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

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.

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.”

 

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.

 

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.