Micky Jackson in trouble again

ToBeFrank123 · 03-04-2019 02:42PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, we have back up for Safechuck’s descriptions. As far as I know, Safechuck hasn’t said anything about making a mistake with timelines. Has he? So how is Safechuck discrediting himself if he’s sticking to what he said and books about Neverland back up his descriptions?

That's fine. Reed was wrong then. I am all for giving a fools pardon to people on some things if they don't bother to research but when Reed says he researched things and then is easily caught out, you'd question how well he researched things.

I and others have said all along Wade, Safechuck and indeed Reed have credibility issues. Wade said Michael told him to stay away from girls. What Reed left out of the documentary was Jackson set Wade up with his own niece. Terrible story agreed as Wade was only 9, but, its a story that contradicts Wade's version. Anything contradictory or which couldn't be squared Reed left out of the documentary. He also left out the fact that Safechuck's evidence was not permissible at the 2005 trial. So either he didn't research that either (likely) or else decided it was a circle he couldn't square and best to leave it out.

ToBeFrank123 · 03-04-2019 02:54PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, we have back up for Safechuck’s descriptions. As far as I know, Safechuck hasn’t said anything about making a mistake with timelines. Has he? So how is Safechuck discrediting himself if he’s sticking to what he said and books about Neverland back up his descriptions?

Its entirely possible he forgot stuff, mixed up timelines or simply relied on others for their memories.

Reed for example omitted a massive disclaimer around Wade's testimony.

"Despite telling the detailed story of his first night at Neverland in the documentary as if it is his own memory, at his 2013 deposition, Robson admitted that he 'did not know' if his memory of that night “came from (his) own recollection or it was told to (him) by someone else.”
"Another email showed that Robson found one particular story from the early 1990s which specifically named him and his mother. He emailed it to his mother and asked whether it was true. She replied, ‘Wow, none of that is true’."

https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/music/1100816/Leaving-Neverland-Michael-Jackson-Wade-Robson-mother-Safechuck-child-abuse-true

So some of what Wade claimed to have directly remembered in the documentary, he admitted before he was unsure if it was his memory or not.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 03-04-2019 03:02PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

That's fine. Reed was wrong then. I am all for giving a fools pardon to people on some things if they don't bother to research but when Reed says he researched things and then is easily caught out, you'd question how well he researched things.

I and others have said all along Wade, Safechuck and indeed Reed have credibility issues. Wade said Michael told him to stay away from girls. What Reed left out of the documentary was Jackson set Wade up with his own niece. Terrible story agreed as Wade was only 9, but, its a story that contradicts Wade's version. Anything contradictory or which couldn't be squared Reed left out of the documentary. He also left out the fact that Safechuck's evidence was not permissible at the 2005 trial. So either he didn't research that either (likely) or else decided it was a circle he couldn't square and best to leave it out.

So Safechuck hasn’t been discredited. Thank you.

All people have been able to dredge up about Safecheck is nebulous stuff like lawsuits taken against his father and that he took recreational drugs in his early 20s - *clutches pearls* - and so far nobody has disproven his claim that MJ personally telephoned him asking him to testify. Add this current furore to the list of things that hasn’t discredited him as descriptions in books predating this documentary back up what he has said. People like yourself who claim to be on the fence seem to lack the curiosity to delve deeper when anything comes out that superficially seems to discredit an MJ accuser.

ToBeFrank123 · 03-04-2019 03:05PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

So Safechuck hasn’t been discredited. Thank you.

All people have been able to dredge up about Safecheck is nebulous stuff like lawsuits taken against his father and that he took recreational drugs in his early 20s - *clutches pearls* - and so far nobody has disproven his claim that MJ personally telephoned him asking him to testify. Add this current furore to the list of things that hasn’t discredited him as descriptions in books predating this documentary back up what he has said. People like yourself who claim to be on the fence seem to lack curiosity to delve deeper when anything comes out that superficially seems to discredit an MJ accuser.

Possibly not, its unclear as yet. But the director Reed has been! Caught out at best as not having much of a clue about the history of Neverland, and at worst a big fat lie. As I said, they can't both be right. Their behaviour fits into a pattern of being fast and loose with facts and the truth.
Why would Jackson personally ring him if Jackson had abused him? Who puts on the stand or brings into the public realm someone who could easily start talking against him? Unless of course he didn't abuse him. You really need to suspend belief to believe some of what these guys are saying.

ceadaoin. · 03-04-2019 03:08PM

Why would Safechuck have to resort to reading obscure books to get his description of Neverland when he had been there himself on multiple occasions? No one is denying that he was there and spent a lot of time with Jackson so it doesn't really make sense that he apparently now used the wrong material to make up his entire story (like the whole thing hinges on this one detail). Mis remembering or conflating two structures seems more likely surely?

Mr.Wemmick · 03-04-2019 03:09PM

These kids were probably very happy to be in MJ's world with him being their protector. They must've blanked out the effects of the abuse during this time and needed to slowly piece it all together as adults. On top of this they were coached to be liars, hide the truth from family, the public.. layers of lies with the added weight of responsibility for MJ's safety. You would wonder what messed them up more the actual abuse or the lies they happily told to protect their abuser.

Anyway, when it comes to child abuse, I never put much importance in a singled out timeline, or a confused memory. The proof is in all of it, all down through the years, all those boys. He was never seen in a normal adult relationship, snogging a girl when he was younger, giggling with a boyfriend, etc. just all those little boys, year after year, decade after decade. Creepy.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 03-04-2019 03:13PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Possibly not, its unclear as yet. But Reed has been! As I said, they can't both be right. Their behaviour fits into a pattern of being fast and loose with facts and the truth.
Why would Jackson personally ring him if Jackson had abused him? Who puts on the stand or brings into the public realm someone who could easily start talking against him? Unless of course he didn't abuse him. You really need to suspend belief to believe some of what these guys are saying.

They're not the same person. Safechuck’s account is as believable to me now as it was yesterday - as in, very believable. I don’t really care about Reed. What made the documentary so compelling for me and many others was that the subjects were believable. And this furore has not disproven anything Safechuck has said. And anyone who thinks it has hasn’t delved any deeper because they want something to pounce on. And they are the people who didn’t believe Safechuck and Robson anyway.

As for why Jackson would telephone him - I’m guessing desperation?

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Why would Safechuck have to resort to reading obscure books to get his description of Neverland when he had been there himself on multiple occasions? No one is denying that he was there and spent a lot of time with Jackson so it doesn't really make sense that he apparently now used the wrong material to make up his entire story (like the whole thing hinges on this one detail). Mis remembering or conflating two structures seems more likely surely?

Exactly. Like, seriously. Occam’s razor, people.

ToBeFrank123 · 03-04-2019 03:25PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

They're not the same person. Safechuck’s account is as believable to me now as it was yesterday - as in, very believable. I don’t really care about Reed. What made the documentary so compelling for me and many others was that the subjects were believable. And this furore has not disproven anything Safechuck has said. And anyone who thinks it has hasn’t delved any deeper because they want something to pounce on. And they are the people who didn’t believe Safechuck and Robson anyway.

As for why Jackson would telephone him - I’m guessing desperation?

Exactly. Like, seriously. Occam’s razor, people.

Reed is an important player in all this. As I've said before he's omitted anything that shows Wade and Safechuck in a bad light or counters what they are saying. He's omitted anything or anyone that could show Jackson in a good light. This is not the way to put together a credible documentary.
As for WAde and Safechuck its impossible to tell if most of what they are saying is true or not as they say it happened behind closed doors. All we can deal with is provable facts or lies. We can't surmise what happened behind closed doors but unless you were in the room, it will always be a guess.

ToBeFrank123 · 03-04-2019 03:28PM

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

These kids were probably very happy to be in MJ's world with him being their protector. They must've blanked out the effects of the abuse during this time and needed to slowly piece it all together as adults. On top of this they were coached to be liars, hide the truth from family, the public.. layers of lies with the added weight of responsibility for MJ's safety. You would wonder what messed them up more the actual abuse or the lies they happily told to protect their abuser.

Anyway, when it comes to child abuse, I never put much importance in a singled out timeline, or a confused memory. The proof is in all of it, all down through the years, all those boys. He was never seen in a normal adult relationship, snogging a girl when he was younger, giggling with a boyfriend, etc. just all those little boys, year after year, decade after decade. Creepy.

Nope. I will look for the link later but a couple of years ago, two of Jackson's bodyguards came out and said Jackson had several secret girlfriends. They would have known him better than most. After an extensive search of Neverland, investigators turned up a significant amount of adult hetorsexual porn.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 03-04-2019 03:29PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Reed is an important player in all this. As I've said before he's omitted anything that shows Wade and Safechuck in a bad light or counters what they are saying. He's omitted anything or anyone that could show Jackson in a good light. This is not the way to put together a credible documentary.
As for WAde and Safechuck its impossible to tell if most of what they are saying is true or not as they say it happened behind closed doors. All we can deal with is provable facts or lies. We can't surmise what happened behind closed doors but unless you were in the room, it will always be a guess.

Yup, but so far, Safechuck’s descriptions haven’t been debunked. And Safechuck has made no statement about dates. He must be confident in his recollections, even if Reed isn’t. So, no statement from Safechuck and books that back up his descriptions within the timeline he stated. So far, so believable.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 03-04-2019 03:42PM

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

These kids were probably very happy to be in MJ's world with him being their protector. They must've blanked out the effects of the abuse during this time and needed to slowly piece it all together as adults. On top of this they were coached to be liars, hide the truth from family, the public.. layers of lies with the added weight of responsibility for MJ's safety. You would wonder what messed them up more the actual abuse or the lies they happily told to protect their abuser.

Anyway, when it comes to child abuse, I never put much importance in a singled out timeline, or a confused memory. The proof is in all of it, all down through the years, all those boys. He was never seen in a normal adult relationship, snogging a girl when he was younger, giggling with a boyfriend, etc. just all those little boys, year after year, decade after decade. Creepy.

Agreed. Here’s what dismays me. I think in one of my first posts in this thread, I said I treat the whole case like a civil case - on balance, who do I believe? And I believe the two men. Can I say I believe them 100%? Absolutely not.

But the people who defend Michael Jackson vehemently won’t even let it near them that it could possibly be true. They act like they are 100% sure. How could anyone be that sure? And because the subject is child sexual abuse, this must all be very dispiriting for anyone who had suffered that at anyone’s hands. They must wonder will they be disbelieved if they confess to someone.

As well as that, people question why others haven’t spoke out against MJ. Can they not understand that anyone who does has MJ’s supporters on them like rottweilers? It’s hard enough to tell anyone about CSA but to know that your character will undermined too? Who would offer themselves up like that?

03-04-2019 03:43PM

It's all pretty funny.

https://twitter.com/danreed1000/status/1113426577482760193?s=19

Reed is just digging himself a deeper and deeper hole. No idea why he felt the need to comment on someone else's story and twist it to suit his narrative in the first place.

hetuzozaho · 03-04-2019 03:53PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Jackson had several secret girlfriends.

You have to laugh.

hetuzozaho · 03-04-2019 03:55PM

Basil3 wrote: »

It's all pretty funny.

https://twitter.com/danreed1000/status/1113426577482760193?s=19

Reed is just digging himself a deeper and deeper hole. No idea why he felt the need to comment on someone else's story and twist it to suit his narrative in the first place.

I think Reed just believes 100per cent that those kids were abused.

ceadaoin. · 03-04-2019 04:05PM

hetuzozaho wrote: »

You have to laugh.

Yeah , sure Jan haha

I mean if he really did have girlfriends you'd think he'd have paraded them around the place to dispel the notion that he was a paedophile. But no, all we have are a ton of photos of him acting loved up with a plethora of young boys and not one of him acting similar with any adult, male or female. And not one of these secret girlfriends have ever spoken out about it . Yeah, sounds totally believable

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 03-04-2019 04:07PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Nope. I will look for the link later but a couple of years ago, two of Jackson's bodyguards came out and said Jackson had several secret girlfriends. They would have known him better than most. After an extensive search of Neverland, investigators turned up a significant amount of adult hetorsexual porn.

I thought you only dealt in provable facts? Apparently not, when they support MJ.

Dontfadeaway · 03-04-2019 04:09PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

https://twitter.com/councilof9/status/1099521587827621888

https://twitter.com/TheReal_ELewis/status/1101767789340053505?s=20

The bottle thing is weird but the guy tweeting about that says he insisted he use it, is he just assuming or is it fact? :pac:

ToBeFrank123 · 03-04-2019 04:11PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I thought you only dealt in provable facts? Apparently not, when they support MJ.

ok found it.

https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/811228/Michael-Jackson-bodyguards-biopic-Searching-For-Neverland-Whitfield-Javon-Beard

MJ worked with and came across a lot of different people in his time. They all have stories to tell about him, some good, some bad. Its the same with every person. You need to talk to all people to get a fair balanced and rounded version of them.

Obvious Desperate, you have to accept the good with the bad. You said MJ only slept with children. It seems his bodyguards would say otherwise.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 03-04-2019 04:14PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

ok found it.

https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/811228/Michael-Jackson-bodyguards-biopic-Searching-For-Neverland-Whitfield-Javon-Beard

MJ worked with and came across a lot of different people in his time. They all have stories to tell about him, some good, some bad. Its the same with every person. You need to talk to all people to get a fair balanced and rounded version of them.

Obvious Desperate, you have to accept the good with the bad. You said MJ only slept with children. It seems his bodyguards would say otherwise.

Aaaah, no, that was another poster you quoted. Pay attention. And see how easily mistakes can be made?

It was Mr.Wemmick you quoted with the reply about the claims of Jackson’s bodyguards:

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

These kids were probably very happy to be in MJ's world with him being their protector. They must've blanked out the effects of the abuse during this time and needed to slowly piece it all together as adults. On top of this they were coached to be liars, hide the truth from family, the public.. layers of lies with the added weight of responsibility for MJ's safety. You would wonder what messed them up more the actual abuse or the lies they happily told to protect their abuser.

Anyway, when it comes to child abuse, I never put much importance in a singled out timeline, or a confused memory. The proof is in all of it, all down through the years, all those boys. He was never seen in a normal adult relationship, snogging a girl when he was younger, giggling with a boyfriend, etc. just all those little boys, year after year, decade after decade. Creepy.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Nope. I will look for the link later but a couple of years ago, two of Jackson's bodyguards came out and said Jackson had several secret girlfriends. They would have known him better than most. After an extensive search of Neverland, investigators turned up a significant amount of adult hetorsexual porn.

ToBeFrank123 · 03-04-2019 04:23PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yeah , sure Jan haha

I mean if he really did have girlfriends you'd think he'd have paraded them around the place to dispel the notion that he was a paedophile. But no, all we have are a ton of photos of him acting loved up with a plethora of young boys and not one of him acting similar with any adult, male or female. And not one of these secret girlfriends have ever spoken out about it . Yeah, sounds totally believable

Seriously? There are thousands of photos of him with girlfriends and at least one wife.
Just going to ignore those are we?
Also thousands of photos holding hands with female friends. Just google "Michael Jackson Liz Taylor" to see any number of photos of them holding hands.

ToBeFrank123 · 03-04-2019 04:29PM

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I think Reed just believes 100per cent that those kids were abused.

Sure. Raking in several million easy dollars will make you believe anything.
He's been exposed as not doing proper research and casually saying well the abuse must have happened up to when Safechuck was 16 or 17 as if it doesn't matter. Even though Safechuck said he stopped visiting Neverland at the age of 14.

ceadaoin. · 03-04-2019 06:00PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Seriously? There are thousands of photos of him with girlfriends and at least one wife.
Just going to ignore those are we?
Also thousands of photos holding hands with female friends. Just google "Michael Jackson Liz Taylor" to see any number of photos of them holding hands.

Thousands of photos with girlfriends? Can you link to some? I genuinely never heard of him having a girlfriend except for I think Brooke shields and of course later his wife. I thought the line was he was asexual?

The pictures with lisa Marie look awkward and stilted to me. Certainly nowhere near as openly affectionate and relaxed as he was with Jonathan spence or James Safechuck for example . It's all a bit weird but I suppose you can always fall back on his lost childhood as an excuse

Boggles · 03-04-2019 06:10PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

and so far nobody has disproven his claim that MJ personally telephoned him asking him to testify.

Not just Jackson, his secretary and lawyers. Multiple phone calls, threatening him multiple times in a trial which he was precluded from testifying in.

That is probably the most easily verifiable lie that either of them have told IMO.

ceadaoin. · 03-04-2019 06:26PM

Boggles wrote: »

Not just Jackson, his secretary and lawyers. Multiple phone calls, threatening him multiple times in a trial which he was precluded from testifying in.

That is probably the most easily verifiable lie that either of them have told IMO.

He wasn't precluded from testifying though was he?

Evidence was potentially going to be presented that people had witnessed inappropriate behaviour with James Safechuck. He alleges that first Jackson called him and after he didn't get anywhere, his team called him

DECEDENT’s lawyers, together with Evvy Tavasci, DECEDENT’s executive personal secretary and an employee of MJJ PRODUCTIONS, contacted Plaintiff and told him that he needed to testify and deny anything that the cooks at Neverland said that they saw happen between Plaintiff and DECEDENT. Plaintiff told them that he did not want any further involvement with DECEDENT.

Then the judge ruled that

. Evidence as to Jimmy Safechuck and Jonathan Spence will not be permitted. The witnesses that would be precluded under this ruling would be Jolie Levine and Mary Coller.

Aside from the fact that he still could have testified on Jackson's behalf as to his character etc because he actually wasn't precluded from testifying at all, only witness evidence AS TO his abuse was, unless you can prove that Jackson and later his lawyers didn't call him before the judge ruling then you are talking nonsense. You have no evidence that none of that happened.

Mr.Wemmick · 03-04-2019 06:51PM

And interestingly, if a team of lawyers for Jackson can easily prove via phone records from their offices or Jackson's private lines that they did not call him, why didn't they, lol!

Quite ridiculous.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 03-04-2019 07:52PM

Boggles wrote: »

Not just Jackson, his secretary and lawyers. Multiple phone calls, threatening him multiple times in a trial which he was precluded from testifying in.

That is probably the most easily verifiable lie that either of them have told IMO.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He wasn't precluded from testifying though was he?

Evidence was potentially going to be presented that people had witnessed inappropriate behaviour with James Safechuck. He alleges that first Jackson called him and after he didn't get anywhere, his team called him

Then the judge ruled that

Aside from the fact that he still could have testified on Jackson's behalf as to his character etc because he actually wasn't precluded from testifying at all, only witness evidence AS TO his abuse was, unless you can prove that Jackson and later his lawyers didn't call him before the judge ruling then you are talking nonsense. You have no evidence that none of that happened.

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

And interestingly, if a team of lawyers for Jackson can easily prove via phone records from their offices or Jackson's private lines that they did not call him, why didn't they, lol!

Quite ridiculous.

Ceadaoin and Mr.Wemmick have said it all really. Nothing for me to add. The bolded bits being the most pertinent parts. It would easy to produce phone records. But it’s also an excellent point that Safechuck wasn’t precluded from testifying.

Boggles · 03-04-2019 08:04PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Then the judge ruled that
Aside from the fact that he still could have testified on Jackson's behalf as to his character etc because he actually wasn't precluded from testifying at all, only witness evidence AS TO his abuse was, unless you can prove that Jackson and later his lawyers didn't call him before the judge ruling then you are talking nonsense. You have no evidence that none of that happened.

The judge ruled relatively early on in the trial which witnesses could testify, that also included character witnesses which was limited.

Safechuck claimed that Jackson contacted him "towards the end of the trial" and continued to try and get him to testify.

There would have been no valid reason even if possible to put him on the stand, The "Cooks" allegation was that Jackson was alone with Culkin in the cinema room and molested him, i.e. no other witnesses.

Like I said it is the more easier verifiable lie.

But you won't get balance from MJFacts, you do know that right? You have all ready rehashed a couple of their lies on this thread all ready.

You won't get balance from pro Jackson sites either by the way.

Best to do your own fact checking if your going to put your name to something.

Boggles · 03-04-2019 08:05PM

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

And interestingly, if a team of lawyers for Jackson can easily prove via phone records from their offices or Jackson's private lines that they did not call him, why didn't they, lol!

Quite ridiculous.

Because there is no trial. Yet.

Also how do you prove a negative?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 03-04-2019 08:12PM

Boggles wrote: »

Because there is no trial. Yet.

Also how do you prove a negative?

So... it’s not easily verifiable? It is or it isn’t.

Can you say that Jackson did not telephone James Safechuck towards the end of the trial? That is easily something that Jackson could do out of desperation. He didn’t know what the verdict would be at that stage, after all.

Mr.Wemmick · 03-04-2019 08:21PM

Boggles wrote: »

Because there is no trial. Yet.

Also how do you prove a negative?

They could've proved no calls were made to Safechuck/his house in that time period which link back to MJ personally or to the lawyers.

I have said it before on this thread. When I watched the Doc' it was clear to me that MJ and the lawyers were making sure he would not be a problem in the future. He was a loose end and they wanted to be sure. I thought it interesting when Safechuck said he reassured MJ that he would not say a word. It was over for him and he never spoke to MJ again after that call.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments