Micky Jackson in trouble again

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The case was "thrown out" because the statute of limitations had passed. It was nothing to do with the credibility of the accusations

Safechuck, by his own admission, he did not “realize” that he had been abused until after he saw Robson on the Today Show in May 2013 being interviewed by Matt Lauer about Robson’s newly-concocted story of abuse. All of a sudden, Safechuck realized that he had been abused. He then contacted Robson’s lawyers and filed copycat lawsuits against the Estate for millions of dollars. And like Robson, he too had testified under oath that Jackson never did anything inappropriate with him. His two cases against the Estate were also dismissed.

Safechuck’s frivolous lawsuits were dismissed so early in the proceedings that significant discovery was never taken in his case, and he was able to avoid having his deposition taken and producing documents. But even in his sworn declarations in the litigations, there are clear signs that he is lying and trying to construct a false story of abuse from his vague memories of his interactions with Jackson. For example, Safechuck claimed in his sworn declaration that he was first abused on the Paris leg of the Bad Tour, which he correctly identifies as taking place in late June 1988 (as a simple Wikipedia search would reveal). He later says that after the Bad tour ended, Michael flew him out to New York “in February 1989” where Michael was performing at the Grammy’s. Safechuck states in his declaration that he was abused on this New York trip for the Grammy’s. However, the Grammy’s were not in New York in 1989; they were in Los Angeles that year (and in 1990). And Michael did not perform at the Grammy’s in 1989. However, Michael did perform at the Grammy’s in New York in February 1988, i.e., before Safechuck claims he was first abused in June 1988. Yet he somehow claims that he was abused on a New York trip to the Grammy’s that occurred before he claims he was first abused. Safechuck’s “error” here is obviously reflective of an effort to create a story of abuse out of whole cloth. Or in other words, Safechuck is just making it up as he goes along.

In the “documentary” and in his declaration for the litigation, Safechuck spins a tale about how he refused to testify for Jackson in 2005, despite threats from Jackson and his legal team. Setting aside the absurdity of Jackson and his sophisticated legal team trying to convince an unwilling and unstable witness to testify on such a sensitive issue, Safechuck’s story is demonstrably false. In particular, Safechuck declares that Michael and his legal team called him “towards the end of the criminal trial” trying to pressure him to testify. But this statement cannot be true. Early on in the trial, the Judge precluded the prosecution from allowing evidence regarding alleged molestation of Safechuck and others because the “evidence” of such molestation was unreliable. The exceptions were that the Judge did allow testimony from certain disgruntled workers that they had heard that Michael had molested Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes. That is why those three specifically testified, and all of them denied the molestation (including Robson of course), and were subject to cross-examination by prosecutors but did not waver. And that is why Jackson and his attorneys would not have ever tried to pressure an unwilling and unstable Safechuck to testify, particularly “towards the end of the criminal trial” as Safechuck so falsely claims in the documentary and under oath.

- Howard Weitzman - Michael Jackson Estate attorney.

Mam of 4 wrote: »

Whether people think he's guilty or not , I honestly hope that if anyone ever opens up to you , as an adult , and confides that they were abused as a child , that they're treated with compassion and empathy .

Not disbelief .

Mam of 4 wrote: »

Whether people think he's guilty or not , I honestly hope that if anyone ever opens up to you , as an adult , and confides that they were abused as a child , that they're treated with compassion and empathy .

Not disbelief .

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I hope his children are ok. If indeed he sired them.

Mam of 4 wrote: »

Whether people think he's guilty or not , I honestly hope that if anyone ever opens up to you , as an adult , and confides that they were abused as a child , that they're treated with compassion and empathy .

Not disbelief .

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

But it's dirtballs like this that make people not believe.

If there had been none of this #metoo ****e, this doc would never have been made.

Not getting paid??? ask me hole. These lads are getting paid by someone 100%, Don't believe that part for a second.

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Nobody makes a production costing millions for the craic and expects no return and you don't go on screen with this stuff for nothing.

Mam of 4 wrote: »

Except maybe to get people to believe them .

Instead of having that part of their lives eat them up inside .

Mam of 4 wrote: »

Whether people think he's guilty or not , I honestly hope that if anyone ever opens up to you , as an adult , and confides that they were abused as a child , that they're treated with compassion and empathy .

Not disbelief .

Mam of 4 wrote: »

And if that happens , I'll have no problem coming back to say you were right , they got paid for this documentary

Am neither MJ fan nor hater .

Just don't like anyone , male or female who abuse children .