[Discussion] Sexual Abuse Claims Against MJ Estate - Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe

[MJresearcher]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I'm glad Frank wrote that book, it's nice to have someone telling the truth. It's good to read these things from someone who was there. If anything, it sounds like he had a closer friendship with with Frank. Plus Frank didn't make a nasty claim because he wasn't a greedy pig looking for financial gain by trying to paint MJ as a criminal.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I wonder if Jordan was ever alone with MJ in MJ's room at all when he was at Neverland. To me it does not seem like that. Most of the time he did not even sleep there - if ever at all. I think even June Chandler testified about this. Yet, in his interview with Richard Gardner Jordan claimed that he was molested everywhere: at his mother's home, father's home and at Neverland. How was he molested at Neverland when he never even stayed with MJ alone in his room?

 

[#MJforever57]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That why i never believe Jordan this was his father he set this up just to get money the man did not care about his son until he started to be around Michael then he saw his chance.

 

[Hess]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

What going on with this case?

When will the madness end??

 

[#MJforever57]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

finally a document showed in the system (It's the 02/11/2015 Stipulation and Order (extending time to respond )document)

Safechuck got 30 day extension to file his second amended complaint.

Robson served his amended complaint on Dec 16. Estate got 21 + 28 day extension.

Thanks. So Robson/Safechuck's lawyer asked for an extension in Safechuck's case because of workload issues and in exchange they agreed that the Estate too gets an extension in Robson's case.

Sense there is a workload issues they need to let this two cases go they are weak and not going anywhere no proof that this happen so why waste time on it. Wade or Safechuck have yet to prove anything they have miss every single deadline to file.

^^
yep pretty much. and probably December 16 - January 20 wasn't good timing given there's christmas, new year etc. so it makes sense.

I'm thinking this would put Safechuck amended complaint by the end of February. and Estate reply to Robson to early March hence the hearing on April 10.

This is what going on.

 

[#MJforever57]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

When will the madness end??

I hope soon.

 

[analogue]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

What going on with this case?

When will the madness end??

What's funny is that in about a day people in this thread dismissed this case

 

[dannyboy72]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/wade-robsons-fake-story-of-home-alone-at-neverland/

 

[#MJforever57]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Just like Michael said in the OW interview if you tell a lie long enough you stared to believe it and this is what Wade and James have done in they mine these lies are true and now they want the world to believe it too. No proof so far that this happen just they stories because MJ is not here to defend himself against these lies. By law these cases should have been dismiss along time ago statute of limitations has ran out.

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Just a FYI / reminder- if there's no more extensions Estate's reply in civil trial is due March 10 and next hearing April 10. Hopefully documents will be available and we'll know more about what's going on.

 

[mjjmsc]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

this case is dragging for so long, so stupid, they should dismiss it and end with it!

 

[PoP]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

this case is dragging for so long, so stupid, they should dismiss it and end with it!

I agree, they've been delaying to another date to another way to long and the more the delay too long, the more annoying it's gonna get.

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It's how the court process works, I would rather the judge be thorough than to dismiss it and them have grounds for an appeal.

 

[#MJforever57]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That why this judge is giving them every chance to fix they cases because when he make that final decision Wade and his lawyers will not be able to appeal what ground would they have none. The judge decision will be final.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Although I hate to bring any crap here from MJfacts, but because there is some new information in it about Safechuck's claims I post their latest article here. And thanks to Ivy for the heads-up about it.

Be warned that of course there is a lot of biased, twisted and untrue crap in it "supported" by very questionable sources such as tabloid articles, Victor Guiterrez's or Anderson's book.

The writer is not named but I'm pretty sure it's Desiree. We know for a fact that she is the one who obsesses about that claim by Mez about Safechuck marrying at Neverland and who sent e-mails to Safechuck's wife in 2011. Although at the end of the article she denies her attempts at contacting Safechuck in 2011 were successful I do suspect there is a contact or how else does he have this material - some of the claims seem to refer to Safechuck as a direct source and she even references a letter and an audio tape that IMO only Safechuck could have shown her. Unless they are directly quoted in his lawsuit. Which is possible though.
In any case she seems to have access to court material we have not seen yet.

For the record, the issue about whether Safechuck married at Neverland or not is not as big as haters make it out to be. Their goal with this seems to be to catch Mez in some deliberate lie, but in actuality it seems to be just a honest mistake he made, as Jonathan Spence did marry at Neverland (a fan talked to his mother about it a couple of years ago). So probably he just mixed them up. He had no reason to lie about this, it did not determine anything. So it's whole issue is much ado about nothing. Safechuck not marrying at Neverland does not prove he was molested.

BTW, my judgement of it is that it's a lot of claims with no supportive evidence at all. Actually if they attach innocent letters written by MJ and innocent mock interviews as evidence that's an indication of not having anything stronger.

I think the sources she names (Guiterrez's, Anderson's book etc.) are also a good indication about what they used to construct Safechuck's story.

So sorry for the lot of crap here, but since this is going to spread on social media and people will sure ask about it. Here it is:

AUTHOR BANNED FROM MJJC

 

[HIStory]

Some things I found notable at first read:

There was more than one bed available in Jackson’s two-story bedroom, but Jimmy, like many other ‘special friends’ before and after him, always slept in bed with Jackson when he visited the Ranch. Though the boy was slated to sleep in the upstairs Shirley Temple bedroom, he did not. James recalls he and Jackson “would ‘mess up’ the upstairs bedroom to make it look as though Plaintiff slept there,” apparently in an attempt to disguise their bed-sharing from Jackson’s chambermaids. It was an ironic move considering Jackson later said in interviews with Diane Sawyer, Martin Bashir, and Ed Bradley that his sleeping habits with unrelated children were a “pure” and “innocent” way of “sharing a love”.

This thing about having to mess up the upstairs bedroom to look as if Jimmy slept there is interesting because as you remember the Quindoy's claimed it "never" looked slept on. So you don't say the Quindoy's just made that up and now Jimmy had to make up a story for why his bed actually did look slept on? LOL. In case Michael's team may call another maid/staff to testify about that, I guess.

As an exercise of how well his boy had adhered to the programming, Jackson regularly had Jimmy run what Jackson coined “drills”, in which Jimmy would “practice putting on his clothes very fast and practice running away quietly so people would not hear him.” This, no doubt, came in handy if a school friend accompanied the boy on his trips to Neverland. Best friend Luke Martinez tagged along on several visits, and during one overnight stay while the boys enjoyed a “slumber party and game-type activities” with Jackson, Jimmy and Jackson would discreetly “‘sneak off’ to be alone”. Away from Luke in some secluded spot at the Ranch, sexual abuse would occur, James remembers. Luke never found out why his two sleepover buddies had slipped away; Jimmy and Jackson “were always careful when other people were around.”

He needs to go out of his way to explain why no friend of his who were with him on the Ranch ever noticed anything...

It seems to me that his real problem is, besides his greed, that he was "abandoned" by MJ and that his big dream of film making never materialized.

The whole story about 2005 does not even make sense.

Jackson grew angrier at this, James remembers, and escalated his threats — he told James he’d “get [him] for perjury” for statements James had made under oath as a fifteen-year-old at his November 1993 deposition. Jackson was evidently fearful James would decide to tell the full version of their story for the Prosecution in lieu of cooperating in his defense, and attempted to intimidate him with invectives about jailing the boy he once ‘loved’. When the call concluded, James began to panic, his court filings say. He dreaded what his mother could learn about the aspect of he and Jackson’s relationship the star had made him keep secret.

The final call from Jackson, James remembers, seemed “rehearsed”, with Jackson’s tone reminding James of all of the listening devices attached to phones at Neverland Ranch. It occurred near the end of the trial, perhaps at a moment when — in spite of his attorney Tom Mesereau’s confidence the Prosecution’s case was full of holes — Jackson feared for his freedom, a tacit acknowledgment that years of bad behavior may have finally caught up with the allegedly ‘smooth criminal’. He needed James. He apologized, James remembers, telling James he was “sorry for not being there for [the Plaintiff].” James suspected the phone call was being recorded and “the very sound of Decedent’s voice made him very uncomfortable and put him into panic mode.”

Why would MJ try to get him during testify at the end of the trial. I'd understand it a bit more if the claim was that MJ called him before the trial, in 2004, but during and especially at the end when it was already decided that no testimony about Safechuck would be allowed and when Safechuck according to a January 2005 article already refused to testify for the prosecution?

In fact, it is the ability to make those kinds of connections that will become the star issue in James’s case (Wade’s, too).

Of course, they will try to make the psycho mumbo-jumbo the "star issue" because they do not have anything else.

 

[#MJforever57]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Just a FYI / reminder- if there's no more extensions Estate's reply in civil trial is due March 10 and next hearing April 10. Hopefully documents will be available and we'll know more about what's going on.

Any news yet?

 

[HIStory]

And just a reminder. Why isn't this mentioned at all in his story? That the prosecution asked him to testify for them and he refused?

by whisper » Sat Jan 08, 2005 1:56 am
Police Seek Additional Alleged Jackson Victims

January 7, 2005

Exclusive: Just three weeks before the scheduled start of Michael Jackson's child molestation trial, "Celebrity Justice" has learned Santa Barbara investigators are trying to nail down an old case against the pop star that first investigated more than a decade ago.

According to "CJ" Executive Producer Harvey Levin, "It's pretty stunning that, literally at the 12th hour, the police are out in full force in Southern California, trying to dig up other alleged victims. You would think, at this point, prosecutors are working on opening statements."

Back during Jackson's "Bad Tour" in the late 1980s, published reports claimed that the superstar met up and shopped for toys in London with another Southern California boy, then said to be about 10 years old.

A private eye told "CJ" he was recently contacted by Santa Barbara detectives seeking information on that boy's family. The gumshoe told us he sent police several photos, which he says are of the boy's mother and father and the family's home.

Cops are chasing down rumors that Jackson may have purchased the home for the family -- rumors we're told the family vehemently denies. Just last Tuesday, police paid a visit to one of the boy's relatives. "Relatives of this boy are saying it is absolutely untrue that Michael Jackson gave this family hush money in any form," Levin stated.

"CJ" traveled to LA's Simi Valley suburb to get the family's reaction to the detectives' new interest. We went to the office of the young man's father and the family's home and spoke with the mother by phone. "She was upset, to say the least," Levin said. "She wanted this whole thing to go away, never to be heard from again, and that doesn't seem to be the case."

Already on the prosecution's witness list is a young man who settled with Jackson for about $20 million in 1994, along with a former Neverland housekeeper's son, with whose family, we're told, Jackson also settled, although criminal charges were never filed.

So why won't prosecutors simply rely on the current accuser's story? "To me, this is further evidence that the prosecutor doesn't have the physical evidence it needs to nail Michael Jackson," Levin observed. "They may go into the past to try and prove some modus operandi."

We are also told that the boy who detectives have been looking at has denied being molested by Jackson. Meanwhile, the judge in the current case has yet to decide if evidence from past accusers will even be admitted.

http://community.mjeol.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2378#p42277

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Someone needs to tell them Michael did not need upchuck to testify for him at all. interest part about Michael being angry and Jimmy turned him down as one of the main reasons why his claim was thrown out or sustained

 

[HIStory]

And what do you gather from D's "legal analysis" towards the end? It does not seem to make much sense to me. For a start Desiree fails to explain what Safechuck's real problem is with Probate Code 9103. Yes, one problem is that according to his story he told his mother in 2005 that he was abused/MJ was a bad man and that would mean he knew it was wrong years before his lawsuit. But that is not the only problem. According to PC 9103 once you know the "facts giving arise to your claim" you have to file your lawsuit within 60 days of learning about them. Safechuck failed to do so. In fact, even when, according to his story, he went to Robson's lawyer in September 2013, they failed to file a complaint until eight months later. (I actually wonder if it was deliberate and they do not really want his claims to go to court - it's a very bad case -, just hoped that they could scare the Estate into a settlement right before the release of Xscape and use it to boost Wade's case.) So any way you look at it he is out of statutes of limitations. Not only because of the 2005 "bad man" issue.

But the attorney has a history of conflating Wade Robson’s story with James’s, copying-and-pasting between the claims as if they both have the same underlying sets of facts. They don’t.

Because Marzano has argued identical positions for both men’s claims, namely that both didn’t realize until recently that they were abused (CCP Section 340.1, for the record, does not preclude an understanding that one was touched or fondled), the Judge understandably wondered how James Safechuck could have had two realizations, the first brief acknowledgement to his mother and the second fuller one with a therapist roughly eight years later.

I wonder if these are just D's own thoughts or is this the argument they try in Safechuck's second amended complaint? The lawyer desperately taking it upon herself that she confused the two cases (Robson/Safechuck) in her arguments? Because that looks like a very desperate try. Repeat: regardless of whether someone believes him when he says that he could only connect the dots about his anxiety issues being related to alleged abuse when seeing Wade on TV in 2013 and even if we would ignore the 2005 "bad man" issue completely, that still would not solve his problem which is that he did not file 60 days within supposedly realizing a connection between his anxiety issues and allaged abuse. Like I said above, they were so late, even after he hired Robson's lawyers, that I wonder if it is actually deliberate - not really wanting to go to court with his case, just using him as blackmail material/boost for Wade.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Someone needs to tell them Michael did not need upchuck to testify for him at all. interest part about Michael being angry and Jimmy turned him down as one of the main reasons why his claim was thrown out or sustained

I know. They go on about this when in reality he was not needed at all, so I don't even know why MJ would be as desperate as they describe him to be. Especially already in January Safechuck turned down the prosecution's request to testify for them. So why would MJ throw a tantrum saying he would "get him for perjury" if he testified for the prosecution? (That does not even sound as something that MJ would say.)

I also wonder about it:

It was for this reason, Marzano argues, that James was unable to appreciate the serious, non-consensual nature of his relationship with Jackson until therapy demonstrated the causality between the sex abuse and his psychological suffering, a conclusion came to by the doctor who authored his Certificate of Merit and interviewed him for thirteen-and-a-half hours over four sessions (she found him credible).

D's writing is typically messy but was this the therapy he went into in May 2013 after seeing Wade on TV. So it lasted only for four sessions? That sounds like the only purpose of it was to get his story on record with a therapist so that he would be able to use it in a lawsuit.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That sounds like the only purpose of it was to get his story on record with a therapist so that he would be able to use it in a lawsuit.

Dont they always do that, though in these kinds of sexual cases? You can pretty much find doctors on both sides to substantiate a case.

I read this and sorry I did. It actually made me physically sick. Last time I ran across something like this, I had nightmares for days. Horrible ones.

I assume most of this is from this lady's imagination and not the actual claim?

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

And how can Michael get anybody for perjury? He was not the district attorney

 

[HIStory]

Dont they always do that, though in these kinds of sexual cases? You can pretty much find doctors on both sides to substantiate a case.

Yes, you can find a therapist to support any position you want. That's why it's interesting when she writes that this will be the "star issue" in this case. Well, therapist opinion in itself does not mean anything, because you can get one in support of anything you want to "prove". I'm sure if it went to court the Estate would also have their team of psychiartists, psychologists and therapists saying they are not credible.

I assume most of this is from this lady's imagination and not the actual claim?

It is his claim but with some additions "in support of it" from books like Guiterrez's, Christopher Anderson's, tabloids and the usual suspects, the Quindoys, Lemarques and Blanca Francia, Jordan's interview with Gardner. Of course, concealing the fact that none of these sources are credible. I think it's interesting because it also reveals what sources Safechuck probably used to construct his own allegations.

A lot of it we already knew but there are some new details and that's why I posted it.

For example I find it interesting that they quote this in their lawsuit:

For his part in this seduction process, Jackson also expressed affection for his new friend and adopted family, as transcribed from part of a chat between the two taped on the boy’s cassette recorder in February 1988:

Plaintiff: “What do you think about lying?”

Decedent: “People make up stories about [Michael Jackson].”

Plaintiff: “Do you like performing?”

Decedent: “Favorite things are writing songs, performing, and being with Jimmy.”

Plaintiff: “Any new plans?”

Decedent: “Smooth Criminal short film, new Pepsi commercial, best Pepsi commercial was the one with Jimmy because he had heart, best thing about Hawaii was spending time with Jimmy, love Jimmy’s family and want to spend time with them.”

– Complaint, p. 6 – 7

(According to the Complaint, Jackson referred to James as “Rubba”, and in other portions of the above “mock” interview conducted and recorded by Jimmy, Jackson uses this pet name. James states Jackson explained “Rubba” was short for “Rubberhead”. Eyewitnesses to Jackson’s relationships with boys suspected the nickname had a sexual undercurrent.)

Dear Jimmy,

Thank you for your letter. It was nice hearing from you again! I’ve been busy working on a new video for my album and have been really busy.

It was fun working with you on the Pepsi commercial! Maybe we can work together again. I’d like to have you come and visit me on the set sometime or when I have some free time you can come to my house.

Keep sending me letters! I love to hear from you!

Speak with you soon, [Michael Jackson]

– Letter from Jackson to James Safechuck, March 10, 1987

This is very telling because once again it seems like all they have is trying to turn innocent stuff into something sinister. I guess what they quote from that audio tape is supposed to be the most "incriminating" part with MJ telling three times he likes to be with Jimmy and with his family. Oh and the infamous "Rubba". LOL. This is starting to sound as desperate as the prosecution in 2005.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It is his claim but with some additions "in support of it" from books like Guiterrez's, Christopher Anderson's, tabloids and the usual suspects, the Quindoys, Lemarques and Blanca Francia, Jordan's interview with Gardner. Of course, concealing the fact that none of these sources are credible. I think it's interesting because it also reveals what sources Safechuck probably used to construct his own allegations.

A lot of it we already knew but there are some new details and that's why I posted it.

Im sorry. I was just trying to figure out what all was from his claim and I suppose all of it could be. They have no shortage of material to use. It all just reads like pedophilia porn to me.

I do know that if I discovered that anyone had hurt my child (or my little brother or nephews) I would have not rested until they were in prison or stalked and killed them myself. As upset as I got while just reading this, tells me that for sure.

That's just one of the reasons I will never find these stories remotely credible.

 

[LindavG]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

D's writing is typically messy but was this the therapy he went into in May 2013 after seeing Wade on TV. So it lasted only for four sessions? That sounds like the only purpose of it was to get his story on record with a therapist so that he would be able to use it in a lawsuit.

That alone boggles the mind. So he was molested and raped more than 100 times and brainwashed so severely that he ended up marrying his abuser yet his "psychological suffering" could be dealt with in just four therapy sessions almost 30 years after the fact? I just cannot believe there are people out there who actually believe this stuff.

And it turns my stomach to see that sweet letter MJ sent Jimmy turned into something sinister. Quite weird to keep recorded calls and letters from your "abuser" for such a long time anyway.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

And it turns my stomach to see that sweet letter MJ sent Jimmy turned into something sinister..

Yes, and this is the most disgusting thing to me in these people. That they are capable of turning sweet, nice, kind gestures, gifts, helping hands into something sinister and use it against MJ to slander him with such an utterly horrible claim - just to get to his money. How evil you have to be for that?

A bit off topic but the other day I went back to reading from Dante's Inferno a little bit. I'm not religious but I like history, literature etc. So you probably know that in that book Dante gives a description about how he imagined Hell - and does it through a fictional travel in Hell. So what I find really remarkable that in that book the worst place in Hell is not for murderers, but for people who committed treachery. And even within that the worst of this worst place is for those who betrayed their benefactors. That is in the very centre of Hell, the closest to Satan. Now, I do not believe in its reality, but it just shows how people view betrayal - especially the betrayal of someone who was good to you - since ancient times. By Dante it was considered even more evil than murder and people who committed it, like Robson and Safechuck, were deserving of the worst place in Hell.

 

[ivy]

Although I hate to bring any crap here from MJfacts, but because there is some new information in it about Safechuck's claims I post their latest article here.

The writer is not named but I'm pretty sure it's Desiree.
In any case she seems to have access to court material we have not seen yet.

I too think the author is Desiree. On her now defunct blog she wrote extensively about trying to contact Safechucks to verify the wedding claim. So it's obvious. No idea why she didn't put her name on there.

There's a lot of commentary as well as her adding "collaborating evidence" but yeah she also seems to have access to the original complaint. Perhaps a better approach to be to separate the portions from the complaint from the rest.

The whole story about 2005 does not even make sense.

I remember seeing a possible list of people who could testify. Was Safechuck's name included in any of those lists? If not, he couldn't have testified even if he wanted.

Any news yet?

You are too early to ask. Today is the due date for Robson's civil case. Stuff doesn't get scanned that fast.

And what do you gather from D's "legal analysis" towards the end?

one she's not confident that these late claims will be allowed. two she acknowledges the issue with "told my mother in 2005" and "didn't realize it until Robson" conflicting positions. She acknowledges he needs to claim "just realized" for a late claim even if it might not be true. and I believe she thinks it's lawyer's mistake to make conflicting claims about Safechuck.

D's writing is typically messy but was this the therapy he went into in May 2013 after seeing Wade on TV. So it lasted only for four sessions? That sounds like the only purpose of it was to get his story on record with a therapist so that he would be able to use it in a lawsuit.

I think with this late claims or whatever you call it "repressed memory" type of claims, you need an affidavit from a therapist. That 4 sessions, 13 hours and an affidavit is just to satisfy that. As we have seen from murray criminal trial, you can find experts giving different opinions on any topic.

And how can Michael get anybody for perjury? He was not the district attorney

he can't and it's not just that. read the quote : "he told James he’d “get [him] for perjury” for statements James had made under oath as a fifteen-year-old at his November 1993 deposition." . In order to "get Safechuck for perjury" Michael will have to say Safechuck LIED when he said MJ did nothing in 1993.

Does that even make sense? In 2005 Michael is trying to fight against an accusation, he wants Safechuck testify on his benefit and he threatens him with saying "I'll tell people you lied about me being innocent in 1993". That would ALSO hurt Michael.

Okay let's assume that Safechuck didn't realize the "abuse" due to "brainwashing" or whatever. What is his excuse for not realizing empty and unrealistic threats as a 25 year old adult?

 

[HIStory]

Perhaps a better approach to be to separate the portions from the complaint from the rest.

I will try to make an extract focusing on Safechuck's own claims, so that folks do not need to read all the additional junk.

I remember seeing a possible list of people who could testify. Was Safechuck's name included in any of those lists? If not, he couldn't have testified even if he wanted.

I have a Defense witness list from February 2005 and it does not include Safechuck, but it does not mean anything as it does not include Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin either and as we know they later did testify for Michael. It does inlcude Robson though. He must have been among the first to volunteer to testify...
I think at that point it wasn't even certain if 1108 evidence would be included. That decision fell on March 28. However the decision immediately also stated that testimony about Spence and Safechuck would not be included because all the prosecution could offer about them was testimony about their "grooming" - ie. MJ buying them gifts. So Safechuck was never needed after that point at all and before that I can imagine MJ or his defense team to talk to potential witnesses in case of 1108 evidence would be allowed, but there was no need for that kind of desperation as described in Safechuck's claims as there was not even a decision yet about whether 1108 testimony would be allowed and if so about which kid. Also, as I said earlier there was a news report about Safechuck in early January of 2005 stating that the prosecution contacted him but he turned them down. I find it interesting that he does not seem to mention it in his complaint (or at least D omitted it from her version), only MJ's supposed contacts.

he can't and it's not just that. read the quote : "he told James he’d “get [him] for perjury” for statements James had made under oath as a fifteen-year-old at his November 1993 deposition." . In order to "get Safechuck for perjury" Michael will have to say Safechuck LIED when he said MJ did nothing in 1993.

Does that even make sense? In 2005 Michael is trying to fight against an accusation, he wants Safechuck testify on his benefit and he threatens him with saying "I'll tell people you lied about me being innocent in 1993". That would ALSO hurt Michael.

Okay let's assume that Safechuck didn't realize the "abuse" due to "brainwashing" or whatever. What is his excuse for not realizing empty and unrealistic threats as a 25 year old adult?

For the benefit of doubt I take it to mean that the claim is that MJ threatened Safechuck that in case he would testify for the prosecution claiming he molested him he would "get him for perjury". But like you point out that does not make sense from another aspect then, because such a threat sure would have given him, a 26-27-year-old man at the time, the memo about it being very wrong.

Also how realistic is it that MJ would say such things on the phone with the risk of being recorded?

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I will try to make an extract focusing on Safechuck's own claims, so that folks do not need to read all the additional junk.

So here it is a bit shortened, with only the parts which appear to be based on Safechuck's complaint. Of course, it's still full of loaded expressions and bias:

AUTHOR BANNED FROM MJJC