Skip to content

JIMMIE SAFECHUCK’S whining lamentations and RADAR ONLINE’S own twist of the lies

March 25, 2015

While Helena is preparing her next post, let me give you in short some information about the latest court declaration of Jimmie Safechuck which was presented in a Radar Online article that already made the rounds among MJ fans. BhwRuR0CUAA9FTG.jpg large

Actually Jimmie Safechuck’s declarations are just a copy of Wade Robson’s allegations, but I still want to point to a few things that became apparent to me at first sight – and this especially because our beloved trash tabloid Radar Online does a special job in this whole story and adds its own spin to the sinister lies of Robson and Safechuck, about which we cannot keep silent.

Whoever wants to take a personal look at Safechuck’s “supplemental declaration” filed on March 18, 2015, and what Radar Online wrote about it, here and here are the links.

For those who don’t want to go on their site – which I fully understand – I made screenshots of the points in question.

The article of Radar Online quotes a few parts of Jimmie Safechuck’s declaration and the authors obviously believe this is enough for the readers to form their opinion so they won’t see the necessity to read the declaration itself. But they forgot Michael’s advocates, and so we found out immediately that the article contains a big, fat lie that could not even be found in Safechuck’s declaration. The impertinence and malicious intent of it struck me instantly. However, I even waited a couple of days to see if they would correct it because it could have been an error – but no!

In the lower part of the article we find this paragraph:

Jackson “became very angry and began to overtly threaten me” when he refused to testify on his behalf during the criminal trial, Safechuck claims. He even got a call from the singer’s mother, Katherine Jackson, “asking if something had happened between” him and her son, he says. “I told her I was OK and never answered her question.”


Radar Online article of March 20, 2015


I doubted this at once, and then I read Safechuck’s declaration where he says in point 15:

“Shortly after that call with the DECEDENT, my mother began to call me asking if something had happened between me and DECEDENT. I told her I was OK and never answered her question.”

JS decl-point 15


Nowhere in the whole declaration Safechuck says that Katherine Jackson had called him, he was only talking about his own mother calling him and asking him this question – but Radar Online twisted the whole statement into something different: The manipulation was done with the clear intention to imply to the readers that Michael Jackson’s mother doubted her own son! And this is something Michael’s opponents try to imply time and again, it was also attempted by AEG’s lawyers in the AEG trial when Katherine Jackson had to testify.

The whole article with the salacious headline is written in the typical Radar Online style we know now since the case started. How Radar Online may be involved in the coverage of it you can read here.


I have a few further thoughts on some points in Safechuck’s declaration that came to my mind and raised a few questions immediately, and I just post them as some food for thought.


Point 3:

“He continually brainwashed and drilled into me that what he was doing to me was “love” and that I should deny that anything he had done to me ever happened. I was a child – I believed and worshipped him, and I had no reason to think he wasn’t telling me the truth or that what he was doing to me was wrong.”


I repeat what I said before in a post: Who do they think will believe this? Do they really think anyone can believe that a child does not recognize love opposed to humiliating, painful acts and would mix them up by brainwash? He had “no reason to think he wasn’t telling me the truth or that what he was doing to me was wrong”? No reason?? So the kind of sexual acts that are described elsewhere in the court documents are no reason to think that this was wrong? – Acts that must be horrible for a child, not only psychologically, but also physically injuring, and cannot be taken for “love”? – Well, he only has no reason when nothing happened and that was exactly the case! Ask real victims how they feel about such kind of acts.


Point 18:

“Towards the end of the trial [2005], the DECEDENT called me again to ask if I would meet him in person to talk. DECEDENT immediately launched into what seemed to be a rehearsed speech, as if the call were being recorded. I was afraid that was a possibility, because I knew from the past that DECEDENT recorded phone calls on a regular basis.”


What sense does that make? Why should Michael record a phone conversation in which he pressures a potential victim or witness to testify in his favor? Wouldn’t you do that in secret without keeping an evidence of it which could end up in the wrong hands?


In point 20 Safechuck says:

“I knew the DECEDENT would never be found guilty – he was a superstar and above the law.”

This is contrary to the whole public and the media who were absolutely sure that MJ would be convicted.

Altogether point 20 doesn’t reflect reality at all:

“I saw what happened to Gavin and his family – how they were discredited by the DECEDENT and his lawyers and how they had become pariahs in the media. Because of the DECEDENT and his power and influence, I was trapped, and could never say or do anything.”

This is a very ridiculous statement, as the only one who became a pariah in the media was Michael Jackson who had lost all power and influence at the time of the trial in 2005. It was the best time ever for Safechuck to come out with his accusations because nobody in the general society and the media believed in MJ’s innocence and Safechuck would have been welcomed as a witness against MJ by everybody. So where is the trap?

In addition this is an attack on Tom Mesereau and Susan Yu when they say that MJ’s lawyers “discredited” the Arvizos. I wonder if we will hear a reaction from Tom Mesereau to this.

JSdecl-point20JSdecl point20b


Point 22 includes this interesting sentence:

“When I found out [about MJ’s death], I felt sad because I realized I would never have the opportunity for a normal relationship with him.”


My first thought: How crazy is that? – A true victim wouldn’t regret any destroyed relationship and wouldn’t be “sad” that “a normal relationship” is no longer possible. Either he would be happy about his predator’s death or he would be furious that his predator never was convicted for his deeds as long as he lived, and that’s all.

The whole declaration is full of lamentations about MJ’s popularity and worldwide adoration, his wealth and his millions of fans, and “even in death he remains a powerful figure in history”.
This contributes to the impression we have since this case started: That this is a major aspect (of anger) to the accusers and they do everything to damage Michael’s place in history and the success of his Estate.

Safechuck presents himself in this declaration as a helpless baby or an imbecile, like a mentally retarded person with whom a predator can do everything because his brain is not able to learn the simplest things, even not as a teenager and adult.

There are certainly more points in the declaration that have to be examined and can be refuted, but I leave that for a later consideration.
The document says that the next hearing date in this case is July 21, 2015, 8:30 a.m., which is after the 10th anniversary of Michael’s acquittal.
So let’s be sure to celebrate the acquittal in adequate form in June before we continue to deal with this rubbish.

I wish Helena a good recovery from her recent surgery on her arm and hope we will soon read her next post.

44 Comments leave one →
  1. March 25, 2015 5:41 am

    I am really puzzled here because I read articles by Radar Online a few years ago, declaring that Michael had set up and financed a Michael Jackson Institute for the Treatment of Sexually-abused Children; also about FBI and Los Angeles Children and Families Dept. reports that found no evidence of any wrongdoing against any child by MJ over ten to fifteen years. Now they are publishing all this.
    Safechuck said in his statement that his ‘life would never be normal if any of the facts ‘of the truth of our relationship were exposed to the world’, even after Michael’s death; but that is what he has just done!


  2. March 25, 2015 6:55 am

    The article on RadarOnline was so ridiculous it was almost funny. After researching the BASIC, truthful facts regarding these allegations, it’s extremely obvious that the accusers are doing it for money. Michael was and still is, completely innocent.

    The saddening part in all this was how Michael loved children. The pure love he had for children was simply beautiful. I have to admit, I thought children were rather annoying in a way before. But after reading about Michael, it COMPLETELY change me. Seeing the world through Michael’s eyes is an amazing experience.


  3. Tsufi permalink
    March 25, 2015 10:51 am

    I haven’t read this statements on Radar, but i read on the MJFacts (MJLies) site. The same things, even more, are presented as facts.
    I’m trying hard to change their mind. But they somehow stole my profile and wrote a terrible things like it was me. I saw the same thing with other fan. I can’t imagine why are they doing such things.
    I’m so happy to see how Helena and others, are protecting our Michael.


  4. March 25, 2015 11:09 am

    Susanne, thank you very much for your immediate reaction to this paper and starting an important discussion. I also want to write about but at the moment would just like to ask several questions.

    Question 1: Why is the “Supplementary Declaration” allegedly filed by Safechuck on March 18 NOT on the official list of documents filed with the LA Superior Court?

    Here is the list of the latest documents filed for the various cases the Estate is dealing in now – and the date of March 18 is simply NOT THERE (Case Number: BP117321):

    Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
    03/10/2015 Declaration – Probate (SETH R. GASSMAN )
    Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
    03/10/2015 Declaration – Probate (JAMES J. PIZZIRUSSO )
    Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
    03/10/2015 Declaration – Probate (MICHAEL D. HAUSFELD )
    Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
    03/10/2015 Declaration – Probate (JEFFREY L. FAZIO )
    Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
    02/26/2015 Stipulation and Order (TO CONT MSJ FROM 3/17 TO 4/7 )
    Filed by Claimant
    02/11/2015 Stipulation and Order
    Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
    02/11/2015 Miscellaneous-Other (CIVIL DEPOSIT )
    Filed by Clerk

    Question 2: Why does this “Declaration” come with a mjfacts logo on it? Does it mean that this haters’ site is in exclusive possession of the document which has not been even published, not to mention the lack of its official filing?

    (if anyone finds the paper on please tell me – I myself haven’t been able to find it there).

    Question 3: How come the mjfacts site has exclusive access to it? Does it mean that it works in close cooperation with Safechuck, Robson and their lawyers and their site is actually a platform for spreading lies about Jackson?

    Question 4: Does the lack of the official filing of the document mean that the “Declaration” is a sort of a private document which was not even officially accepted? And they now spread it on their forums just to smear Michael’s name?

    Question 5: Why do Michael’s haters readily believe the hateful anti-Michael stories spread by and don’t believe the sum of $1,62 billion demanded by Robson, which is also reported by, the Daily Mail, lots of Australian and other media sources? Why so selective an approach?


  5. susannerb permalink
    March 25, 2015 11:36 am

    Helena, the document is on the Radar Online site. If you use the first two links I put in the text, you will get there. My screenshots are from their document:

    Click to access MJ-signed.pdf

    I will look at the rest of your questions later because I have some guests today.


  6. March 25, 2015 1:22 pm

    One wonders why he did it, if his life would never be normal. He did not have to do it to prevent others to become a victim. I strongly believe that he met lawyers or other people (who have had one sole purpose for decades : MJ’s destruction) that got him to do that, for 2 possible reasons : to discredit Michael’s legacy and to bring his reputation down, and/or money. The same goes for WR. The Estate should never settle. But above all : the case should be dismissed.


  7. nannorris permalink
    March 25, 2015 1:42 pm

    Of course none of this makes any sense.but he has to say this kind of garbage in order to try and go around the statue of limitations .
    If he can get a judge to sign off on this, Im sure he figures he will get a settlement.
    There is no way these people would ever show up in court for cross examination
    They are hoping the estate wont want to go forward with a trial., get some cash.

    Why would Jackson be calling him at the end of the trial to testify, when his name only came up , when Sneddon was trying to say he was a victim,in front of the judge, before the 1108 evidence was put in play., during the prosecutors case.
    I would think that would be the time to call, not after it was no longer necessary.
    Wade and family say THEY made the decision to testify and Wade had actually not been following the trial, from what I recall.
    Doesnt sound like MJ was pressuring anyone to come in .

    That is the only reason that Wade, Brett and Mac showed up to refute that stuff, because they were specifically mentioned , during 1108 in front of the jurors ….so they showed up to deny the tabloid stories.
    MJ wouldnt have called Safechuck in because there was never any mention of abuse of him, before the jurors , that I recall, other then when Mesereau mistakenly asked, Kiki Fournier, if he was married at Neverland, He meant Spence , who was married at Neverland,not Safechuck, and his point was to mention all kinds of people had access to Neverland, loved it etc.
    This seems to have been made an issue regarding Mesereau not remembering why he asked that question, by some people
    Why he asked if Safechuck was married there.
    This not a script that Mesereau was following, this was a fluid cross exam.
    He also mistook Monaco for Paris was cross examining June Chandler .,
    It is just an error on his part.
    I would think it is more important that Ms Chandler was specifically asked , by the prosecutors .what the seating arangements were , in a limo regarding Brett , and simply said he was sitting next to MJ,when the prosecution was looking for a bombshell that never happened, by her own account.
    This point should have made the prosecutors question everything they had heard though people selling stories .
    Or that Kiki Fornier laughed about the Arvizo being held at neverland.That anyone could very easily just walk out.
    Those are questions that went wrong..
    .Despite the fact the tabloids like to crop parents out of pictures , Safechucks mother was with him all the time, same as Robson and mac dad.Bretts family traveled with him also.
    You have to also assume that Safechucks mother must have been delusional , to have never had a conversation with her son regarding accusations made against Jackson., way back in 93
    Nevermind those accusations got one family generational wealth , just to not be able to speak to tabloids, but could still show up in court.and press charges.
    No matter how dysfunctional a family may be, this is going to be coming up in conversation.
    AND Safechuck did a deposition saying nothing happened , so he would have been well aware .

    Safechuck making reference to Gavin is interesting also, because his lawyers have never bothered to have contacted them .Alan duke went to their door about 6 months ago and Star was stunned .
    They have never had any contact what so ever with these lawyers
    If you thought you had a legitimate victim, someone that was believable , you would contact them .
    This is why Safechuck only refers to Arvizo but they dont get specific
    .His testimony shows he is a flat out liar.
    And he was discredited in direct examination BEFORE Mesereau examined him .
    He made huge contradictions ,completely forgot the most sordid thing Sneddon was hoping for and had brought up in his opening statement..instead it became an innocent situation., by Gavins own words.
    It was so bad Sneddon tried to blame it on his cancer and chemo, but the kid was too stupid to pick up on it.

    i havent seen any specifics regarding MJ anatomy mentioned by these 2 either, because we know that Gavins testimony , contradicted Jordans statements and MJ autopsy showed they were both wrong about several very glaring points regarding MJ body.
    This was the big thing with the Chandlers, and the media but we dont see it mentioned since his autopsy.
    So we wont see that brought up imo.
    They want you to forget both Chandler and Arvizo could not identify MJ despite their accusations


  8. March 25, 2015 1:55 pm

    “Helena, the document is on the Radar Online site. If you use the first two links I put in the text, you will get there. My screenshots are from their document:” – Susanne

    Susanne, thank you, I’ve also found it, but now it raises another question with me – how come the version has Radaronline printed all over the paper, while the mjfacts version is clean and has the logo of their site all over it? Does it mean that they both have access to one source and that mjfacts is in direct contact with Safechuck and Robson?

    These two versions of the documents leave no doubt that the so-called “neutral” mjfacts site is actually a forum for Michael’s worst haters. We always knew it but it is always nice to have a confirmation of it directly from them.

    Please compare the version with the previous one from the mjfacts:

    And the matter of why this paper is not officially filed is not clear either, is it?

    P.S. And you absolutely needn’t answer the rest of my questions – they are not for you, they are for the devisors of this anti-MJ scam!


  9. March 25, 2015 6:24 pm

    I can’t thank the contributors here enough for dissecting and exposing these greedy liars for what they are. The sooner these ridiculous claims are dismissed, the better.


  10. nancyphillips permalink
    March 26, 2015 6:12 am

    “Safechuck making reference to Gavin is interesting also, because his lawyers have never bothered to have contacted them .Alan duke went to their door about 6 months ago and Star was stunned .”

    I’ve never heard about this. Where did you get this info?


  11. March 26, 2015 7:56 am

    @Helena: I don’t know exactly how the court information system works, but there is a difference between case summary #BP117321, which seems to be the probate case, and the Robson case #BC508502, which probably is the civil case.
    The Robson (+ Safechuck) case never was included in the probate case summary when I checked it earlier. We can also see the case summary of the BC508502 civil case, but I think it is not public and you need an account with the LA court website to get access to the documents.
    (See this site: )
    What we need to know is whether the Safechuck case is integrated in the Robson case or whether it has its own case number. If we knew the number we could verify these dates, but strangely the Robson case doesn’t mention a “case related” with another number related to Safechuck. So we don’t know how the Safechuck case is listed.
    But I assume Radar Online as well as MJFacts have an account to see the documents as soon as they are filed. They probably have to pay for them and then have the right to put their logo on them.
    If any of our American readers could confirm this, I would be glad.

    Of course MJFacts as well as RO are a forum for MJ haters and that’s why they are eager to get the documents at first and publish them.
    Regarding RO we know that Dylan Howard became editor-in-chief in August 2013 (he replaced David Perel). See here:
    This could be an answer to Nina Hamilton’s comment below because it could be the reason why the tone on RO changed so massively against MJ. Dylan Howard, who apparently is also called “The king of Hollywood scoops”, is Australian like Robson and probably “Mike Par” who is extremely active as an MJ hater. They are definitely in cahoots with each other. It’s interesting that not even TMZ has this appetite for the Robson/Safechuck cases and the documents.


  12. March 26, 2015 9:40 am

    “We can also see the case summary of the BC508502 civil case, but I think it is not public” – Susanne

    Susanne, thank you for the details and interesting information about Dylan Howard. I’m slowly getting myself back into the picture.

    1) Yes, there are two cases – BP117321 (probate case which has to do with wills, etc. and in Robson’s case with a Creditor’s claim) and BC508502 (Robson’s civil claim). The LA Superior Court says that the cases are related:

    Case Number: BC508502
    Filing Date: 05/10/2013
    Case Type: Other PI/PD/WD (General Jurisdiction)
    Status: Pending
    Cases Related: BP117321 on 06/06/2013

    2) Robson is also part of the probate case and here are some entries under probate BP117321 case proving it. For example:

    07/01/2013 Notice (CLAIMANT WADE ROBSON’S NOTICE OF AMENDED EXHIBIT 1 TO CREDITOR’S CLAIM ) Filed by Attorney for Claimant
    07/01/2013 Miscellaneous-Other (CLAIMANT WADE ROBSON’S NOTICE OF AMENDED EXHIBIT ) Filed by Attorney for Claimant
    06/28/2013 Order – Other (MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES ) Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
    06/28/2013 Order – Other (TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, ETC. ) Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
    06/27/2013 Declaration – Probate (HENRY GRADSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR ORDER, ETC. ) Filed by Attorney for Claimant
    06/27/2013 Declaration – Probate (CLAIM WADE ROBSON, ETC. ) Filed by Attorney for Claimant

    3) As regards Robson’s civil case BC508502 it looks like it is public too as the page with documents filed under this case is open for the public. What’s strange though is that on February 19, 2014 Robson filed his “Second Amended suit” but it is not on the official list of filed documents. If you look up the list you won’t see a document dated 02/19/2014:

    ….07/07/2014 Motion to Compel Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
    06/20/2014 Demurrer Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
    06/20/2014 Stipulation and Order Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
    06/20/2014 Demurrer (AND MOTION TO DISMISS ) Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt
    11/20/2013 Order – Other (PURUSANT TO CAL. CODE CIVIL PROCEDURE SEC. 340.1(j) ) Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

    Why is it not there?

    4) The link you’ve given me about the paid services of the LA Superior Court website says that “Certain cases and documents may not be available on this web site; these include, but are not limited to, cases and documents that are confidential, sealed, or filed in courtrooms.”

    From this paragraph I conclude that some documents have a confidential character and can be leaked only unofficially. And this in its turn means that the “Second amended suit” was sort of illegally smuggled.

    5) As regards Safechuck the front page of his Supplementary Declaration of March 18, 2015 clearly refers to probate case No. BP117321.

    However it is not on the list of filed documents either and therefore could be obtained only in an unofficial way. So neither, nor mjfacts could simply buy this document. How could they if it is not even listed among the documents available for purchase?

    The only explanation I can find for it is that this document was leaked to mjfacts (same as direct by Safechuck or his lawyers (who are the same as Robson’s).

    And this means that this a closely-knit group working in collusion with each other. So as a very minimum readers should forget the word “neutrality” which these sources boldly proclaim. They are the worst Michael’s haters who take every chance to hide truthful facts about MJ’s innocence inconvenient for their theories and promote lies about him blowing them out of all proportion.


  13. susannerb permalink
    March 26, 2015 2:07 pm

    Helena, yes, you’re right. I didn’t realize that the Safechuck document refers only to case # BP117321, so it’s part of the probate case and not of Robson’s civil case.

    I think your conclusions are correct, the document must be confidential, and when it is confidential, RO and MJFacts can only have it from Safechuck’s lawyers (or himself).
    I now remember vaguely that we already had this suspicion at an earlier point when it concerned some of Robson’s documents. It is one thing when MJ haters are in cahoots, but it’s another thing when lawyers cooperate with them.

    On the other hand it doesn’t surprise: We know that AEG’s lawyers also leaked documents!


  14. March 26, 2015 3:46 pm

    “It is one thing when MJ haters are in cahoots, but it’s another thing when lawyers cooperate with them.” – Susannerb

    Susanne, I am no expert of course but it seems to me that if some documents are supposed to be sealed it must be a grave violation to leak them through the lawyers who are supposed to follow the court rules.
    I would love some Americans to look into this problem and tell us whether our conclusions are correct.

    On the other hand it doesn’t surprise: We know that AEG’s lawyers also leaked documents!

    Then it means that in both cases the game is not fair and is not played by the rules.


  15. March 27, 2015 7:39 am

    There is much more to say when you read the declaration carefully which undermines Safechuck’s credibility.

    When he says in point 15 that he told his mother he was okay and didn’t answer her question, and then even said to her that Michael “is not a good person” and that “something had happened”, I wonder what a normal mother would do. Wouldn’t she get extremely suspicous and insist on an answer or even take some steps, like pressure him to testify?
    He says: “I then begged her not to say anything or my life would be over. I believed that.” – And his mother believed that, too??? The conversation with his mother lasted only “a few minutes”, and then he left the house. And that was it? No more questions?
    Wouldn’t the mother want justice for her son and decide to testify herself? But no, the whole family decides not to testify (point 16) – why? He nowhere talks about a financial settlement Michael offered him.
    What does he mean with “his life would be over” – physically over? Death threats? He expresses himself very vaguely. When the threat was so big, then why not bring his molester behind bars to be safe? This would have been easily possible in 2005.

    When he tells in point 18 that MJ called him again at the end of the trial to pressure him again to testify, this doesn’t make sense. We know from Tom Mesereau that he had more witnesses who were ready to testify for Michael, but didn’t need them as the case was proceeding very well for them. No reason for Michael to pressure him towards the end of the trial again.

    And look at the photo above. How does the boy look there? Does he look scared, traumatized, intimidated?

    I could go on and on.


  16. lynande51 permalink
    March 27, 2015 2:47 pm

    Is this statement an attempt to clear up the first claims that were so murky because this one is just as murky as the first one. Let me see if I understand this. He told his mother but didn’t tell his mother at the same time because that is how his statement reads. I have a suggestion for James. If you want someone to make sense of something do not have DSSL try to explain it for you. It just gets more confusing and tends to make the claims even more foggy.


  17. Curt Pierre permalink
    March 27, 2015 8:11 pm

    I have to comment on all this especially on that messed up site RealMJFacts. I was looking up on that site a few months ago when a commenter asked why doesn’t the site try to be more neutral when examining these accusations. The owner of that site (who just enjoys bashing MJ fans on Twitter and who has an ego that’s bigger than his/her intelligence) told the commenter that RealMJFacts is not meant to be neutral and that it has bias views. So that should tell you a lot about the site’s motivations right there.


  18. susannerb permalink
    March 28, 2015 5:59 am

    @Lynande51: Exactly. His statements consist of or are even based on contradictions. He tells his story in a very vague and confusing way, but this could even be a method to keep the whole thing foggy and inaccurate (on purpose and arranged by his lawyers). We know from political propaganda that this method exists to confuse people.


  19. March 28, 2015 6:44 am

    “MJFacts is not meant to be neutral and that it has bias views. So that should tell you a lot about the site’s motivations right there” – Curt Pierre

    I think that it would be difficult to find someone who would be totally unbiased (obviously this blog is biased too), but the big difference between us and MJ haters is that we do not hide the facts of various allegations about MJ. On the contrary we ourselves search for them, freely report them and provide our explanations for what we’ve found.

    In other words since we are really interested in the truth we report both sides of the story. This is how Evan Chandler’s telephone conversation with David Schwartz came to be discussed here, same as Sneddon’s allegations that he found a cocaine spot on some dirty laundry at Neverland and very many other things which at first sight seem not to be in favor of MJ (but only until you really look at what’s standing behind them).

    On MJ haters’ site you will never find this equal representation of facts. They will present you with one side of the story and will totally disregard any facts speaking to Michael’s innocence. For example, they are completely unable to accept the simple fact that MJ was not circumcised (while Jordan Chandler said he was), and instead of admitting this simple truth they will go to great lengths to explain that … Jordan Chandler never said it. And this in spite of the fact that this circumcision issue was so common knowledge with everyone that even I in my far-away part of the world heard it.

    In short when the truth is not to the haters’ liking they simply ignore it and are even not above changing the past. This is their standard practice, so everyone who reads them should know in advance that they will not only hear a highly-biased anti-Michael story but that all facts in favor of Michael will simply not be reported there. ALL of them.


  20. March 28, 2015 7:17 am

    “When he says he told his mother that Michael “is not a good person” and that “something had happened”, I wonder what a normal mother would do. Wouldn’t she get extremely suspicous and insist on an answer or even take some steps, like pressure him to testify? Wouldn’t the mother want justice for her son and decide to testify herself?” – Susannerb

    “Is this statement an attempt to clear up the first claims that were so murky because this one is just as murky as the first one. Let me see if I understand this. He told his mother but didn’t tell his mother at the same time because that is how his statement reads.” – lynande51

    Girls, you are right, and there is a whole lot more to say about the absurdity of his statements it (see for example, the discussion that is taking place on mjjcommunity:

    Here are some quotes:

    -The alleged threat by Michael is not clarified in Safechuck’s complaint. He says Michael told him as a child that his “life would be over if anyone found out” and that continued to have a lasting effect on him until recent therapy. Putting aside the fact how difficult it is to believe with all the things going on around MJ (1993, 2005 etc.) – and we have no such circumstances in the precedent case -, I also find this a very vague statement. It’s not clarified how it’s meant. Did Safechuck allegedly believe his life would be physically over? Or in which way? “I knew that he could see to it that my life would be over if what happened ever came out.” Does he suggest that MJ would get him murdered? Does he suggest MJ would get him lose his job? His family? Or what? It’s never clarified what Safechuck allagedly was afraid of and how MJ would have power over those aspects of his life.

    – It makes no sense to claim you were afraid of his celebrity, or afraid of anything at all, when you didn’t even believe it was bad or abusive at the time. With MJ, they can be both terrified of this monster, but also act like he was the nicest guy alive and so you didn’t even know he was abusing you till 20 years after the fact.

    – Yes, apparently they try to have it both ways and do not realize that they cannot logically claim both this “I did not know it was wrong” and this “I was so trapped in fear”/”MJ is a bad man” thing. The two things are just logically not compatible.

    – they didnt file a case till the estate was out of the red, the didnt have any trouble understanding that fact.

    – now these two come out with changing their earlier stories, but this (like all the former allegations against MJ) come with a demand for a big paycheque. Of course, people are going to be sceptical. (And I’m sure they’d be even more sceptical if they read these court papers like we do and saw how conveniently fine tuned these allegations are for purposes like getting around statutes of limitations etc.)

    – It is so obvious when you read these so-called victim statements that their levels of entitlement are off the charts. Growing up around the most famous and adored man on the planet had to come with its perks but if there was anything unhealthy in MJs relationship with these kids, it is that it gave some of the more morally ambiguous brats a very skewed sense of reality and what was achieveable in their own lives. Now they are adults and MJ is dead, they want what they feel they are entitled to. Going from Neverland to a full time job has gotta suck! And being a washed up choreographer at 30 can’t be a barrel of laughs either.

    – I thought this was a really interesting (and true) comment about them. You know where I first noticed this ‘entitlement’ thing? It was on a Joy Robson audio interview that I listened to about four or so years ago. I listened to it again after the allegations, and this time I heard the bitterness. She was upset that they weren’t overnight successes, and you could tell that was the expectation. As far as I’m concerned they did achieve success early-not too many kids become choreographers at 17 or have their own MTV show at 19 or 20. Maybe that was due to June and Wade’s hard work, because she made it out that Michael didn’t just fling open doors for them-but she also came off as another extremely pushy stage mother that wants her kid to be a star. And when all of that fell apart, Wade is after the money he felt entitled to from the only person he can take revenge out on. (or who has BIG MONEY)

    – I do sense a big deal of entitlement in both Robson and Safechuck, although they had different lives. Robson became a successful choreographer, but apparently he aspired for more due to Michael telling him he would be a new Spielberg, international superstar, this or that. He also seems to have a genetical mental illness that is running in his family which made him have breakdowns and eventually fail in his career. He seems to blame the pressure to succeed on Michael, although it was really his mother who put him under such pressure.

    – Safechuck never became successful in showbiz and apparently he also blames it on MJ that he could not go to University. To me it seems that the guy is bitter that his aspired entertainment career never really kicked off and he also blames it on MJ that he doesn’t have a University degree. So I guess that’s how he is able to justify to himself why he is entitled to Michael’s money by lying about him.

    – BTW, this whole thing is odd to me and I’d really love to see his initial complaint because from the informations we got from that it seemed like in that one he claimed his relationship with MJ just stopped around 1997. Now we get all these new(?) additions about MJ’s huge influence on him and his parents still as he was trying to go to University and until 2003-04… He says he enrolled in Moonpark Community College at 19, in 1997. I think they usually have a two-year education. So he would have tried to go to University in about 1999. So he claims that at the time MJ still had such a huge influence on him and his parents that he somehow stopped him from going to University? Wasn’t the story that their relationship tapered off in 1997? And why would he do that? Yes, Michael had a love for movies and entertainment, but he was also big on education. Didn’t he finance his nephews (3T) to get to college/University?

    – And for him to be this anxious litte wreck that did not come forward before because of publicity, he made sure to run to Diane Dimond to get her report about his complaint when it was hardly even filed yet – and actually it was apparently more important for him that his complaint would interfere with the release of Xscape than to be within 60 days of PC 9103….

    – I really would love to see his initial complaint. I’m intrigued if these claims about 2003-2004 and continuous contact with MJ are in it or this is a new element. It appears to be the latter, at least it is in no earlier versions I heard about this. In fact, even in that lengthy presentation by that hater, D, she actually says: “Nearly ten years passed (after about 1996) before Jackson made another self-serving appearance in James’s life.” So it seems like he did not claim anything about keeping contact with MJ between 1996 and 2004-05. But now: “During that time period, I had stopped seeing Decedent, but Decedent would continue to call me once or twice a year to talk to me and “check in”.

    – I can see why this change would be needed if indeed it’s a new claim compared to his initial complaint. I guess in his initial complaint he tried to play on the narrative that MJ drops kids when they grow up (not true, but a very presistent media myth). However now for his equitable estoppel argument, to explain how MJ had a grip on him all these years and why he could not come forward earlier, he has to establish some sort of continious control by MJ over him. So these claims now appear. How convenient.

    – I cannot imagine Robson AND Safechuck being able to maintain the costly fees for this expensive, doomed venture which leads me to believe the legal team is being funded by others.

    This last point is an especially interesting one. Who is indeed paying the legal fees for these two guys?


  21. March 28, 2015 7:44 am

    “He tells his story in a very vague and confusing way, but this could even be a method to keep the whole thing foggy and inaccurate (on purpose and arranged by his lawyers)” – Susannerb

    Susanne, I fully agree – there is a lot of deliberate smoke and vagueness around this case. I’m currently trying to put into order the documents available to us, but see that we don’t have even as much as the original complaint from Safechuck. It became known to us only in Diane Dimond’s interpretation who claimed she was close to “Safechuck sources” and just told us a story about it.

    And the second “supplementary declaration” indeed seems to have never been published on the official list of documents of the LA Superior Court. I’m checking and rechecking it but can’t find it there. So it was released through those haters’ sources by Safechuck himself (or his lawyers). This points to their attempt to try to win the case in the court of public opinion and exert pressure on the judge via the public.


  22. gio permalink
    March 28, 2015 9:03 am

    Sono stanca di tutto questo . Ma dov’erano i genitori di questi due idioti quando , come dicono loro , MJ abusava di loro? E basta…… hanno davvero rotto le scatole ,,,,,, parassiti, schifosi, incapaci. Ma cosa vogliono ancora MJ è morto, deceduto, andato ……..perchè non ci pensavano prima . Avevano la possibilità di mandarlo in galera nel 2005 e non lo hanno fatto , adesso che senso ha? Smettetela di insultare i ragazzini che davvero vengono abusati…..bell’esempio che siete per i vostri figli vigliacchi quando secondo la vostra verità potevate avere giustizia e così forti e determinati ora che lui è morto e che vi interessano solo i soldi . Ma ricopritevi di merda e buttatevi dentro un cesso , siete senza dignità .

    Bing translator:
    “I am tired of all this. But where were the parents of these two idiots when, as they say, MJ abused them? And just … .. .have really broken boxes,,,,,,, hideous parasites, incapacitated. But what they want yet MJ is dead, died, gone … and … and … Why didn’t they think before. Had a chance to send him to jail in 2005 and have not done so now what is the point? Stop insulting the kids who are really abused ….. fine example you are for cowards when your children according to your truth you could have justice and are so strong and determined now that he is dead and you are interested only in money. But shit cake yourselves and go in a toilet, you are without dignity.


  23. lynande51 permalink
    March 31, 2015 9:37 pm

    Has anyone asked him how these supposed phone calls worked that came from MJ during the trial?
    One thing is that was a given for years that Janet Arvizo attempted to use to her advantage was that all phone calls are monitored at Neverland. Both incoming and outgoing. That was part of his security.
    Does he really think that Michael made the arrangements as to who would testify?
    Tom Mesereau was his attorney and he would have decided who he would call and who he wouldn’t. None of these people seem to know that you get your mileage paid for and hotel if necessary if you are called to testify in a trial.
    It wasn’t even determined if the defense was even going to put on a case. The 1108 evidence which he would have fallen under wasn’t determined who he would call because the judge hadn’t decided what he was going to allow in yet.
    You would think they would come up with something other than this that is so easily refuted.


  24. April 1, 2015 2:21 pm

    Lynande, each of your statements is perfectly correct. Let me repeat them again:

    “Has anyone asked him how these supposed phone calls worked that came from MJ during the trial? One thing is that was a given for years that Janet Arvizo attempted to use to her advantage was that all phone calls are monitored at Neverland. Both incoming and outgoing. That was part of his security.”

    I’ve also thought that Michael’s phone calls were monitored, but in a somewhat different way. Coming from a country where telephones are routinely tapped by the police, the first thing I thought (to my shame) was that Sneddon would not be above taking such an opportunity. And we also remember that Michael’s conversation with his lawyer was tapped during his flight back from Las Vegas in 2003 when he was to “turn in to the police”. So it was a usual danger for Michael and checking for bugs in his room was a routine practice for his bodyguards (as they wrote in their book).

    Michael himself was constantly on his guard as to a possibility of being tapped so he was certainly very careful when talking on the phone. And you are right, the calls in Neverland could also be monitored by his own people for security reasons.

    So this story about Michael “threatening” Safechuck on the phone is simply hilarious – first, because Michael himself was afraid of being recorded (by police, media or anyone), second, because his own security team headed by a former policeman (!) could be monitoring all conversations, and third, because Michael was simply unable to threaten anyone. It was totally out of his character.

    “Does he really think that Michael made the arrangements as to who would testify? Tom Mesereau was his attorney and he would have decided who he would call and who he wouldn’t. It wasn’t even determined if the defense was even going to put on a case.”

    Yes, Thomas Mesereau always says that he was not planning to present the defense case at the 2005 trial. It is the prosecution who has all the burden of proof and Thomas Mesereau thought that the prosecutors hadn’t proven anything, so presenting witnesses for the defense was redundant in his opinion.

    Quote about the US legal system: “A defendant can “plead the fifth”, remain silent, and not offer a shred of evidence to support his or her claim of innocence and still prevail. It is the prosecutor’s job to prove a defendant is guilty, not a defendant’s job to prove that he or she is innocent.”

    Actually it was Wade Robson who made Thomas Mesereau change his strategy and summon some witnesses for the defense. And again, when it came to their selection, it was Thomas Mesereau who was to decide. For example, he didn’t call Frank Cascio and it was Mesereau’s decision, not Cascio’s. And it is clear from Cascio’s book that though Michael probably expected him to testify he never talked to him about it and never called him!

    You would think they would come up with something other than this that is so easily refuted.

    Yes, it was a sloppy job, evidently done in some haste. Its whole idea was indeed “whining lamentations” as Susanne put it, coming from a third-rate actor in some cheap play.


  25. April 1, 2015 6:22 pm

    Dear Vindicate MJ, please name one person, famous or not, who, while being entirely innocent, was accused of child molestation five whole times? Thank you very much.


  26. April 2, 2015 4:26 am

    “Dear Vindicate MJ, please name one person, famous or not, who, while being entirely innocent, was accused of child molestation five whole times? Thank you very much.” – szilvia09

    I can name you a whole country that was slandered and accused of being a “fascist junta guilty of crucifying boys and other horrible atrocities” and 100 million of my compatriots believing it due to the enormous anti-Ukrainian propaganda in our official media.

    So what? It doesn’t make these lies any more truthful. Lies are lies no matter how many times they are repeated and no matter how many people believe them.


  27. April 3, 2015 2:05 am

    Vindicate MJ-

    You didn’t at all answer the question, but instead steered it into a different direction. But that’s fine. I didn’t really expect you to name any, because there are none. Nobody who’s innocent is accused this many times of the exact same crime. At least I haven’t heard of any such cases.

    And, um, no, it was not the propaganda of the media that made MJ into a pedophile and child molester. The boys/men who spent time with him and in his bed came out and accused him of it. They, and Neverland employees who saw what was happening. In other words, people who were actually present when the alleged crimes took place.

    I know I won’t be able to change your mind, I’m just saying that the fans can’t know for certain that the molestation didn’t happen, because they weren’t in the same room as Michael and his accusers. So them screaming how they know for sure that he’s innocent is irrational.

    Anyone can be a pedophile. Even a talented singer and dancer.


  28. April 3, 2015 5:54 am

    Anyone can be a pedophile. Even a talented singer and dancer.- szilvia09

    No, not everyone can be a pedophile, same as not everyone can be a murderer. Most people have a built-in aversion and ethic barrier to things like that. There are some who take down the barrier by a step-by-step erosion of their morals and following their worst self-indulgence instincts, but for those human beings who are not just animals but are real humans (have conscience, sense of responsibility, altruism and compassion for others, for example), such things are so much a taboo or so much belonging to a different realm that a possibility of doing anything like that even never enters their mind.

    The majority of teachers and pediatricians working with children are perfectly normal people who would be abhorred by your statement. Saying it about everybody is the same as stating that all surgeons who cut people’s bodies for medical reasons are potential murderers.

    By the way, by sharing views that “anyone can be a pedophile” you are actually promoting pedophilia agenda here. This is one of the many ways they are trying to push their ideas on the public. Please take care to no longer express their views here or I will have to take care of your presence in this blog.


  29. April 3, 2015 6:48 am

    “Nobody who’s innocent is accused this many times of the exact same crime. At least I haven’t heard of any such cases.”-szilvia09

    Accusation is no proof of guilt. By putting an equal mark between the two and claiming that anyone who is accused is already guilty you are distorting the picture and defying the basic legal principles. During his whole lifetime Michael had only three accusers and even those were scrambled with much difficulty after the mammoth work done for decades by his adversary Sneddon.

    When Michael made the mistake of settling with Jordan Chandler he could have had a flood of accusations because as Thomas Mesereau correctly said “Why work if you can sue Michael Jackson?”. But even then the number of accusers was minimal.

    First it was Jordan himself who later said that he “had done his part” and categorically refused to testify for the prosecution. Then it was Jason Francia who under much police duress finally complained of some “tickling” and ended his testimony at the trial by direct advice to Michael to leave the country (as he would not be left alone there anyway). And finally it was the Arvizo boy who hadn’t been molested for all the years he knew Michael but then decided that he was and right at the time when MJ came under close police and media scrutiny after Bashir’s film.

    That was all.

    As to naming people who were also accused and much more times than Michael, there is a sea of cases like that, however their difference from MJ’s situation was that they were never followed by the police, and the perpetrators were never prosecuted and were given free hand to go on with their crimes.

    This article for example, speaks of a huge cover-up of pedophilia crimes going on for decades and that Jimmy Savile was just the tip of an iceberg. The children did complain but no one really reacted to it:

    Jimmy Savile: ‘He was the tip of the iceberg’
    The Telegraph, 19th October 2012

    In the bleak days of March 2008, the world’s media gathered outside Haut de la Garenne, a forbidding and isolated former workhouse and children’s home on Jersey. Police were digging for possible human remains and other evidence after almost 200 former residents of the home alleged abuse, including torture and rape, by staff and visitors over many years, with claims that some youngsters had “disappeared”.

    Officers from mainland British forces, who had previously taken over leadership of the local force on a mission to root out alleged “endemic corruption” within Jersey’s constabulary, led the high profile investigation into historical child abuse on the island.

    Now two of those officers, Jersey’s former Chief Officer Graham Power and the former Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper, the senior officer in the Haut de la Garenne abuse inquiry, are backing victims’ calls for an outside force to investigate allegations that Sir Jimmy Savile and others, including some celebrities, regularly sexually abused children on Jersey.

    The shocking revelations of Savile’s depraved behaviour have, to the relief of the Jersey abuse victims, refocused attention on Haut de la Garenne. In their view, it confirms their claims that the home was at the heart of a well-protected paedophile ring.

    Allegations against Savile and other famous and powerful people were made during the 2008 inquiry. Earlier this week, the Telegraph revealed that another alleged abuser was the actor Wilfrid Brambell, the “dirty old man” of Steptoe and Son fame. One of two boys whom he abused in a back room at the Jersey Opera House in the Seventies was from Haut de la Garenne.

    The States of Jersey Police have confirmed that an Haut de la Garenne resident had alleged abuse by Savile in the mid-Seventies during the 2008 inquiry, but said there had been insufficient evidence for an investigation to proceed. The authority has also confirmed that three more victims of Savile on Jersey have contacted them in recent days.

    Carrie Modral, chair of the Jersey Care Leavers’ Association, a charity run by people who have spent time in care, says: “It’s good that the Savile scandal is making people think more about what happened here. But why have the States of Jersey only admitted it about Savile now? Because he’s dead and he can’t talk or bring down all the other big names. Their view would be that we, the survivors, keep going on about celebrities abusing kids at Haut de la Garenne, so OK, ‘Here’s one, he’s dead and he can’t talk.’ But Savile was just the tip of the iceberg.”

    Lenny Harper agrees: “Savile chose his victims with great care; vulnerable and often troubled youngsters many in care homes. If they complained they were labelled troublemakers, or brutally put down. We know from court cases and statements made to my team [during the 2008 inquiry] that children in Jersey care homes were ‘loaned out’ to members of the yachting fraternity and other prominent citizens on the pretence of recreational trips but during which they were savagely abused and often raped.

    “When these children complained they were beaten and locked in cellars [at Haut de la Garenne], which the Jersey authorities denied existed in 2008, but which can still be seen on YouTube footage. What chance did they have? This would have been the perfect hunting ground for Savile. The great and good of Jersey fawn over anyone with even loose connections to British royalty. Saville would have been a VIP to them and children would not have stood a dog’s chance of complaining about him. It would have been so easy for him.”

    Rumours about abuse at Haut de la Garenne had been rife for years but, according to Harper, junior police officers who tried to help those making allegations were “thwarted by corrupt seniors”. He claims that the 2008 inquiry so infuriated and embarrassed Jersey’s establishment that a campaign was initiated to smear the lead officers and label them credulous and money-wasting.

    The dig at the home was discredited, supposedly having found nothing, but even Harper’s critical successors in the investigation admit that at least three human bone fragments were found and children’s teeth, from between 10 and 65 children of all ages.

    These have never been adequately explained, Harper says. “They were not from a long ago cemetery or all animal bones, but the bones proved impossible to date. One anthropologist said they were a couple of decades old, but another said they could not be dated. We’ll never know. They were definitely human and juvenile.”

    Harper retired in autumn 2008, to spend more time with his daughter and her young family, after his Army officer son-in-law was killed in Iraq. His supportive boss, Chief Officer Graham Power, a former senior Met officer and recipient of the Queen’s Police Medal, was suspended in November 2008. Both officers were later investigated by outside forces, at Jersey’s instigation, but no evidence of misconduct was found.

    Jersey’s former health minister, Stuart Syvret, who backed the victims and police in the 2008 investigation, was also sacked. He was imprisoned last year for publicising a serious allegation on another, unrelated matter which, for legal reasons, cannot be described.

    Syvret told the Telegraph: “Jimmy Savile abused children in Jersey. I believed his victims. Just as I believe the two people who told me of child abuse by another TV personality [this week confirmed as Brambell] on Jersey from the Seventies. Just as I believed those who told me that the authorities of the day had ignored their complaints of years of abuse by others in Jersey’s children’s homes. Savile is dead, so why must we dig into the sorry and wretched details? Because the crucial feature of this case is not so much the individual crimes, as bad as they are, and as damaging for the victims; it is, instead, what I call the ‘culture of cover up’.”

    As a result of the fallout from the investigation into Haut de la Garenne, the public was left believing that Harper and his team had over-reacted to the abuse allegations. Yet three people have since been convicted of abuse as a result of the inquiry, and to date compensation has been agreed for over 100 victims, with many more civil cases pending.

    Police had allegations against 150 individuals, many never adequately investigated – including Savile. There are at least four known victims of Savile from Jersey, and at least one disclosed their abuse to police in 2008, yet it is only now that their claims are being considered seriously.

    Jersey Police have confirmed that one victim made accusations against Savile in 2008. But, for reasons that are still unclear, it is thought the allegations were not typed up into the statements seen by senior officers. It is believed that Savile denied ever having been to Haut de la Garenne and threatened to sue a newspaper for claiming that he visited the home.

    Although the Metropolitan Police are co-ordinating inquiries across Britain into Savile’s alleged crimes, it is individual forces that are expected to examine them in detail. Carrie Modral says few of the victims trust Jersey’s police to do so. “That window of opportunity closed when the Jersey establishment got rid of the good cops,” she says.

    It was a member of the Jersey Care Leavers’ Association who told police in 2008 that she was sexually abused at Haut de la Garenne by Savile. “The news about Savile has brought it all back, she is in great distress,” says Modral. “Savile visited regularly, not just Haut de la Garenne but other children’s homes on the island. He wasn’t the only visitor. The victim has named another household name who visited the home with Savile.”

    She added: “I can tell you that two staff members who abused her at another home have been imprisoned, and the authorities have agreed financial compensation for her. But another man in a position of authority who regularly visited Haut de la Garenne and abused her there is still free and now employed in a responsible position by the state.

    Lenny Harper has confirmed to the Telegraph that he arrested this man for allegedly raping two other children at the home: “I gave a lot of information to the authorities about him, but he’s still employed by them in a senior position,” Harper says. “There were two solid allegations of rape against him that would have been proceeded with if it was in the UK. There was similar fact evidence. But Jersey’s Attorney General ruled that it was not.

    “When we started the dig this man turned up and demanded access to the site. He allegedly wanted to get some stuff he’d left there years before. Yet this man’s name aroused more fear in the victims than any other in the inquiry.”

    Ms Modral agreed: “He was no holds barred. And I have been told he made it clear he had friends and felt he would be protected. If he goes down he will bring down the government [in Jersey], because of what he knows about other people. The press needs now to look at all the other big name visitors to the home.”

    What Savile did to the victim was “horrible, but small beer” compared to what others did to her, says Modral. “Savile put her on his knee and got his hand up her skirt. Then he tried to touch her little sister, and she pulled her away when he started to cuddle her. She was already being abused at Haut de la Garenne by staff, so she knew what he would do. Imagine being so young yourself and trying to save your little sister. They were 11 and nine.”

    Modral says she met Savile when he visited a youth club on the island. “It’s ridiculous that he said he was never here. He was always coming to the island to open charity walks, and [visit] the children’s home and children would go [to see him]. I didn’t like the man, I stayed well away, I found him frightening, just the look of him.”

    Possible links are emerging between abuse in Jersey children’s homes and the earlier notorious Islington children’s homes paedophile ring. A key figure in the ring, Islington’s deputy children’s homes superintendent Nicholas Rabet, came from Jersey. He had worked there in childcare, and regularly took children from the north London council’s homes on camping trips to the island.

    Rabet fled Britain after the press exposed him, but was charged in Thailand in 2006 with abusing 30 boys there, the youngest six. He killed himself before he could be tried.

    His ally, Neil Hocquart, killed himself in custody in Ely, Cambridgeshire, in 1991, after being found with hundreds of paedophile videos. He had grown up in care in Norfolk and was taken to Guernsey, where he became the “cabin boy” of a sea captain, before returning to Britain to recruit children for the paedophile ring. Karin Ward, who featured in the ITV documentary about Savile that sparked the current inquiries, has described being abused by the star during a camping trip to Jersey from her Norfolk children’s home.

    The former Jersey Chief Officer Graham Power says the fact that more than 100 victims on Jersey have now received out-of-court settlements and a significant number of civil cases are still pending illustrates the scale of the abuse. He says he understands why victims mistrust the local force to investigate the Savile allegations: “The scale of abuse that occurred in this small community was so great that it seems to be beyond doubt that persons in authority must have known something of what was taking place, and, from what we know so far, they appear to have done nothing to protect the children who were being abused in establishments operated by their own government. This is a matter which merits honest and independent examination.”

    Alan Collins, a solicitor with Pannone, a legal firm specialising in abuse cases that is representing 58 of the victims, says initially all the focus was on Haut de la Garenne, its workers and management. “Jimmy Savile was a sideshow. I honestly couldn’t say how many have named Savile. But there were several people who named him, it was plural, not singular. All the allegations need to be looked at now en masse for similar fact evidence, because now we are seeing a bigger jigsaw. Each individual complaint makes more sense now. Savile is dead but others who abused them are not.”

    Full story:


  30. April 3, 2015 7:29 am

    “You didn’t at all answer the question, but instead steered it into a different direction.” -szilvia09

    I haven’t steered the answer into a different direction – the analogy is absolutely correct. The game is the same in its essence and all it requires is 1) the idea 2) willing or nominated participants 3) massive propaganda to realize the plan.

    If the idea is to portray someone (even a country) as a villain, lots of willing and nominated participants will join in (up to actors on TV telling their pathetic stories and bringing the audience to tears and a state of “noble anger” for the alleged perpetrators), and mass propaganda will put the final touch by boosting all of it to cosmic proportions and making extremely selective reporting of the events. This is the pattern how they do it.

    The same with Michael Jackson. The idea or goal was set sometime in the 1980s when unsuspecting MJ was nominated by real pedophiles attending a NAMBLA conference for the role of their poster boy. They planned to use his popularity for breaking the wall of resistance to ped-lia and the only thing they needed for it was to bring MJ down to their level and create the impression that he was one of them. Gutierrez who attended the respective NAMBLA conference disclosed the plan in one of his very early interviews to some Danish source, if I remember it correct.

    The task of compromising MJ was realized with the help of at least two rogues – Gutierrez, a suspected boy-lover, and Rodney Allen, a convicted pedophile. Both were possibly working as police informants and both were in close cooperation with Diane Dimond (Gutierrez was her “best source” and with Rodney Allen she had continuous correspondence. Sneddon knew both of them too).

    Gutierrez made rounds of the parents of all boys in MJ’s vicinity and found Evan Chandler as a willing participant. His son Jordan was the first to join in. He accused MJ but couldn’t prove it as his description was all wrong. Later he refused to cooperate with the police dropping an enigmatic reply “I’ve done my part”.

    To fill in the holes in the story and make up for the lack of real evidence the media unleashed a horrible anti-Michael hysteria and trashed him for decades (compare it with real pedophiles like Sandusky and Savile of whom they didn’t say a word).

    So all necessary components of a full-scale scam are there – the goal, willing participants (motivated by money or “noble anger”) and a massive support from the media.

    I don’t see much difference between what was done to Michael and what our regime is doing now to Ukraine. Sometimes I even think that our propagandists learned from those who perfected their skills on vilifying Michael. It was a sort of a mass pilot project conducted by the West which convinced our guys who attentively followed it that anyone can be accused of anything and everyone will believe it even in the absence of any evidence.

    And now all of us are “enjoying” the consequences of it.


  31. Jasper permalink
    April 3, 2015 4:25 pm

    There are some who take down the barrier by a step-by-step erosion of their morals and following their worst self-indulgence instincts

    You mean like people who get addicted to drugs or go on spending sprees or have people around to cater to their every whim?


  32. Jasper permalink
    April 3, 2015 4:29 pm

    The idea or goal was set sometime in the 1980s when unsuspecting MJ was nominated by real pedophiles attending a NAMBLA conference for the role of their poster boy.

    Just one? That would be pointless. It didn’t work with Michael anyway, everyone knows he is innocent, so what other celebrities have they tried this with?


  33. nancyphillips permalink
    April 3, 2015 7:18 pm


    And what other famous person you know has been the constant victim of frivolous lawsuits, betrayal for money by friends, people making up stories about them just to cash in or get attention, writing books, etc–both in life and in death? MJ was one of the biggest icons of all time and the bigger you are, the more of a target you’re going to be, so this whole “where there’s smoke there’s fire” argument doesn’t necessarily apply to him because of the sheer volume of opportunists and shady individuals throughout his life and are still surfacing to this day. My favorite was the guy who claimed that he was MJ’s long lost son and took a bogus DNA test to try and get compensation from the estate.


  34. MattsFTR permalink
    April 3, 2015 8:11 pm

    Nancy, not sure which story we are sticking to? Is it the one where MJ was a poor old soul who had lost all his fortune, power and influence, or the one where MJ was a fabulously wealthy icon who was a target? I’m confused.

    And how many frivolous lawsuits has MJ paid out? I know the Chandlers were one, how many more were there?

    How about people making up positive stories about him to cash in, create publicity for themselves or sell books? We should be speaking out against them too just to be consistent because lies are lies and there were enough lies in MJs life already.


  35. nancyphillips permalink
    April 3, 2015 8:18 pm


    I’ve never heard of anyone making up positive stories about MJ just to cash in. Everyone knows that negative is what sells.


  36. MattsFTR permalink
    April 3, 2015 9:48 pm


    I’m thinking people who say they were his best friend when they hardly knew him. Think that scumbag Marc Schaffel and his lawsuit that by some miracle he won.


  37. April 4, 2015 12:56 am

    – “There are some who take down the barrier by a step-by-step erosion of their morals and following their worst self-indulgence instincts” vmj
    – “You mean like people who get addicted to drugs or go on spending sprees or have people around to cater to their every whim?” -jasper

    No need for sarcasm, jasper, we were discussing sexual depravity and it is promiscuity and lust that erode the natural moral barriers of a human being, and not his spending sprees.
    As to drugs – as far as I remember Oprah Whinfrey also took drugs and even admitted it herself. And the Queen of England has lots of people around her to cater to her every whim.
    So what?


  38. Jasper permalink
    April 4, 2015 2:00 am

    sexual depravity and it is promiscuity and lust that erode the natural moral barriers of a human being

    Oh, I see!

    You mean the kind of people that own books like Double Dicking Caroline, Hawk Magazine (featuring “Picnic Pussy Party: All You Can Eat Sweet Meat!”), Club International (featuring “My Snatch Wants Cock!” “Spunk in My Mouth!”), Man; A Sexual Study of Man (featuring oral and anal sex between two men), and Plumpers (very disrepctful to overweight women)?

    Those kind of people?


  39. April 4, 2015 3:49 am

    “Those kind of people?” – jasper

    I’m informed about the girlie magazines found in a locked suitcase under MJ’s bed downstairs and two closed boxes found on the second level of his bedroom of which we don’t even know whether he even opened them. But if you are interested, the full inventory is provided by lacienegasmiled site, who listed every piece of adult materials found in Neverland, even those that could be traced to some other people visiting Neverland

    But what I noticed is that firstly, the earliest magazines which are Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler were dated 1991 when Michael was 33 (which is twice the age when most men are interested in matters of sex).

    And the second thing I noticed is that Michael also had 10,000 books in his library, and besides (or before) reading adult magazines he also read history, philosophy and poetry books, not to mention the Bible which he was still spreading for example, in late 80s and early 90s (when he was friends with Safechuck and Robson).

    His reading habits are described in the article below, and if you find another pop-and-rock superstar who was similarly keen on reading serious literature (and listening to classical music) please come to see me here again and I will gladly discuss it with you. But not before you find me someone else like him.

    Michael Jackson “Extremely Well-Read,” Had 10,000 Books
    Posted on July 2, 2009 | By stephen_j_gertz

    The King of Pop a dweeby book lovin’ geek?

    Apparently so, and hooray. He was an avid reader who had an appropriately majestic library at Neverland that held 10,000 volumes on its shelves, according to two recent Los Angeles newspaper articles.

    In the midst of a lengthy interview in the L.A. Weekly, Jackson attorney Bob Sanger revealed the following as his last of three golden attributes that defined the Gloved One.

    “Michael was extremely well-read…I knew Michael, but I got to know him a lot better at the trial. The judge was doing jury selection, and it was time for break. Judge Melville said, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to know that jury service is very, very important.’ He’s trying to convince people not to have stupid excuses to get out of jury service. All judges do this. He says, ‘The jury system is a very time-honored system. It’s been around for 200 years. We’re going to take a break and come back in 15 minutes.’

    “We stand up and the judge leaves, and Michael turns to me and says, ‘Bob, the jury system is much older than 200 years, isn’t it?’ I said, ‘Well, yeah, it goes back to the Greeks.’ He says, ‘Oh yeah, Socrates had a jury trial, didn’t he?’ I said, ‘Yeah, well, you know how it turned out for him.’ Michael says, ‘Yeah, he had to drink the hemlock.’ That’s just one little tidbit. We talked about psychology, Freud and Jung, Hawthorne, sociology, black history and sociology dealing with race issues. But he was very well read in the classics of psychology and history and literature.

    “He loved to read. He had over 10,000 books at his house. And I know that because – and I hate to keep referring to the case, because I don’t want the case – the case should not define him. But one of the things that we learned – the DA went through his entire library and found, for instance, a German art book from 1930-something. And it turned out that the guy who was the artist behind the book had been prosecuted by the Nazis. Nobody knew that, but then the cops get up there and say, ‘We found this book with pictures of nude people in it.’ But it was art, with a lot of text. It was art. And they found some other things, a briefcase that didn’t belong to him that had some Playboys in it or something. But they went through the guy’s entire house, 10,000 books. And it caused us to do the same thing, and look at it.”

    “And there were places that he liked to sit, and you could see the books with his bookmarks in it, with notes and everything in it where he liked to sit and read. And I can tell you from talking to him that he had a very – especially for someone who was self-taught, as it were, and had his own reading list – he was very well-read. And I don’t want to say that I’m well-read, but I’ve certainly read a lot, let’s put it that way, and I enjoy philosophy and history and everything myself, and it was very nice to talk to him, because he was very intellectual, and he liked to talk about those things. But he didn’t flaunt it, and it was very seldom that he would initiate the conversation like that, but if you got into a conversation like that with him, he was there.”

    I’ll Be There
    As reported in the L.A. Times. Doug Dutton, proprietor of the legendary and now, alas, defunct, Dutton’s Books in Brentwood, was at a dinner with people from Book Soup, Skylight and other L.A. bookstores.

    “Someone mentioned that Michael Jackson had been in their store,” Dutton recalled. “Everybody said he’d shopped in their store too.”

    Doug first met Jackson in the early 1980s when the icon came in his shop wearing “very large sunglasses” and a suit of bodyguards. MJ was solitary and quiet. “There was no display of ‘I’m Michael Jackson,’” he recalled. “I don’t remember him actually saying anything.” Jackson bought four-five books during visits.

    Doug’s brother, Dave, remembers getting a call in the late ’80s – early ’90s from an MJ minion, who requested that the shop be closed early so Jackson could privately shop. “We did close early,” Dave said. Then, “about a quarter to nine he showed up in a big van. Once you got over the initial caution because of those burly guys with him, he was very nice. He loved the poetry section,” Dave’s son Dirk asserts that Ralph Waldo Emerson was Jackson’s favorite author. “I think you would find a great deal of the transcendental, all-accepting philosophy in his lyrics.”

    I would have bet the farm that, considering his obsession, Michael Jackson would have been a compulsive collector of all things Peter Pan, the collecting completist’s completist, acquiring every single edition of the book, every scrap of paper associated with it, and everything from the story’s subsequent incarnations.

    “He was a longtime and valued customer,” a spokesperson for Hennessey + Ingalls, the renowned art and architecture bookstore in Santa Monica, said in the L.A. Times piece.

    Turns out that Michael Jackson was a sort of Johnny Appleseed of reading, spreading books to all children. Former Los Angeles resident Cynde Moya remembers that “back when I worked at the Bookstar in Culver City, his people would have us keep the store open after hours, and he’d come in with a vanload of kids, who could buy whatever books they wanted.”

    As MJ’s life got stranger over time, so did his book buying habits. He would wear a surgical mask during his book shop visits, and in a video of him from New Year’s Eve 2008, he’s at Hennessey + Ingalls browsing for books, a black umbrella, held by an assistant, shielding him from the unflattering glare of florescent lighting.

    Or, maybe to prevent his love for books from being exposed.

    This is a problem that will never threaten the unread, book-hating and proud singing star Kanye West. It is a fact that intellect and pop entertainment values do not mix well in American culture: A pop star could never mysteriously disappear for a few days, drive family, friends, and the nation crazy with anxiety, then resurface with the rambling confession that he was incognito in Buenos Aires visiting the sultry, irresistible National Library of Argentina, full of hot-blooded Latin-American tomes, because he needed a change of scenery.

    Completely unbelievable. There must have been something else, something seamy, going on, perhaps with La Biblioteca Nacional de la Republica Argentina’s head of special collections, right? I mean, really, is nothing sacred?


  40. April 4, 2015 4:16 am

    A sample of books Michael Jackson had in his library:

    Malcolm X, by Alex Haley
    The Negro Caravan, by Sterling A. Brown
    Black Heroes of The 20th Century, by Jessie Carney Smith
    Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America, by James Allen
    Black in America, by Eli Reed
    King: A Photobiography of Martin Luther King Jnr, by Charles Johnson, Bob Adelman
    In Praise of Black Women, Volume 1: Ancient African Queens, by Simone Schwarz-Bart
    The Face of Our Past: Images of Black Women from Colonial America to the Present, by Kathleen Thompson and Hilary MacAustin
    Before the Mayflower, by Lerone Bennet Jr
    How To Eat To Live, by Elijah Muhammad
    The White Problem in America, by JET magazine authors
    Reflections in Black, by Deborah Willis


    Peter Pan, by J.M Barrie
    Jonathan Livingston Seagull by Richard Bach
    To Kill A Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
    The Old Man And The Sea, by Ernest Hemingway
    Rip Van Winkle, by Washington Irving
    The Verger, by Somerset Maugham
    The Complete Works of O. Henry
    The Reluctant Dragon by Kenneth Grahame
    The Red Balloon, by Albert Lamorisse
    They Cage the Animals at Night, by Jennings Michael Burch
    The Giving Tree, by Shel Silverstein
    Complete Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson
    Complete Stories and Poems of Edgar Allan Poe, by Edgar Allan Poe


    The 48 Laws Of Power, by Robert Greene
    As a Man Thinketh, by James Allen
    The Power of Positive Thinking, Norman Vincent Peale
    The Gift of Acabar, by Og Mandino
    Leaders Of Men: Types And Principles Of Success, As Illustrated In The Lives And Careers Of Famous Americans Of The Present day, by Henry Woldmar Ruoff
    The Greatest Salesman in the World by Og Mandino
    Your Creative Power, by Alex Osborn
    Reach Out for a New Life, by Robert Harold Schuller
    Hagakure: The Book Of The Samurai, by T. Yamamoto
    Books by Sri Aurobindo
    Books by Kalki Krishnamurthy


    Robert Burns poems – “Ae Fond Kiss, And Then We Sever”, “Tom O’Shanter”
    Poetry by Rabindranath Tagore
    Sufi Poetry
    Thoughts of Love: A Collection of Poems on Love, by Susan Polis Schutz
    The Children’s Hour, by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
    The Tyger, by William Blake
    The Bridge of Sighs, by Thomas Hood
    The Prophet, by Kahlil Gibran


    Abraham Lincoln, by Carl Sandburg
    Lincoln’s Devotional, by Carl Sandburg
    My Life in Pictures, by Charlie Chaplin
    Lennon in America: 1971-1980, Based in Part on the Lost Lennon Diaries, by Geoffery Giuliano
    Glass Onion: The Beatles In Their Own Words, by Geoffrey Giuliano
    The Beatles Illustrated Lyrics, by Alan Aldridge
    The Lost Lennon Interviews, by Giuliano
    Things We Said Today: Conversations with the Beatles, by Geoffrey Giuliano
    Elvis Day By Day, by Peter Guralnick
    The Rolling Stones: A Life on the Road
    Bruce Lee: The Celebrated life of the Golden Dragon, by John Little
    Elia Kazan: A Life, by Elia Kazan
    Songs My Mother Taught Me, by Marlon Brando
    James Dean: An American Icon, by David Loehr
    Steps In Time, by Fred Astaire
    My Autobiography, by Charlie Chaplin
    Goldwyn: A Biography by A. Scott Berg
    Duse: A Biography, by William Weaver


    White Nights: The Story Of A Prisoner In Russia, by Menachem Begin
    The Rest Of Us: The Rise Of America’s Eastern European Jews, by Stephen Birmingham


    Planet Vegas : A Portrait of Las Vegas by 20 of the World’s Leading Photographers: Rick Browne, James Marshall
    Hurrell Hollywood: Photographs 1928-1990
    The Art Book, by Phaidon
    Going East: Two Decades of Asian Photography, by Max Pam


  41. April 4, 2015 4:33 am

    More about Michael’s reading habits and interests:

    By Mike Brantley
    on August 23, 2009 at 3:00 PM, updated August 23, 2009 at 3:12 PM

    Michael Jackson: “I watch cartoons. I love cartoons. I play video games. Sometimes I read.”
    Paul Theroux: “You mean you read books?”
    MJ: “Yeah. I love to read short stories and everything.”
    PT: “Any in particular?”
    MJ: “Somerset Maugham … Whitman. Hemingway. Twain.”

    Who’d a thunk it? Michael Jackson a serious reader? Paul Theroux’s recollection of an old conversation published in a recent London Telegraph indicates, and a June 27 story in the L.A. Times confirms, that the King of Pop was apparently just that.

    Jackson liked to discuss what he had read, though the circle of trusted confidants who could keep up with him was likely small. “We talked about psychology, Freud and Jung, Hawthorne, Sociology, black history and sociology dealing with race issues,” one of Jackson’s attorneys, Bob Sanger, told the L.A. Weekly. Noting that Jackson was well-versed in the classic works of all those subjects, Sanger concluded, “Go down the street and try and find five people who can talk about Freud and Jung.”

    Theroux was surprised at how substantive his exchange with Jackson turned out to be. After being vetted for an interview by Elizabeth Taylor (“He’ll talk to you if I ask him to”), Theroux was awakened by a telephone call during the wee hours from the King of Pop himself (“the voice was breathy, unbroken, boyish”). After some discussion about Jackson’s close friendship with Taylor, which Theroux likens to the relationship between Wendy and Peter Pan, the talk ranged over issues of fame and family before moving to the theme of lost childhood.

    Theroux quoted a line from the Irish poet George William Russell: “In the lost boyhood of Judas/ Christ was betrayed.” Jackson’s response was a soft “wow” and then a series of rapid-fire questions about what this meant, and what exactly was known about Judas, his childhood and his life. “I told him,” Theroux explained, “that Judas had red hair, that he was the treasurer of the Apostles, that he might have been Sicarii — a member of a radical Jewish group, that he might not have died by hanging himself but somehow exploded, all his guts flying.” This was followed by another 20 minutes of “Biblical apocrypha with Michael Jackson on the lost childhood of Judas” before the star uttered another soft “wow.”

    So, in his quiet moments Jackson was reading long and deep, seeking inspiration and insight. Then why did those vapid tours of Neverland Ranch (both before and after his death), which highlighted the carnival rides and the zoo animals and the fountains and the floral clock and the palatial mansion and the theater, never show or even mention Jackson’s personal library? According to Sanger in the L.A. Weekly, it consists of ten thousand volumes. There, I would humbly suggest, might lie more than a few answers to the many puzzles of Michael Jackson.

    Full story here:


  42. Zee permalink
    September 25, 2015 6:05 pm

    All these allegations are really horrible….my heart reaches out to his family and i want his children to know that dey have absolutely no reason to doubt their father’s innocence….it just showed in everytin he did dat he had a pure nd innocent heart. A ped-le (i reli hate dat word) wouldn’t openly admit d he loved children….period. Micheal had a pure heart….nd he didnt stop loving children even after all the lies….he really believed children cud make a better tmoro..and he neva stopped believing…he saw d world in a simple way….thru a child’s eyes. The media is really full of garbage…lets not forget that the media are actually just plain hungry people hidin behind dat name, lookin for various ways of survival,and also have a right to their own sick and twisted opinions(which is very sad)…well that is their own opinion and u also have a right to ur own, do not let dose sick people take away dat right from u, cos when it is taken,pple become dummies who let other people think for them. Michael had a big heart that cud fit in the whole world.


  43. Zee permalink
    September 25, 2015 6:25 pm

    All these allegations are really horrible….my heart reaches out to his family and i want his children to know that dey have absolutely no reason to doubt their father’s innocence….it just showed in everytin he did dat he had a pure nd innocent heart. A ped-le (i reli hate dat word) wouldn’t openly admit dat he loved children….period. Micheal had a pure heart….nd he didnt stop loving children even after all the lies….he really believed children cud make a better tmoro..and he neva stopped believing that…he saw d world in a simple way….thru a child’s eyes. The media is really full of garbage…lets not forget that the media are actually just plain hungry people hidin behind dat name, lookin for various ways of survival,and also have a right to their own sick and twisted opinions(which is very sad)…well that is their own opinion and u also have a right to ur own, do not let dose sick people take away dat right from u, cos when it is taken,pple become dummies who let other people think for them. Michael had a big heart that cud fit in the whole world. And to safechuck, it’s really unfortunate dat he could take a valued friendship and use it as a source of dailybread out of desperation…i mean….i really wish i was michael’s casual friend not to talk of being as close to him as liz taylor was…he was such a lovable person…sometimes i just try to imagine wat his life as a child must have bin like, i av these little cousins,5 to 10 years olds. They are so whiny and childish, and den i think ‘michael had to sing/work at that tender age, he had no chance to be whiny and childish’ then it breaks my heart. Rest in perfect peace michael,i wont stop lovin u.


  44. September 28, 2015 2:54 pm

    “A ped-le wouldn’t openly admit he loved children….period” – Zee

    Absolutely true.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: