TV release.
So, did Brett really contact his Los Angeles lawyer, or was he gently persuaded to consent to the estate putting out a letter?
Read Brett's "letter" here: leavingneverlandfacts.com
4. Dan Reed States That James and Wade Didn't Meet as Adults until the Sundance Film Festival
Dan Reed stated in a Rolling Stone article:
Q. For legal reasons, Wade and James were kept apart, long before you even approached them about making the movie. That’s fascinating.
A. Yeah. So they couldn’t exchange stories. Sundance was the first time [as adults] that they’d met. It’s the first time they’ve had any significant time together."
The video asserts that this is untrue. Wade Robson's deposition from 2016 indicates that they had a conversation in 2014, during which their shared legal team was also present. It was subsequently disclosed that this meeting took place in person, over lunch.
However, the video does not make an effort to verify the claim.
Wade Robson provides the following answers in his 2016 deposition:
Q. When was the last time you spoke to James Safechuck?
A. I believe the last time we spoke would have been sometime in early 2014.
Q. Did you have a conversation without an attorney present with Mr Safechuck in 2014?
A. No.
Q. Prior to 2014, when was the last time you spoke to James Safechuck?
A. I believe I would have been 14 or 15 years old and there was a, a weekend at the ranch that was organised by Evvy Tavasci, and it was Michael, myself, James Safechuck, there was another young man who was, I don't remember his name but he was a burn victim that Michael, you know, befriended at some point, and Robert Weiss, who was a film director.
Any discussion Wade and James had in 2014, was under the supervision of their legal representatives. Whether this was face-to-face or via a zoom call is unknown. Regardless, if you read Dan Reed's statement carefully, he says it was the "first time they had any significant time together," i.e., without their legal representatives, and as friends.
5. Wade Robson States That He Was Abused Hundreds of Times, but His and His Mother's Depositions Show That They Only Spent 4 Occasions at Neverland When Jackson Was Present
As mentioned earlier, only partial transcripts of Wade and Joy Robson's depositions are available online, and the video does not provide evidence of them claiming they visited Neverland only four times when Jackson was present. Furthermore, the abuse wasn't limited to Neverland Ranch, but also included other locations such as Jackson's apartments.
However, the transcripts from the 2005 trial clearly indicate that Wade Robson spent more than four occasions at the Ranch.
Q. Okay. How many times do you think you’ve stayed at Neverland?
A. Um, it’s got to be somewhere in the twenties or something like that. Mid-twenties.
Q. And have you stayed there for varying periods of time?
A. Yeah. Most of the time it’s usually like a weekend, you know. Friday, Saturday, Sunday.
Q. What’s the longest amount of time, do you think, you’ve ever stayed at Neverland?
A. You know, I would say a week to a week and a half.
Whether Jackson was present during the majority of Wade's visits, is anybody's guess. But the fact is that Jackson and his hired goon, Anthony Pellicano, relied on Wade and his family for support in 1993. Similarly, in 2005, Thomas Mesereau positioned the Robson family as the "star" witnesses for the defence. Either Jackson and his team where truly desperate in both 93 and 05, or the Robson's did indeed spend significant time in his company.
6. Why Didn't Wade Robson Speak up Sooner, If He Was a Victim of Abuse?
Once more, we hear the voice of Charles Thomson, who says that every single person that accuses Michael Jackson always goes to a civil lawyer, and attempts to sue him, instead of going straight to the police.
Again, at no point does the video try to explain the complexities of child sex abuse, or the offender–victim bond. We are led to believe that now Michael Jackson is dead, he's an easy target, and there's no legal repercussions for those who accuse him.
As noted earlier, James and Wade have spent nearly a decade navigating the legal system, encountering numerous obstacles throughout. They haven't benefited from accusing Jackson decades after the abuse ended, and years after his death. They've put themselves at a massive disadvantage by doing so.
7. Wade's Mother Said He Cried at Jackson's Memorial, But in His Deposition, He States He Can't Remember If He Did
What exactly is the big conspiracy here? In the deposition video, Wade clearly states that he can't recall, but he thinks he might have cried—he's just not completely certain. If his mother remembers him crying, then that’s her recollection.
8. Wade Was Upset That He Wasn't Invited to the Private Memorial
Once again, the video attempts to convince you that no true victim of sexual abuse would exhibit emotions toward someone who perpetrated such acts against them. However, without considering the grooming and seduction he experienced, or the fact that he had been idolising Jackson from a very tender age, this argument holds no weight.
9. Wade Had Nothing but Wonderful Things to Say about Jackson, both When He Was Alive and after He Passed
The video shows a collection of clips of Wade praising Jackson, including footage of him as a backup dancer for Janet Jackson, where he wears personal Michael Jackson clothing during a tribute. Once again, the video seeks to convince viewers that no authentic victim would partake in such actions. Again, as noted above, it fails to document the grooming and seduction Wade was subjected to by Michael Jackson, and why victims may defend their abusers.
10. Leaving Neverland has been massively discredited, and the movie hasn't had the impact the filmmakers wanted it to have
The video concludes with Charles Thomson claiming that Dan Reed hoped for a reaction akin to Harvey Weinstein, where multiple victims would speak out, creating a snowball effect that would destroy Michael Jackson's legacy.
First and foremost, Michael Jackson wasn't an opportunistic child sex predator who molested one child before moving on to the next. He developed close, bed-sharing relationships that often lasted years with young boys. There was never going to be 20 or 30 new accusers coming forward.
Interestingly, on September 20, 2024, John Branca, the estate's head, revealed to the Washington Informer that the estate paid off five more accusers in 2020, who surfaced after Leaving Neverland in March, 2019. It's not 100% clear whether this is in relation to sexual abuse, or something else. In either case, it sounds serious.
Branca's statement came in response to one of the accusers allegedly demanding more money and threatening to go public. While no names are disclosed, hints within the article suggest the five accusers, each receiving $3 million, are from the same family and previously defended Jackson as both children and adults. I would hazard a guess that Branca was concerned about further damage to Jackson's reputation and the estate's earnings, therefore he threw the hyenas a bone, hoping their intimidation tactics would discourage this individual from speaking out.
The key point to note is that the estate was made aware of these new accusers in 2019, prior to settling in 2020. The video was released in August 2019, and it’s unlikely it was produced in just one or two weeks; at least multiple months of planning likely went into it. In short, the estate probably knew about these new accusers but chose to mislead viewers by asserting there were no new victims while mocking Dan Reed in the process.
The estate video claims that Leaving Neverland contains provable lies, conflicting accounts, contradictions, staged re-shoots, faked scenes, reconstructed memories, critical info omitted, manipulated news clips, discredited source material and key motives ignored.
Yet it is clear they do not practice what they preach. The video is filled with half-truths and manipulated deposition clips of both Wade and his mother. Furthermore, they are aware that the 2016 transcripts are only partially available online, with significant sections missing, which limits options for fact-checking.
They have presented almost every video clip of Wade Robson praising Jackson in the past, implying that he was truthful then and is now lying for financial gain. However, they've chosen not to show a single millisecond of Wade explaining his reasons for defending Jackson, whether from Leaving Neverland, or other interviews.
From the very first minute to the last, this video was clearly crafted to manipulate viewers into believing that both James Safechuck and Wade Robson are liars who tried and failed to sue the estate for hundreds of millions of dollars. However, it is evident that the estate is the one spreading misinformation to safeguard their highly lucrative cash cow.
This post has been updated from its original date to include new material.