Skip to content

Safechuck’s Declaration in the LIE CYCLE and POKER GAME around Michael Jackson

March 30, 2015
Constant lies about Michael Jackson are like water cycle - they morph and change form but never end

Constant lies about Michael Jackson are like water cycle – they morph and change form but never end

The recent ‘supplementary declaration’ of James Safechuck reminds me of the continuous circulation of water in nature. Same as water constantly changes its form in the environment, lies about Jackson constantly change their form and morph into something different – once they evaporate into steam in one place they gather into clouds and fall as rain in another place thus turning fictional stories about Michael into a constant cycle of lies.

What I mean is that as soon as irrefutable proof is found that Wade Robson lied about his so-called “molestation” in early 1990 and his lie can no longer be corrected as it is actually fixed in writing in his amended complaint, the cloud decides to move to James Safechuck’s territory and rain there in the form of his ‘supplementary declaration’.

Robson’s supporters don’t bother to argue or explain the inconsistencies of his story – they simply drop a new bomb elsewhere to distract public attention while they themselves hurriedly fill in holes in Robson’s flimsy story and will most probably come with still another amended version of his saga.

The timing of James Safechuck’s ‘supplementary declaration’ filed on March 18, 2015  tells it all. It came three weeks after this, this and this posts were made in this blog in February this year.

Not that these articles were seen by that many people. What’s really important is that they were seen by Michael’s haters, and these guys absolutely cannot afford Robson’s lies debunked by anyone at all.

Unfortunately Robson’s lies were stated in writing which was an added inconvenience for their authors, so while they now think how to fine tune the complaint and free it from its fundamental inconsistencies, urgent help was summoned from Safechuck (who is incidentally represented by the same lawyers as Robson).

In short the rules of the game around Jackson are simple – the more lies you refute, the more ‘supplementary’ stories they tell you. And the problem here is that the truth is only one and often boring (nothing bad happened) while lies are numerous and exciting (as human fantasy is boundless). Lies constantly morph into something different and change the rules right in the process of the game.

This modus operandi is deplorable of course but should not be of too much concern for Michael’s defenders  – the knowledge of what liars do is already solving half the problem, and this is what this post will be all about.

THE OLD PATTERN

The morph-and-distraction pattern described above was first successfully used by Jordan Chandler’s civil lawyer Larry Feldman who resorted to exactly the same trick on December 28, 1993.

I mean the so-called Jordan Chandler’s ‘declaration’ which was suddenly made four months after his ‘abuse’ story was disclosed during filing a civil case in September 1993 after which the story was told and retold in much detail, especially in connection with Jordan’s statement to the police where he finally (and wrongly) described Michael Jackson’s genitalia.

This of his statements was used as a reason for subjecting Michael Jackson to an utterly humiliating strip search and examining his genitalia and buttocks. The strip search came on December 21, 1993 and brought the police nowhere as the photos proved that Jordan Chandler’s description of MJ’s private parts was all wrong.

Michael Jackson was fighting back tears when he described his Dec.21, 1993 ordeal

Michael Jackson was fighting back tears as he described his Dec.21, 1993 ordeal

The next day, on December 22 Michael Jackson went on satellite TV fighting back tears and explaining that he had to endure this horrible humiliation in order to establish his complete innocence.

The police were so stunned by the mismatch between what they expected and actually saw that they went dead silent for several weeks, after which the information about the mismatch was finally leaked to the press and this sensational news was published in a tiny piece in “USA Today” and went totally unnoticed by everyone.

After the strip search the Chandler camp was in a panic. It reached its peak when their civil lawyer Larry Feldman demanded that the 1) photos made during the strip-search should be shown to the accuser and 2) Jackson should subject himself to a second strip-search, or …. the accuser’s lawyer would motion for the photos to be barred from the civil trial.

They were so panicky about their case that their lawyer wanted to bar the crucial evidence of Michael’s innocence!

In short the whole scam was on the verge of collapsing, however our good old Larry Feldman found a way out – a week after the strip-search he prepared a ‘declaration’ by Jordan Chandler which was a clipped version of the boy’s earlier story. The big difference of that paper was that this time it carefully avoided all suggestion that Jordan could have ever possibly see MJ naked. This time all mention of ‘mutual masturbation’ was totally dropped from the narration while prior to that Jordan freely talked about it in his October 1993 interview with a psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Gardner.

The other difference of the paper was that it was filed in court together with depositions of a driver, maid and other characters. Through a clever wording this pile of documents created an illusion that Jordan Chandler’s declaration was a deposition too, while the truth of the matter was that Jordan was never deposed, neither before nor after the strip-search.

This way the seemingly unnecessary paper which simply repeated the allegations (with crucial omissions though) served two purposes – the renewed hysteria around it was meant to obscure the fact that MJ’s strip search proved Jordan to be a liar, and the other goal was to create an illusion that Jordan was deposed, while he absolutely wasn’t.

Let me remind you that Michael as a defendant in a civil case had an unlimited right to have Jordan deposed and grilled by his lawyers in his, Michael’s presence, but he evidently felt sorry for him and refrained from it in order to save the boy from the humiliation of a harsh scrutiny and public admission of his lies. He thought it was his father’s doing, not Jordan’s.

Producing a new and seemingly unnecessary declaration from Chandler at a moment when the accuser’s situation was close to hopeless proved itself to be an effective tool of negative publicity triggering a new wave of media hysteria. The pattern used for the job was simple as a piece of cake – as soon as the evidence found in the discovery process turned out to be extremely damaging for the accuser’s story, all that needed to be done was change the initial story and pretend that it had always been that way.

So when Michael Jackson proved by his naked ordeal that Jordan’s story was a lie, the problem was dealt with through a new Jordan’s declaration that simply did not mention the situation in which he could see him naked.

So what if he previously said that Michael was circumcised and he turned out to be not? The new declaration gave a long and horrid description of the “abuse” but carefully avoided any mention of the circumcision blunder, and this made his complaint only better and sparkle as new!

This proven pattern of lies was once again used ten years later, in 2003 when the text of Jordan’s declaration was leaked by some well-wishers on the very day when Bashir’s so-called documentary aired on TV. By then the public had completely forgotten Jordan’s original story and no soul on earth could remember that this paper was made just as a smokescreen to cover up for the fundamental inconsistencies in his allegations.

Even in 1993 the public hardly knew that there was no proof for what Jordan said, not to mention ten years later when his “declaration” came on the suspecting public as a bolt of lighting from a clear blue sky. All the people did at that time was look in horror at what the boy said. 

SAFECHUCK AND HIS TROLL TEAM

James Safechuck

James Safechuck

And now all of us are similarly looking at what Safechuck says.

By pressing on us his ‘supplementary’ story they force us to discuss his revelations in full seriousness, while the sole purpose of the document is to distract attention from Robson, come to his rescue and bolster his case when it already began to fall apart due to its grave discrepancies and contradictions.

The pattern of a lie cycle suggests that when the effect of earlier lies is beginning to wear off new lies should be immediately thrown in – in order to keep people in a constant state of shock and amazement and “gain momentum” so to say.

Throwing in lies after lies and building the suspension is actually a classic method of any mass brainwashing technique which is being professionally used now by the team of supporters of Robson and Safechuck.

How do we know that Safechuck’s ‘supplementary declaration’ was made mostly for the sake of publicity and its main idea is to bias the public and exert maximal emotional pressure on everyone including the judge?

We know it from the fact that the poor Safechuck wreck who makes himself out (in his declaration) as an extremely publicity-shy guy leaked the paper to two anti-Michael sources just for the sake of publicity he supposedly hates so much.

The declaration did not appear on the LA Superior Court official page of filed documents, and this means that it was sealed by the court, however the fate of being unknown is not what this document was meant for. To derive maximal publicity from these ‘supplemental’ revelations the paper was leaked on a private basis to a team of anti-Michael forces – an act which alone proves that Safechuck and Robson and the group of their supporters/MJ haters are working in close collaboration with each other.

Please check up the list of filed documents with the LA Superior Court and see for yourself that the declaration of March 18, 2015 is simply not there. No media source and no blog, all the more so, could buy it from court as it was not even offered for purchase there. So the only source it could come from was Safechuck himself or his lawyers.

BP117321 -documents filed

A fragment from probate case BP117321 shows that there is no 03/18/2015 document there

Respective fragment from civil case BC508502 showing that the 03/18/2015 declaration is not there either

A fragment from civil case BC508502 shows that the 03/18/2015 document is not there either

And here are the two anti-Michael sources whom Safechuck trusted with publishing his sealed declaration.

The fact that these papers come with the corresponding logos on them tells us that the document was provided to both of them in its original form and that it isn’t a mere reprint of the document by one source from the other:

Safechuck's supplementary declaration published by a haters' site

Safechuck’s “sealed” declaration published by a haters’ site

Safechuck's supplementary declaration published by Radaronline

Safechuck’s “sealed” declaration published by Radaronline

The above proves that the alleged “victims” and the anti-Michael sources are highly likely to be in collusion with each other. And since such collaboration is rarely a one-way street I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out that the cooperation is working the other way too and that these sources are actually advising the alleged “victims” on how to develop their story and build up their strategy to further character assassinate Michael Jackson and rob his Estate of all the money it has.

These people are actually the same guys who follow each word of Michael’s defenders and who immediately change their strategy as soon as the new circumstances exonerating Michael are uncovered.  One of them is a blog of dedicated MJ haters who has been ignoring all proof of his innocence for as long as it existed, and the second is a gossip media outlet which switched to some animal hatred for Michael Jackson when the Australian Dylan Howard became its editorial director.

Now Radaronline is taking their scandal mongering to a totally new level as it was recently joined by no other than Alan Duke himself.

Could any of us ever believe that a human transformation like that is ever possible? And that a respected journalist like Alan Duke will now be writing Jacko stories for RadaroOnline?

In fact the morphing of Alan Duke into someone different shattered me even more than all these supplementary revelations from James Safechuck – news like this can leave one totally devastated and devoid of all hope in humanity:

CNN Vet Alan Duke Jumps to Radar Online

By Richard Horgan on Oct. 21, 2014 – 2:45 PM

Alan DukeFor the past five and a half years, for all but one month, Alan Duke’s byline has been the number one desktop-views attraction at CNN Digital. During that one month in question, Duke went on vacation for three weeks.

<> Although Duke was spared in the latest round of CNN layoffs, the journalist – who had been with CNN since 1989 – decided it was time to leave. As of this week, he is the Los Angeles-based national correspondent for revamping AMI website Radar Online.

“Last month, there was an event that really told me this was the time to leave,” Duke tells Fishbowl NY via telephone.

“We had an internal “huddle” [meeting] for CNN Digital, which was both a pep talk and an update on business affairs. In the executives’ statements and voices, I just picked up panic and chaos.”

Other issues for Duke included the manner in which CNN Digital senior vice president and GM Kenny Estenson was dismissed (via telephone while on vacation in Maui with his family) and a mission statement that CNN Digital needed to “better compete” with BuzzFeed and The Huffington Post.

“I have nothing against BuzzFeed,” Duke notes. “They do a lot of things well. It’s just that the kind of depth and context I try to bring to entertainment news stories is something different. The idea that we were going to go after trending topics the way BuzzFeed and The Huffington Post do was my signal to call Dylan [Howard] back [at Radar Online] and say, ‘Let’s talk.’”

Duke, a multi-platform journalist who prides himself on strong item sourcing, checked in with close friend and one-time CNN confidant Tom Johnson before making the move to Radar. He will continue to roam Los Angeles, from Starbucks to the court houses, to blanket his beat. “Have laptop, will travel” he notes enthusiastically.

http://www.adweek.com/fishbowlny/alan-duke-cnn-digital-radar-online/231137

We remember Alan Duke for his honest and largely unbiased reporting of the AEG trial, but evidently honesty doesn’t pay…

By the way, speaking about money one of the commentators on Safechuck’s declaration asked an extremely pertinent question – while Robson is known to have sold his condo and at least has/had around a million from that sale, who can be paying the costly legal fees for a modest computer programmer like Safechuck?

“I do not believe Robson/Safechuck’s legal team to be contingency-based. There are technically two separate ventures here, so the total legal fees may be very similar in comparison to the Estate’s legal fees. Regardless, I cannot see this being less than six figures for both separately.  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.”

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/129320-Discussion-Wade-Robson-files-claim-of-sexual-abuse-against-MJ-Estate

The question is extremely interesting and reasonable too, especially when you look at the huge amount of papers generated by the Robson/Safechuck team under the two lawsuits each of them filed.

Who is indeed paying for all this?

THE SEA OF DOCUMENTS

Example of a sealed document released  in a redacted from (Robson's second amended complaint under civil case BC508502)

Example of a sealed document released in a redacted from (Robson’s second amended complaint under civil case BC508502)

Like I said, the documents related to Robson’s and Safechuck’s cases are listed on the LA Superior Court official page with the exclusion of confidential and sealed documents.

Sealed documents are also sometimes disclosed to the public but in a redacted form – like Robson’s second amended complaint, for example.

Let us also note that the recent ‘supplemental’ declaration of Safechuck happily reported by two anti-MJ sources, is not redacted and comes in its full form which once again proves that it was obtained in an illegal way, by bypassing the court.

There is a huge number of petitions, motions, opposition to motions and etcetera related to the alleged “victims” cases on the LA Superior Court page, but even this list is far from complete as sealed documents are not included there and are not even seen on the page.

To guide us through the torrent of documents related to Robson here is some help from the Daily Michael site dated March 12, 2015:

“As you might know Robson has two cases against MJ Estate, one of them is a creditor’s claim filed at probate court and second one is a civil case. Below is brief information about both cases.

Probate case:  Robson is asking to be allowed to file a late creditor claim (9103 motion). Estate opposed to it. Estate says if late filing of creditor claim is granted, they would likely deny the creditor’s claim and Robson said if that’s the case he would add Executors as Doe 4 and Doe 5 in his civil case.

Civil case: Civil case has been initially brought against Doe defendants. In his second amended complaint Robson named Doe 2 and Doe 3 as MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures. Doe 1 is for MJ. Estate filed a demurrer in the civil case. Judge decided to keep Doe 1 as a placeholder for the time being pending the outcome of the probate claim. Judge granted the demurrer request of the corporate defendants but gave Robson the chance to amend his complaint.

(Legal explanation: Judge sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. Demurrer is dismissal request stating there’s no legal basis for a lawsuit.  Sustain a demurrer means law does not recognize a legal claim for the facts stated by the complaining party. Leave to amend means the plaintiff may correct errors filing a corrected, amended complaint).

Robson served his third amended complaint on December 16, 2014. However the online system does not show this document. Estate’s response to the third amended complaint was due March 10, 2015. Luckily this document is available at the online system.

http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/294-round-2-at-robson-civil-case

The above may be a little difficult for a non-legal mind, so let’s go over it again:

  • Robson filed two cases against the Estate – a civil case and a probate case which has to do with wills, testaments, etc. and in his case with a creditor’s claim.
  • The number of the probate case is BP117321.
  • The Estate opposes it and says that if the judge allows late filing of a creditor’s claim, they are likely to deny it. Robson threatens that in this case he will add the Executors of MJ’s Estate as Doe 4 and Doe 5 to his other (civil) case.
  • The number of his other, civil case is BC508502.
  • The civil lawsuit was filed by Robson against Michael Jackson (Doe 1) and MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures (Doe 2 and Doe 3). This number of defendants may be increased by Doe 4 and Doe 5 in case Robson fulfils his threat and adds the Executors to the case.
  • In the civil case the Estate filed a demurrer (request to dismiss it) and the judge sustained it as he didn’t recognize Robson’s claim as a legal one. However Robson was allowed to “correct errors” in it and on December 16, 2014 he filed already his third amended version of the complaint.
  • In this post we discussed the second amended version of his claim dated February 14, 2014. So the good boy Robson is changing his story even quicker that we follow it and handle his amended lies. Most probably Robson is busy changing the wording of his motivation why he made his complaint at so late a time in order to make his case go forward on a formal basis.
  • The LA Superior Court page does not show Robson’s third amended complaint, but it has the Estate’s second demurrer to it (second request to dismiss) filed on March 10, 2015. Anyone can read its summary on the Daily Michael site quoted above. Unfortunately this second request for dismissal doesn’t explain what amendments were made by Robson in his third version of the complaint.
  • And the last note to make here is that the page where the prices for the documents are cited is seen only by those who have registered with the site. For all others the document with a lengthy name of “Notice of hearing on demurrer and demurrer to third amended complaint by defendants MJJ Productions, Inc. and MJJ Ventures, Inc; Memorandum of points and authorities in support”  will look like a simple “Demurrer” on the page open to the general public.
  • The comparison of two pages proves that the document is actually one and the same, though its name looks different:
  • This is how the page for payment looks like. It lists the full name of the document
  • And this is how the same document looks on the page open to the public.  The document is the same though its name is shortened
  • The date of 3/10/2015  and the common subject confirms that these fragments refer to one and the same document.
  • I’m explaining all this for your better guidance and making the process of your swimming in the sea of court papers easier. Knowing the numbers of the cases you can follow their progress at the online site of the LA Superior Court absolutely individually. Here is a link to it.

Now come Safechuck’s documents.

Over here we don’t have help from the Daily Michael and have to swim on our own:

  • The front page of Safechuck’s “supplementary declaration” refers to the same probate case as Robson’s  – BP117321. This means that Safechuck is also party to a Creditor’s claim against the Estate and also aspires to $1.62 billion from them.
  • The front page of another of his documents (“Opposition to the Estate’s demurrer”) dated December 3rd, 2014 informs us that his probate case BP117321 is related to his civil case BC545264 called “Safechuck vs. Doe 1. et al”.
  • This means that Safechuck also filed a civil lawsuit against the Estate and it is separate from Robson’s. See this page for proof that Safechuck filed two cases and they are related to Robson’s civil suit:Safechuck's probate case BP117321 is related to civil case BC545264 and BC508502 - radaronline
  • However next comes a big surprise for all of us – the search of LA Superior Court online documents for civil case BC545264 filed by James Safechuck says that there is no case under this number.
The court filings say that Safechuck's civil suit DOES NOT EXIST

The court online page says that Safechuck’s civil suit doesn’t exist

So in December 2014 the civil case was still there (as the above paper showed it) and by March 2015 it has already disappeared?

Well, this strange phenomenon can probably mean that Safechuck is happy with his and Robson’s common probate case BP117321 for a creditor’s claim of $1.62 billion, and/or cancelled, suspended or merged his civil case with that of Robson’s?

Regardless of the reason Safechuck’s probate case seems to be the only one active at the moment.

  • Safechuck makes his declaration under probate case BP177321

    Safechuck made his ‘supplementary’  declaration under probate case BP177321

    Indeed, the front page of Safechuck’s ‘supplementary’ declaration clearly says that it comes under probate case BP117321 and was filed on March 18, 2015. However we’ve already learned that the open sources of the LA Superior Court don’t show it.

  • This means that the document is sealed, but this obstacle, as we also know,  didn’t prevent the two anti-Michael sources (RadarOnline and MJ hate facts) from readily publishing it.
  • Let me stress once again that this is proof enough that these sources are working against MJ in close collaboration with each other and that Safechuck, Robson and their lawyers are part of the collusion.

And though it is always useful to sort out the papers and see the actual status of the cases, one of the biggest conclusions for me from all this paperwork is that since the alleged “victims” are so closely knit with anti-MJ forces (Radaronline, MJ haters’ site) we should no longer tolerate their hypocritical statements that “information about $1.62 billion wanted by Robson isn’t credible as it was reported by a tabloid.”

$1.62 BILLION ONCE AGAIN

The terrible hypocrisy of this statement is the fact that the tabloid in question is actually the haters’ own pal. It is their favourite RadarOnline with whom the alleged “victims” share their innermost secrets and sealed papers, so if this pal reports the sum of $1.62 billion demanded by the complainants, let the haters accept it, please.

Rewording a quote attributed to Harry Truman, this tabloid may indeed be son of a bitch, but it is their son of a bitch, so let MJ haters stop being choosy and fastidious as regards their requirements for “more credible” sources. As they make their bed so they must lie on it, and if RadarOnline is their favourite mouthpiece and proven collaborator they should accept from it whatever it has to offer them.

So let us not even consider a possibility of doubt when we cite RadarOnline as a source of information about the $1.62 billion grab Robson and Safechuck are hoping to make by their fictional stories.

Let us state boldly, clearly and without hesitation that $1.62 billion is really the sum they want from Michael Jackson’s Estate:

Radar Online reported yesterday that Wade Robson, a dance choreographer, alleges that he was extensively molested, raped, and even called “son” by Jackson.

According to the lawsuit for a massive $1.62 billion, the abuse took place at Michael Jackson’s Santa Barbara County ranch, as well as other locations, from 1990 until 1997.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1394174/michael-jackson-pedophilia-lawsuit-wade-robson-claims-1-62-billion-for-molestation-and-rape/#PCk4AT0OXzDu4z5q.99

In a claim reportedly worth $1.62 billion, Brisbane-born dance choreographer Wade Robson alleges he was extensively molested, raped and even called ‘son’ by Michael Jackson. He alleges the molestation took place at the late singer’s Santa Barbara County ranch and other locations in the from 1990 until 1997 although Jackson’s estate lawyers have called the accusations outrageous and pathetic, reported Radar Online.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2716878/Australian-choreographer-alleges-molested-Michael-Jackson.html#article-2716878

The above sum is wanted for something the accusers didn’t initially remember, or didn’t realize, or realized but didn’t report, or reported but didn’t realize (this last point refers to Safechuck who allegedly told his mother in 2005 that MJ was “bad”, but nevertheless “didn’t understand it” until 2014).

A comment made by one of the observers on the above word manipulations solves the mystery of their total lack of logic and explains all these “late creditor’s claims” and “their unawareness that they were abused” in a laconic statement which I wholly agree with:

  • “They didn’t file a case till the estate was out of the red. They didn’t have any trouble understanding that fact.”

Nothing could explain the essence of these cases better and in so few words too.

THE POKER GAME

Considering that Radaronline and other sources reporting the $1.62 billion demand also heavily focus on the “rape” issue regarding Wade Robson let me say a short word about it too.

When I first learned that Robson was claiming “anal rape”, I reacted to it with a huge sigh of relief – yes, relief.

This detail pointed to a blatant lie from Robson as rape (even when presented as “consensual”) can never be forgotten by a child, cannot be mistaken for anything else and can leave no room for any another interpretation other than what it is.

So when Robson claimed that when he testified in court at the age of 23 and even at the age of 30 he still “didn’t realize” that he had been raped, he made himself look like a complete clown and a total idiot at that.

The “rape” point was a clear blunder on his part. As is usual with fake accusers such a mistake resulted from his desire to make his story more shocking and impressive, however the end result was the opposite one – it made his allegations sound too ridiculous and absurd, and in their turn compromised his other, “milder” complaints.

So remembering this blunder in Robson’s story it was exceptionally interesting to find out what claims were made by his co-conspirator Safechuck. Would he make the same mistake and would he avoid it?

To determine it we needed to find Safechuck’s first complaint and compare it with his ‘supplementary’ one recently pressed on us by MJ haters.

Safechuck’s original complaint was filed on May 10, 2014 which came (surprise-surprise) right on the eve of releasing Michael Jackson’s Xscape album on May 13th.

However a thorough search for the document brought me nowhere – the paper was sealed from the very start of it and has not yet been unsealed (in contrast to Robson’s declaration, for example).

But if we never saw that paper, then who was the one to break Safechuck’s story to us?

Well, naturally it was RadarOnline, who in their turn referred to Michael’s big friend Diane Dimond and she in her turn said that she had got the story from the sources close to Safechuck.

Great. So the very least we can conclude from the above is that now we have proof that the group of “insiders” having direct access to Robson and Safechuck papers includes not only Radaronline and MJ hater site, but the old veteran Diane Dimond too.

Another highly observant commentator noted in this connection that Safechuck as the “anxious little wreck” who claimed in his declaration that he was fearful of coming forward “because of publicity” nevertheless “made sure to run to Diane Dimond to get her report about his complaint when it was hardly even filed yet”.

There are many more illogical points in his declaration but let us leave the discussion of it until a later time. At the moment let us try to simply find out what claims were made by Safechuck in his initial complaint. The only source we have to rely on here is Diane Dimond and she said that his claim was “the same type of sex abuse claim as Wade’s”:

“The latest sexual assault complaint, filed in court last Friday, remains sealed, but two sources close to the case revealed that the man involved is James Safechuck. …Partners in that firm declined to comment on their latest filing.

“It’s the same type of sex abuse claim as Wade’s,” a source close to Safechuck said. “Only with a different set of facts … and dates.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/12/exclusive-michael-jackson-hit-with-new-sex-abuse-claim.html

This made me think that Safechuck’s story could also include the alleged rape, which would be actually good for reasons stated above. However another insider called DSSL who is one more person actively cooperating with the MJ hate team, revealed in a recent entry on a MJ haters’ site that Safechuck’s complaint didn’t include “anal sodomy”.

Well, if it is true it is actually a disappointment as it is a correction of the scammers’ initial mistake.

Let us remember that Safechuck made his claim a year after Robson, and by then it had become clear that the public would not buy a story that a grave abuse like the one described by Robson could be first “forgotten”, or conversely (as his later version suggested it) “never forgotten” but still “not realized to be sexual abuse” until after some therapy sessions helped poor Robson to understand it.

This story was totally lame and implausible, and by the time Safechuck emerged from his therapy and made his complaint a year later this blunder had already been spotted and was no longer to be repeated.

Of course Diane Dimond’s vague description that the alleged abuse of Safechuck was “the same as Wade’s” made the public think what their wildest imagination prompted them to think, but the scammers themselves realized that Safechuck’s complaint should not include the allegations that would look too ridiculous and would be too easy to debunk – and hence their decision to drop the rape version even as a chance.

Let us remember that these people are playing a poker game against Michael Jackson and are opening their cards very slowly, each time checking the reaction of Michael’s defenders. And depending on the critical feedback they get from us they change their story accordingly.

Their business is a non-stop factory of lies about MJ, where one model of lies is replaced by another one depending on the weak spots in their previous produce uncovered by the other side.

So does it mean that we should sit and wait till they provide us with the final variant of their fictional stories? Well, I’m not so sure of it. Given that their lies are endless, waiting for years while they tell their whole story would be equivalent to leaving the field of the battle to them alone and for many years to come too.

However as one reader recently said, it is a high-stake game where “bloggers are helping to win the battle, but may be contributing to losing the war”.

Considering that all these people are actually playing a game with us I agree that there is some danger in the early debunking of the accusers’ lies as it will help them to fine tune their stories and make them more “perfect” for a time to present them in court.

On the other hand, a mere enumeration of their various alternating versions may be also much fun for the jury to listen to if it ever comes to that stage, so for the case it does let us carefully and methodically list each of their twists and turns and new ‘amended’ stories they so readily produce.

In short I still believe we should go forward irrespective of what they do – only with more care and precaution now. The thing we should always keep in mind is the infinite amount of lies these scoundrels are capable of telling, their ability to go back on everything they say and morph one story into another, and the totally criminal modus operandi they adhere to.

Modus operandi is a Latin phrase, approximately translated as “method of operation”. The term is used to describe someone’s habits of working, particularly in the context of business or criminal investigations.

The expression is often used in police work when discussing a crime and addressing the methods employed by the perpetrators. It is also used in criminal profiling, where it can help in finding clues to the offender’s psychology. It largely consists of examining the actions used by the individuals to execute the crime, prevent its detection and/or facilitate escape. A suspect’s modus operandi can assist in their identification and can also be used to determine links between crimes.

(Source: Wiki)

71 Comments leave one →
  1. May 26, 2015 6:18 pm

    “There are tons of other nonsense and perverted things he’s said but I’m not going to get into that. Some people are so pathetic.” -Maureen

    Maureen, please don’t get into all that nonsense – we know everything they say and these days I don’t even bother to answer them. They are indeed pathetic speculating about every speck of dust they manage to scrape and not noticing the sparkling cleanliness of Michael’s spirit.

    Like

  2. Maureen permalink
    May 25, 2015 12:05 am

    Thank you Helena for such an outstanding website! I’ve been recently arguing with this horrid MJ troll on YouTube. He claims that you can “Call the LA County Sheriffs Repository and make a request form mailed to you for the recent j*cko molestation cases filed within the past 24 months.” There are tons of other nonsense and perverted things he’s said but I’m not going to get into that. Some people are so pathetic. It’s great to have such good recourses around like this website to knock some sense into those trolls.

    Like

  3. vulcan permalink
    May 13, 2015 3:53 pm

    And let’s not forget there was no fingerprint evidence that MJ ever saw those pages
    let alone saw them repeatedly.
    I wonder why they didn’t do fingerprint analysis. Maybe they did and found that MJ’s fingerprints were not on the pages or at least not on the pages where boys sat in suggestive poses and that would have killed their argument so they covered the whole thing up.

    Nevertheless if they had found a single fingerprint let alone multiple fingerprints on those pages you can be sure the prosecutors would have trumpeted it loud and clear.

    The cover of Boys will be boys don’t have naked boys just happy boys and the inscription would indicate that MJ looked at that picture opened the book, inscribed it then put it aside like he did with many other books that signed over the years he wanted to send back to the fans.

    Obviously one does not inscribe and sign a book for himself.

    Why it was not sent back? who knows. There can be a 100s of reasons and when someone has 10 000 books you cannot expect him to remember even most let alone all of them. Remember he had books which he had twice. You think he bought them twice? why would he do such a thing. Obviously if he bought one he didn’t remember having the other or he didn’t bought either copies.

    One thing is sure: he didn’t put those two books in that cabinet because if he had he sure as hell wouldn’t have give a key to Blanca Francia or anyone. He would have made sure it was where noone can access them, only him.

    Like

  4. vulcan permalink
    May 13, 2015 1:13 pm

    Hoovie,

    There is absolutely no evidence that MJ bought either of those books.
    There is evidence that he certainly didn’t buy one of them.

    Since they are companion books they were probably sent by the same person.
    Whether that person was a woman, a man a pedo or whatever is irrlevant. MJ had no way of knowing it and he didn’t have any reason to check who it was just like he didn’t check who the other people, fans who sent him items were.

    Whether the photos were taken by pedos or not is irrelevant, again, MJ had no reason the check the history of the authors why would he do such a things? Do you think that everyone who ever looked at those books including in the Library of Congress checked the background of the authors? Get real.

    You don’t have any evidence that MJ liked looking at naked kids, there is no evidence that he even remembered having those books let alone that he regularly looked at them.
    In fact that fact that he didn’t do anything to re-obtain them in 1993 and in fact didn’t do anything to obtain any other photo of naked boys proves that he was not interested in looking at naked boys.

    If you consider that during the same period he regularly bought HETERO ADULT magazines full of naked WOMEN, he had naked photos of M.Monroe and Bo Derek and his computers didn’t have a single photo of naked boy but plenty of imagines of naked women and hetero adult pictures it’s obvious that he liked looked at naked WOMEN not naked boys.

    Pedophiles are not satisfied looking a the same pictures over and over again for 10 years!
    If MJ had been interested in boy he sure as hell would have tried to obtain new material especially after the Internet became available but he didn’t do such a thing.

    The inscription in that book was used by the defense during closing argument and for a reason. Someone who have those thoughts, completely innocent and non-sexual, while looking at naked boys is not interested in their genitalia.
    MJ was interested in their happiness which is consistent with every other picture and statues he had in Neverland. That’s the only common theme. It’s not that he had pictures of boys, he had pictures of boys and girls and babies. It’s not that he had statues of boys, he had statues of boys and girls of all ages. The only common thing is that they all looked happy, they were playful and carefree precisely the things that MJ loved about kids.
    When you look at this painting you think about sex?

    Why did he have so many imagines of GIRLS in Neverland if he was into boys?
    Why did he have so many statues of GIRLS?
    Like this:

    or this

    You guys can never explain MJ’s interested in girls so you simply ignore them.
    Just like you ignore his interest in naked women, his friendship with women, the fact that he never named a boy as his friend in any intereview, always adults like Quincy Jones, Diana Ross or Liz Taylor. None of those are typical to pedophiles so you simply ignore them.

    As for the books being in that cabinet isn’t it just awfully convenient that Francia happened ot have a key to it even though he didn’t work on the ranch for two years.
    Francia was one if Gutierez’s friends, surprise surprise.
    Now tell me: if MJ wanted to hide the books from everyone why on earth did he let Francia have a key to it in the first place? Especially since you say his son was molested!
    And why didn’t the police just break the cabinet like they broke safes and doors?
    Those whole thing is fishy and you know it.
    Sneddon and Co never explained this.
    It’s obvious that they tried to frame MJ because they didn’t find anything on the ranch which was even remotely incriminating, no DNA, no photos. no tapes, no notes, no letters, no diaries, no videos no child porn so they took this two books and placed them in a “special place” suggesting that they were special to MJ.
    Except the whole story doesn’t make any sense when put in context of all those pictures of nude women and hetero sexual imagines.

    Which MJ bought on a regular basis, apparently:

    He also bought a bunch of old nude stuff-clipped out pictures from nudist magazines and old shots of posed nude women.

    http://chuckprophet.com/blog/michael_jackson_visits_recycled_records_-_by_andrew_rush/

    Like

  5. vulcan permalink
    May 13, 2015 12:38 pm

    szilvia09

    If MJ had been a sexual predator he would have at least one credible accuser who didn’t go to a trial lawyer but went to the police.
    He never had such an accuser.
    Two of his accusers were discredited in court. One was too chicken to show up but we know that he lied because he didn’t have a clue how MJ’s genitalia really looked even though he claimed that he mastrubated him about 10 times.

    And out of the hundreds of kids who were in Neverland only three accused him and all three had crooked and even mentally ill parents who wanted MJ’s millions.

    Why wasn’t he accused by rich kids?
    why wasn’t he accused by kids with decent parents?
    Why didn’t Robson or Safechuck accuse him when they were kids?
    Why did they defend him under oath. Both of them.
    And why did both of them keep in contact with him long after the abused supposedly stopped, and keep the gifts MJ gave them, and invited him to his wedding and testify for him under oath even as an adult, and praise him even after he died?

    Please show me just one proven pedophile with those kind of “victims”.
    You can’t.

    Moverover, what you and the prosecutors wanted us to believe was that in 2005
    7 people, three boys, their sister and their mother ALL willingly lied under oath to defend a guy they knew was a child molester!
    Yes that was their argument. That Brett Mac and Wade not only knew they were molested but so did their sisters and mothers. And they still defended MJ under oath.

    Please, show me a pedophilia case where something like that happened.
    You can’t.

    And you and the prosecutors wants us to believe that this not only happened in 2005 but in 1993 too! That Safechuck and his parents and Spence and his parents all lied under oath to defend someone they knew was a child molester.

    So were are supposed to believe that at least 12 people lied under oath to defend MJ!

    Even you know that’s virtually impossible and never happened before in any suspected pedophilia case.

    Use Occam’s razor:
    The reason why those people defended MJ was because he indeed didn’t do anything.
    Not the ridiculous phychobabble that they didn’t realize that rape was abuse and didn’t understand the illicit nature of sex between a child and man. Noone buys that nonsense.

    The Robsons, the Barnes, Safechuck and Spence and Mac Culkin defended MJ in 1993 and 2005 under oath for a simple reason: he was indeed not abused.

    Just like all these other kids who knew him never accused him of anything:

    Sean Lennon, Omar Batthi, Mark Ronson, Kelly Parker, Corey Feldman, Michael Jacobshagen, Derek Emerson, Ryan Folsey, Bobby Newt, Kirean Culkin, Dakota Culkin, Quinn Culkin, Bryton McClure, Dave Dave, Emmanuel Lewis, Alexandra Martin, Princess Elizabeth and Prince Albert von Thurn und Taxis, Billy Ramirez, Karlee Barnes, Simone Jackson, Rashida Jones, Kidada Jones, Michael Gibb, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ahmad Etabad, Perly and Morly Qi Zhen, Paris Hilton, Nicky Hilton, Marie Tourelle, Tracy Dyer, Harriet Lester, Amy Agajanian, David Agajanian, JC Agajanian, Sage Galesi, Lala Romero, Nisha Kataria, Roman Barett, Natalia Barrett, Brock Goldstein, Rhonda Ross, Chudney Ross, Nicole Grierson, Damon Stein, Megan Stein, Amanda Porter, Pudence Brando, Richard Matsura, Soleil Moon Frye , Ryan White, Austin Brown, Anthony Jackson, Taj Jackson, Taryll Jackson, Donte Jackson, Randy Jackson Jr, Mason van Valin, Bianca van Valin, Brian Romero, Bobbi Kristina Brown, Ryan White, Andrea White, Mallory Cyr, Deja Riley, Tamil and Lana Ramirez, Sky Ferreira, Evan Ross, Laura Chaplin. Shane Brando, Lucy Lester, Jo Jo Elatab, Rodney Allen Rippy

    As you can see they are the vast majority. And none of them had bipolar loser fathers like Evan Chandler or schizo serial false accuser mothers like Janet Arvizo or illegal alien tabloid whores like Blanca Francia.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. April 6, 2015 2:15 pm

    Reblogged this on Michael Jackson – Fact or Fiction and commented:
    Another great post by VindicateMJ. May God continue to bless her and her blog. She continues to fight for the truth and justice of Michael Jackson.

    Like

  7. Sue Jackson permalink
    April 6, 2015 1:15 pm

    Michael’s own words:- “But now I am a father myself, and one day I was thinking about my own children, Prince and Paris and how I wanted them to think of me when they grow up. To be sure, I would like them to remember how I always wanted them with me wherever I went, how I always tried to put them before everything else. But there are also challenges in their lives. Because my kids are stalked by paparazzi, they can’t always go to a park or a movie with me. So what if they grow older and resent me, and how my choices impacted their youth? “Why weren’t we given an average childhood like all the other kids”, they might ask?
    And at that moment I pray that my children will give me the benefit of the doubt. That they will say to themselves: “Our daddy did the best he could, given the unique circumstances that he faced. He may not have been perfect, but he was a warm and decent man, who tried to give us all the love in the world.”
    I hope that they will always focus on the positive things, on the sacrifices I willingly made for them, and not criticise the things they had to give up, or the errors I’ve made, and will certainly continue to make, in raising them. For we have all been someone’s child, and we know that despite the very best of plans and efforts, mistakes will always occur. That’s just being human.”
    – Michael / Oxford Speech, March 2001

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Sue Jackson permalink
    April 6, 2015 9:33 am

    Thank you, Helena, as always, for going the extra mile or 100 for Michael! He certainly deserves it! Bless your heart!

    Thank you to Brett Barnes because it takes the kind of strength and courage to withstand all the pressure, stalking and harassment from tabloid papers and sad little MJ trolls/haters – the same BS that equally strong, courageous and dignified Michael had to endure!! Love and prayers go out to Mr Barnes right now coz he sure as heck is gonna need it and then some!!

    Like

  9. April 6, 2015 5:51 am

    How horrible is that you blocked Hoovie for asking reasoned questions that you couldn’t give answers to, all while calling him a sexual pervert. You did the same thing to me by wrongly and erroneously saying that I was publicizing pedophile views. If you want a real sexual predator, then look at Michael Jackson, the freak that you idolize so much. But don’t insult people who are just searching for the truth.

    Like

  10. April 6, 2015 4:47 am

    “Once again, thank you, Helena, for your valuable work. Whenever something blows up in the media regarding Michael, or whenever I see signs of the Jacko Industrial Complex anywhere, I come here for truth and sanity. Love your work.” – Linda
    “To Helena: Ditto.” – Jolie

    Thank you very much, ladies. Your support gives me strength to go on. Together we will make this world a better place. If not us who else?

    Like

  11. Jolie permalink
    April 5, 2015 8:25 pm

    “Once again, thank you, Helena, for your valuable work. Whenever something blows up in the media regarding Michael, or whenever I see signs of the Jacko Industrial Complex anywhere, I come here for truth and sanity. Love your work.” – Linda

    To Helena: Ditto.

    To Linda: Jacko Industrial Complex – so well said Linda. That is exactly what it is.

    Like

  12. Linda permalink
    April 5, 2015 6:53 pm

    Once again, thank you, Helena, for your valuable work. Whenever something blows up in the media regarding Michael, or whenever I see signs of the Jacko Industrial Complex anywhere, I come here for truth and sanity. Love your work.
    LJ

    Like

  13. April 5, 2015 3:57 pm

    “Some of the trolls on here are from the Wade Robson support page.”- Nancy

    Of course they are.

    “Garett, you are either hopelessly misinformed or intentionally brainwashed.”- vulcan

    Who is Garett?

    Like

  14. Jasper permalink
    April 4, 2015 11:06 pm

    @nancy

    You are so right. Why would Brett Barnes want to come to a shitty little blog like this that tells lies about MJ?

    He is way smarter than that.

    Like

  15. lynande51 permalink
    April 4, 2015 6:14 pm

    “Some of the trolls on here are from the Wade Robson support page.”
    @nancy Phillips

    Why would a Support group do that?

    Like

  16. nancyphillips permalink
    April 4, 2015 5:34 pm

    Some of the trolls on here are from the Wade Robson support page.

    Like

  17. April 4, 2015 2:56 pm

    “LOL@you pretending to be Brett Barnes. I swear some people have WAY too much time on their hands.” – nancyphillips

    Exactly, Nancy.

    Like

  18. April 4, 2015 2:48 pm

    “It was necessary to block Hoovie and I just wanted to suggest it when I saw your post. These guys cannot hide their real attitude.” – Susannerb

    You are right, Susanne, but you know my general tendency to give full freedom to everyone (except ped-les) to express their views here. And very often this chance for them to talk for as long as they like turns into all the rope to hang themselves with.

    It is not the first time that Michael’s haters start with one thing and finish with the other – after all their accusations of MJ they eventually show themselves to be the ones interested in most graphic descriptions of sex with children. Normal people will never do it because their mind is not geared that way and doesn’t allow them to even think in this direction – and these people not only think about it but seemingly enjoy all this talk!

    So the more we listen to MJ’s haters the more proof we get that they themselves have very dark inclinations and my initial suspicion that it’s real pedophiles who are after him is getting more and more proof. My congratulations to Robson for having supporters like this.

    These people who crawl out of their holes again as soon as we bring more facts into the public to discredit the accusers, expose themselves every time – not as people concerned about molested victims, but as people who just concentrate their lives solely on Michael Jackson and/or his advocates. What a ridiculous and pathetic mission!

    They are not interested in truth in principle, and real victims of abuse are a matter of least concern for them. Another of their hallmark features is that they never accept any facts speaking in favor of Michael, even the well-proven ones. You provide them with a ton of facts but they still act as if they don’t exist and still repeat their catch phrases. It is a typically troll behavior.

    Like

  19. nancyphillips permalink
    April 4, 2015 8:07 am

    @Brett

    LOL@you pretending to be Brett Barnes. I swear some people have WAY too much time on their hands.

    Like

  20. susannerb permalink*
    April 4, 2015 5:32 am

    Helena, well done. It was necessary to block Hoovie and I just wanted to suggest it when I saw your post. These guys cannot hide their real attitude.

    These people who crawl out of their holes again as soon as we bring more facts into the public to discredit the accusers, expose themselves every time – not as people concerned about molested victims, but as people who just concentrate their lives solely on Michael Jackson and/or his advocates. What a ridiculous and pathetic mission!

    Like

  21. April 4, 2015 1:07 am

    “I was told to visit here and I’m glad I did. Thank you for your support. What happened between me and Mike is personal and nobody else’s business. I promised I would never betray my friend so for those waiting don’t hold your breath. I am not the president of Mensa by the way. That was a joke.”- Brett

    If you are the Brett, I welcome you in this blog and will whole-heartedly support you. But if you turn out someone different, I won’t – sorry for that.
    As regards Brett Barnes being “president of Mensa” I’ve already understood it to to be a joke.

    Like

  22. Brett permalink
    April 4, 2015 12:43 am

    I was told to visit here and I’m glad I did. Thank you for your support. What happened between me and Mike is personal and nobody else’s business. I promised I would never betray my friend so for those waiting don’t hold your breath. I am not the president of Mensa by the way. That was a joke.

    Like

  23. April 4, 2015 12:32 am

    Since the moment I mentioned Brett Barnes this blog has been flooded with comments from trolls and even boy-lovers. Now all of us can imagine the intensity of attacks Brett has to withstand since he voiced his opinion on Robson’s complaint and said of himself “No way”.

    Now here is a question – is it normal to stalk and harass someone who simply said he would not join the complaint?

    Like

  24. Clare permalink
    April 3, 2015 6:23 pm

    Good work Helena…justice will prevail……

    Like

  25. Emile permalink
    April 3, 2015 4:19 pm

    Thank you for that link Nancy. It explains what Wade went through very well. Now I am leaning even more to Wade telling the truth.

    Like

  26. nancyphillips permalink
    April 3, 2015 3:17 pm

    @Hoovie

    Robson turned on MJ because he blames MJ for his downfall:

    http://mjjr.net/robson/robson_film.html

    Like

  27. April 3, 2015 1:07 pm

    10 Q. Was that file cabinet locked?
    11 A. Yes, it was.
    12 Q. How were you able to unlock it?
    13 A. We were able to get the key from — the maid
    14 brought the key over to the home and we were able to
    15 unlock it at that time.
    16 Q. Do you remember which maid that was?
    17 A. I believe it was Blanca Francia.

    Lynette, I remember Rosibel Ferrufino’s testimony but I thought that she just forgot the name of the maid as in 1993 it was already Adrian McManus. But on second thought I realize that Ferrufino is a police woman who is used to keeping her records in order and who probably even refreshed her memory of some documents before giving her testimony.

    And if she remembers the name correctly, then your version is right – the cabinet stayed closed for two years!

    But in this case the situation becomes even more interesting – so Michael not only didn’t know of those books but he also didn’t open that cabinet for two years and did not see those books since someone placed them there. And if we are to believe Rosibel Ferrufino this “someone” was Blanca Francia!

    Let us make a note of this crucial point and be on the lookout for other evidence that may prove that it was the doing of Blanca Francia when she was still working at Neverland. If it was her it may explain a lot, even the fact why she left the ranch in 1991. “Iago did his job, Iago may leave now”.

    Like

  28. April 3, 2015 12:36 pm

    “it was probably anal sex. Robson is 6 foot 3 inches and at 14 he probably was Michael’s height (5 feet 9 inches), so it’s not like it would’ve been an enormous man on a small child. And all one needs is patience & lubricant for anal intercourse.” – Hoovie

    Enough is enough, Hoovie. The more you talked the more reason I had to suspect a troll as a minimum, and a boy-lover as a maximum. Unfortunately this latest comment from you showed that it is the latter case – sexual perverts always give themselves away by going deep into some horrible graphic detail and obviously enjoying the process. It is a sort of verbal sexual exhibitionism.

    The above pedophilia talk is not up to the standards of decency accepted in this blog. Please go to your mjfacts or Topix or other boy-lover places to discuss it in the detail you love so much.

    As to me I’ve had enough of it. I agree that I am no match for you – you are too well versed on the subject I have no idea of. So welcome to the block list.

    Like

  29. lynande51 permalink
    April 3, 2015 11:40 am

    Who do we believe Hoovie? You or the police detective that said they called Blanca Francia..
    ROSIBEL FERRUFINO SMITH

    6 Having been sworn, testified as follows:

    7

    8 THE WITNESS: I do.

    9 THE CLERK: Please be seated. State and

    10 spell your name for the record.

    11 THE WITNESS: Rosibel, R-o-s-i-b-e-l;

    12 Ferrufino, F-e-r-r-u-f-i-n-o; Smith, S-m-i-t-h.

    13 THE CLERK: Thank you.

    14

    15 DIRECT EXAMINATION

    16 BY MR. ZONEN:

    17 Q. Tell us your current occupation.

    18 A. I’m a police detective for the Los Angeles

    19 Police Department currently assigned to the Threat

    20 Management Unit of the Detective Support Division.

    21 Q. How long have you been a police officer for

    22 the City of Los Angeles?

    23 A. For a little over 20 years.

    24 Q. And your current assignment involves what?

    25 A. Aggravated stalking cases, criminal threats

    26 of elected officials, and workplace violence

    27 incidents within the City of Los Angeles.

    28 Q. Did you work also as a sex crimes 8162

    1 prosecutor — sex crimes detective?

    2 A. Yes, I did.

    3 Q. For what period of time?

    4 A. For nine years.

    5 Q. All right. Which period of nine years was

    6 that?

    7 A. From 1988 to 1997.

    8 Q. Did you have occasion to conduct and execute

    9 search warrants during that time?

    10 A. Yes, I did.

    11 Q. In August of 1993, did you participate in

    12 the execution of a search warrant at Neverland Ranch

    13 in Los Olivos, the County of Santa Barbara?

    14 A. Yes, I did.

    15 Q. And did you seize objects from that

    16 residence during that search?

    17 A. Yes.

    18 MR. ZONEN: May I approach the witness?

    19 THE COURT: Yes.

    20 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: I’m going to show you three

    21 objects at this time. Exhibits No. 841 and 842;

    22 would you take a look at those two objects, please?

    23 A. Okay.

    24 Q. Do you recognize those two books?

    25 A. Yes, I do.

    26 Q. Did you seize those two books?

    27 A. Yes, I did.

    28 Q. From where? 8163

    1 A. These books were seized from a cabinet

    2 within Michael Jackson’s closet in the master

    3 bedroom.

    4 Q. All right. Describe his bedroom for us,

    5 please.

    6 A. The bedroom is a very large —

    7 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, I think it would be

    8 cumulative at this time, wouldn’t it?

    9 THE COURT: Sustained.

    10 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. Tell us where in

    11 his bedroom this particular closet is.

    12 A. It was off to the side of the main bedroom.

    13 There were — actually, there were two closets on

    14 either side of the room, and this would have been

    15 the side where the Jacuzzi was located.

    16 Q. Now, this is the first floor of his bedroom

    17 suite; is that right?

    18 A. That’s correct.

    19 Q. Was there a bed in that bedroom suite?

    20 A. Yes.

    21 Q. I’m going to show you Exhibit No. 856.

    22 A. Okay.

    23 Q. Do you recognize that photograph?

    24 A. Yes, I do.

    25 Q. And that photograph is what?

    26 A. This is a photograph that was taken during

    27 the search warrant of Neverland Ranch, and it

    28 depicts the file cabinet that the books were seized 8164

    1 from.

    2 Q. All right. And is that file cabinet

    3 depicted in that photograph?

    4 A. Yes, it is.

    5 Q. How many drawers in that file cabinet?

    6 A. Four.

    7 Q. In which drawer were those two books seized,

    8 from which drawer?

    9 A. From the third drawer.

    10 Q. Was that file cabinet locked?

    11 A. Yes, it was.

    12 Q. How were you able to unlock it?

    13 A. We were able to get the key from — the maid

    14 brought the key over to the home and we were able to

    15 unlock it at that time.

    16 Q. Do you remember which maid that was?

    17 A. I believe it was Blanca Francia.

    18 Q. Thank you. Is that photograph — does that

    19 photograph accurately depict the subject matter

    20 contained within it?

    21 A. Yes, it does.

    22 MR. ZONEN: Move to introduce 856 into

    23 evidence.

    Like

  30. Hoovie permalink
    April 3, 2015 11:26 am

    Helena:

    I didn’t see the second part of your comment to me while I was writing my first reply.

    I’m glad you corrected Lynande – I was about to say that was Adrian McManus, not Blanca Francia. She hadn’t worked there since 1991; she wouldn’t have a key – it’s silly to think Michael wouldn’t have altered the locks in 2 years. I think the detective got the maids confused a decade later seeing they are both Hispanic. It’s happens all the time. Adrian stated on the stand, though, that she called in sick and had to go back, presumably because of the bedroom key. It’s confusing because I thought the cops used a locksmith to open the filing cabinet, not a key from McManus? I could be wrong..

    As for those books, I don’t know if they’re innocent honestly. They show naked boys, & with Michael being accused, it definitely looks suspicious. I have many times wondered why Michael wanted to look at such things like kids naked. 😦 As you said, the images were taken by pedophiles, too. Like Hajo Ortil? And Michael inscribed the book showing the private parts of these young boys – if he was giving it away, who did he know who would want that kind of book? And who would ever think to give him the first less graphic book? I think he purchased the second more graphic book himself; at this point that seems to be the evidence we have.

    These kinds of things put me ill at ease. Yes, he seemed surprised when Diane Sawyer mentioned them being found but what if he thought he’d hidden them, and that’s why he was surprised?

    About Robson, again he’s a problem for me because looking at him his personality and achievements give him tremendous credibility. To be completely honest, I don’t think his explanation about the “anal rape” is so wild. He never said he forgot anything, only that he didn’t believe what he did with Michael was abuse. He said he believed it was consensual, since Michael – as he says – told him it was an expression of love. I don’t think he was “anally raped”. Just assuming he’s telling the truth, it was probably anal sex. Robson is 6 foot 3 inches and at 14 he probably was Michael’s height (5 feet 9 inches), so it’s not like it would’ve been an enormous man on a small child. And all one needs is patience & lubricant for anal intercourse. I apologize for getting graphic!

    So, assuming his story is true, is not hard to believe he just viewed it as consensual. I don’t think that’s an outrageous part of his story. And that’s what is so hard about these new cases: even with Safechuck’s declaration & the write up of his other documents by D. over at mjfacts (supposedly she has the documents) along with Robson story, what they are saying now isn’t that hard to believe and isn’t as contradictory as some fans claim. So I just don’t know..

    Like

  31. Hoovie permalink
    April 3, 2015 10:44 am

    Helena:

    Yes, Bret was being completely sarcastic because that hater insinuated he wasn’t a Mensa candidate because he’s a grown man calling himself doodoohead, to which Bret essentially says, “actually, bozo, I’m the president,” to minimize the jab. No offense to Bret – I’m sure he has average-bright IQ – but he’s really not Mensa material (most of us aren’t!).

    Anyway, I am a little perplexed that you’d accuse me of masquerading as anything simply because I made note of the arguments haters make. Of course I’d mention their arguments – they do exist and we’ve all heard them. Yes, as I have said, I am on the fence. I am conflicted because I don’t want to think Michael is capable of hurting children, but it seems too easy to just say everyone is lying & wanting money. It’s absolutely possible that that has been the case but what if we’re wrong? Because honestly I know I wasn’t there so I can’t say for 100% that Michael didn’t do something. And it makes me sick to have these doubts about Michael because of the Robson and Safechuck mess. 😦

    I really don’t agree – or I’ve found those narratives unconvincing – that they are being steered into making lawsuits against Michael by any colluding group. I think that that’s ridiculous, with all due respect. Whether they are lying or not I think they’ve chosen for themselves to come out & say these things. Robson, from my own research, is still a wealthy man. He was extremely successful, holds copyrights to many bestselling pop songs, had been working steadily since he was a small boy, and as you noted, sold his L.A. condo for six figures. His wife has her own business and the cost of living in Hawaii is steep. So he’s more well off than probably 90% of Americans, at least. He’s certainly capable of bringing and funding a lawsuit on his own. I don’t know about Safechuck but by his profession (he and his wife are programmers) he is not poor either.

    What I’m saying is that it’s highly probable they aren’t in cahoots with anybody. So, if no one is forcing them into all of this, and they are doing it on their own, I just wonder the motivation? Definitely money is a strong incentive – I’m not denying that – but what I’m troubled by is why would Robson, who is not hurting for money by any means from what I can tell, simply turn on Michael? There has to be a more salient explanation then “they want money”. It’s why I’m conflicted: how do we know Michael didn’t do something as they say, and I know I don’t know for sure because I wasn’t in the bed with them. How do we know Robson, and Safechuck later, aren’t telling the truth? It’s just hard for me to imagine Robson turning on Michael for money he doesn’t need. He loved Michael and now he calls him a child abuser and pedophile? Love doesn’t turn to hate for no reason. I’m just so confused. 😦 It’s just like the Pellicano thing from a few years ago.

    And by the way, I absolutely don’t believe in the 1.62 bln claim (i didn’t believe the 40 bln Jackson claim either). If you follow the story backward, it was the daily mail who started all of that nonsense. I think one of the Australian outlets wrote a bad sentence referring to the estate’s value and the daily mail ran with it. It doesn’t even make sense to ask for that much! Dumb tabloids.

    With regard to Sandusky, Mesereau is such a poised, intelligent man whom I greatly respect. Expanding on his argument, Michael and Sandusky really did have very very similar profiles, as I spelled out in a previous comment, and Mesereau has made this interesting parallel between the two men, so what’s the reason we’ve gone after Sandusky? What’s different? There are people out there who believe he’s completely innocent and Mesereau seemed to give their POV credibility by drawing on his experience with Michael who he believes his totally innocent.

    Like

  32. t (@wkatriina22) permalink
    April 3, 2015 10:29 am

    With the expression “The Family” I meant Zonen, ,the Arvizio kisd ,DD and you know the rest.Sorry for lack of sufficient explaining.

    Like

  33. April 3, 2015 9:59 am

    “The so called “locked file cabinet” had to be opened by the only person with a key. Blanca Francia had to be called to open it. A good question to ask at this point is who put them there” – lynande51

    Lynande, I fully agree with your conclusions and am happy to see that our thoughts are running along the same lines. My only clarification would be the identity of the maid – it was Adrian McManus. Though of course both McManus and Francia knew Gutierrez and incidentally happened to be the only maids who spoke out against MJ at the 2005 trial. Adrian McManus replaced Francia, however Gutierrez as the ever-present character in Michael’s life kept contact with both of them.

    As to Adrian McManus, remember the picturesque decription of the 1993 police raid of Neverland which Gutierrez invented? He described in much detail how McManus was running about the house looking for ways to “hide” some evidence from the police – “stained sheets”, “naked photos”, whatnot.

    And then, from her testimony at the 2005 trial we find out that she was not even present during the raid and all of it was just the invention of Gutierrez’s perverse mind (later copied by Taraborrelli and repeated in his “Magic and Madness”).

    It is all these people who are mad and not Michael Jackson. He was the most normal person in this totally crazy crowd.

    Like

  34. April 3, 2015 9:33 am

    Hoovie, other of your statements are:

    maybe if Robson and Safechuck told their lurid tales before a jury, he may be in jail today.

    First of all, there are no “maybes” here. If they had told their present stories in 2005 Michael would have surely been convicted, but our little problem is that at that time they didn’t say it and said exactly the opposite, so let Wade Robson now please explain this unpleasant discrepancy. Did he lie then or is he lying now? The public is waiting for an answer.

    Only please let him offer us something more convincing than the version that at the age of 22 he remembered his abuse but didn’t realize it was “anal rape”, poor thing.

    “Of course, Michael did have those weird books I heard were allegedly made by NAMBLA people, when Sandusky didn’t have that, but it wasn’t illegal.’

    You will be surprised to know how many innocent looking photo collections were made by NAMBLA people and how none of us will ever know about it unless we make a special investigation of it.

    Indeed, when I looked up some authors who contributed to those two books found in MJ’s closet locked in a drawer to which only one maid had a key, I realized that some of those photographers who contributed to those collections had a somewhat shady past. But a normal reader has no way of knowing it – the photos represented in the book were well within the then accepted moral standards and an unsuspecting reader would never guess that something could be wrong with the photographers.

    If I were you I would be much more bothered with the fact that:

    • both books were a present to MJ – one was from a “fan” and blatantly said so in its inscription, and the other was inscribed by Michael himself and signed by him as if he wanted to give it back to someone. Michael’s inscription was that he wished his children had an innocent childhood like the one he saw on the cover photo of the book.

    • both were locked in a cabinet that was in MJ’s closet and the only key to it was kept by Michael’s maid – Adrian McManus. On the day of the police raid she was not on the premises and had to specially come to open it. If Michael had something to hide he would have kept the key to himself and would have taken it on his Dangerous tour (as far as I remember he was away on tour at the moment). What’s obvious is that he would have never given the key to anyone at all – however the maid did have it, and the maid is no other but Adrian McManus who testified against Michael in 2005 and previously stole from him and was in association with our favourite guy Gutierrez, and all this makes me suspect that it was actually she who put the books there.

    I even remember reading that Michael was surprised to hear that some books were found in that locked cabinet. In short, same as you, I’m totally intrigued by those books and would like to know why they were presented to Michael and how they made their way into his locked cabinet at all.

    Like

  35. April 3, 2015 8:39 am

    Dear Hoovie, you’ve clearly shown yourself to be a MJ vilifier who masquerades himself as a supporter or someone who is still sitting on the fence. You remember to recall all major haters’ arguments against Michael and add to them a good portion of more falsity.

    Here is the first one:

    some would argue that even if Michael was acquitted of the Arvizo accusations, he never faced a trial with Jordan Chandler because he paid a settlement.

    The settlement with Jordan had nothing to do with a criminal trial. Jordan cooperated with the police both before and after the settlement and wasn’t precluded from testifying. It was solely due to the lack of evidence proving Jordan’s words that the police weren’t able to bring the case to an indictment stage.

    The case was heard by two grand juries and both times in the absence of the defense who couldn’t even challenge the prosecution when they were presenting their case. But even in these highly prosecution-favourable conditions the two grand juries, miles apart from each other, didn’t find anything to indict Michael for. So that case was even weaker than the Arvizo one.

    MJ’s detractors usually say that the case fell apart as Jordan refused to testify, but Sneddon tried to overcome that problem too – he helped change legislation and a couple of years after 1993 law already enabled him to present the case in the absence of the alleged “victim” but only if he had substantial evidence that the abused child was telling the truth.

    This evidence alone could have allowed him to reopen the case against Jackson (even in Jordan’s absence) and the fact that he didn’t do it is another proof that Sneddon had nothing against Michael – Jordan’s description and the photos of Michael’s genitalia did not match and his false description was all Sneddon had on his hands. In other words he had nothing to reopen the case with.

    The next time Sneddon made another try with those photos was during his bluff at the 2005 trial – he threatened to show them and practically waved them in the air though he was perfectly aware that according to the US 6th amendment he would not be allowed to introduce them in court. What is allowed for children and teenagers, is not allowed for grown-ups and if they want to accuse someone of a crime they must please make their personal appearance in court and without their personal presence their earlier statements, descriptions and anything they said cannot be legally used.

    The beauty of the situation is that Sneddon knew that he could not use those photos in the absence of Jordan (and Jordan was not testifying) but still performed that show for the uninitiated. The public gasped, but no one really explained to them that all of it was meant for show and entertainment only.

    Like

  36. lynande51 permalink
    April 3, 2015 7:55 am

    Let’s be honest about those books shall we?
    They were found in 1993.They were in police evidence storage longer than Michael had them. The so called “locked file cabinet” had to be opened by the only person with a key. Blanca Francia had to be called to open it. That means Michael didn’t even have the key for a year and a half before the search. A good question to ask at this point is who put them there The inscription that he put on the inside cover shows that he looked at the outside cover it doesn’t prove he looked any farther than that. He inscribed it signing his name. That is a better indication that someone asked him to sign it then kept it for themselves.
    When asked about the books by Diane Sawyer Michael denied knowing about them and he probably didn’t. They were taken in a police search and held in the event of a criminal trial. He would not have known what was in the possession of the police until criminal charges were filed and discovery was granted. Again there is a problem when people take the spoken word, turn it into a transcript and analyze it to determine the truth. The problem is that communication is about 7 % word content and 93% non verbal. Non verbal is tone pitch speed and volume of the voice and body movement. Michael was surprised to hear that there were books found.
    When comparing the two books found to the vast amount of adult heterosexual porn found those books mean nothing.
    There is a very good reason not to trust those books because the person with the key has her picture taken with Victor Gutierrez. A person who by his own admission in other places stalked Michael all over to see who he was with and his eyes went only to the thing he desired the most. The boys.

    Like

  37. April 3, 2015 7:42 am

    “Tom Mesereau has just come out in support of him.” – Emile

    I’ve read the story and think that Tom Mesereau has come out in support of the legal system which should it on its guard not to allow any person to be sentenced wrongly. He says he is no expert on Sandusky’s case, and in my opinion has spoken too early – before making statements like that it is better to fully inform oneself on the subject. I can’t call myself an expert either, but from the huge number of materials I’ve read I wouldn’t be the one to support Sandusky.

    “I am pretty sure Bret was joking about being a Mensa president. He was being sarcastic.” – Hoovey

    Possibly, but as you understand it doesn’t change anything in the fact that he is being harassed by Michael Jackson’s haters.

    “I do have one more question though. Are you using my email address to log on because that is identity theft.”- Lynande51

    I think the e-mail is different. But they are definitely playing their usual game, so if it continues I will take care that your name is not misused and will not be above blocking these people.

    Like

  38. lynande51 permalink
    April 3, 2015 7:39 am

    Brett has not as these idiots call it ” come forward”. When asked he said “No Way”.
    Go away and try to think of something more clever next time instead of using my name.
    I do have one more question though. Are you using my email address to log on because that is identity theft.

    Like

  39. Emile permalink
    April 3, 2015 5:16 am

    Hoovie are you saying if we defend Michael we should defend Jerry Sandusky too? I don’t care what Tom says I will never do that!! I don’t get why Tom came out and said that stuff.

    Like

  40. Hoovie permalink
    April 3, 2015 3:45 am

    Emile:

    Mesereau wasn’t supporting Sandusky; you make it seem like he goes out of his way to defend alleged sex offenders. He was making an intellectual argument within a retroactive presumption of innocence. And maybe it does deserve a second look. He really cared about kids just like Michael but could’ve been targeted by people who were looking for money from Penn State.

    The similarities between Michael and the coach are striking, Mesereau says and I agree, but maybe we were all too busy protecting Michael that we jumped on the attack bandwagon to shift the blame elsewhere? Personally, I don’t know but Mesereau is Harvard educated..He must be coming at it from a level head, at least.

    Like

  41. Hoovie permalink
    April 3, 2015 3:26 am

    Helena:

    I am pretty sure Bret was joking about being a Mensa president. He was being sarcastic. 🙂

    Like

  42. Hoovie permalink
    April 3, 2015 3:23 am

    Nancy Phillips:

    I think some people are skeptical of Bret because he really wasn’t credible on the stand. Some of his testimony made my skin crawl, and he had a conspicuously bad memory. We always talk about Francia on the stand but Bret was no better, honestly. I just don’t think his testimony is reliable, imho. And he may defend Michael but he’s so combative that he comes off bad. If he was molested by Michael, that’s his issue. He doesn’t have to tell if he doesn’t want to; I agree with you. And no one should force him, if that’s indeed what happened.

    About Sandusky, why do we assume he’s guilty? Because he had multiple accusers? Well, Michael has had 5 boy accusers and several adult non-victim accusers (Neverland employees). Sure, it’s 5 out of hundreds of boys but it only takes one accuser to turn someone into a child molester. Or Because Sandusky was convicted? But some would argue that even if Michael was acquitted of the Arvizo accusations, he never faced a trial with Jordan Chandler because he paid a settlement. And maybe if Robson and Safechuck told their lurid tales before a jury, he may be in jail today.

    I’m just wondering if we just pick & choose and point fingers because we are always trying to make Michael blameless in comparison to all other accused molesters, even if he’s similar. Honestly, Robson and Safechuck shook me to the core. They still do. I’m conflicted because I never thought they’d say anything.

    Anyway, Tom Mesereau wrote an op-ed piece recently demanding that we reexamine the Sandusky verdict in spite of all the victims because they all sought settlements. http://www.centredaily.com/2015/03/31/4680643/their-view-michael-jacksons-lawyer.html

    I respect Mesereau and I noticed he drew parallels between Sandusky and Michael, suggesting that maybe Sandusky wasn’t a pedophile in spite of the conviction because money may have been a factor for all the victims, the only non-victim eyewitness was discredited (the jury didn’t believe him), and Sandusky had zero child porn. Like Michael, Sandusky had a children’s foundation or something like that. He was a father figure to many boys, too, like Michael.

    Of course, Michael did have those weird books I heard were allegedly made by NAMBLA people, when Sandusky didn’t have that, but it wasn’t illegal. They both admitted to behaviors with boys (sharing the bed and joining the boys in locker room showers, respectively) that may be more innocent than people immediately assume. They were very open; aren’t most molesters secretive about their MOs?

    I think that’s what Mesereau was saying: if Michael was railroaded by the Arvizos and he was so similar to Sandusky, why is Sandusky different? Couldn’t he be innocent, too?

    Like

  43. Emile permalink
    April 3, 2015 3:13 am

    …go create websites for Jerry Sandusky…

    Funny you should mention Jerry Sandusky. Tom Mesereau has just come out in support of him.

    http://www.centredaily.com/2015/03/31/4680643/their-view-michael-jacksons-lawyer.html

    Like

  44. nancyphillips permalink
    April 2, 2015 7:19 pm

    Someone accused Brett of being deliberately evasive on the witness stand because he couldn’t answer the majority of the questions that were asked by the prosecution and he replied by saying: “Yeah, like I was retaining stuff in my memory at the age of 10 because I knew that I was going to come to court and testify 15 years later.”

    These people seriously need to get a life. If Brett says he was never molested then he was never molested. If he’s lying then that’s his business. I honestly don’t understand why they are so hell bent on getting people to admit that they were molested by Michael Jackson. If you are that obsessed with sexual abuse victims then go bother Matt Sandusky or Corey Feldman, or better yet, go create websites for Jerry Sandusky or Jimmy Savile. Why does Michael Jackson always get all the attention?

    Like

  45. April 2, 2015 7:49 am

    “If Brett were to seek compensation would everyone hate him?” – Lynette from MI

    I don’t hate Wade Robson – I feel sorry for him.

    As a side note let me also say that Brett Barnes’s harassers seem to be honoring me with their presence too. The features that make them so recognizable are:
    1) adoption of other people’s names (in this case Lynette’s name)
    2) repetition of some of their key ideas everywhere they go

    At the moment they are not giving Brett Barnes a moment of peace by bombarding him with insults for not being “brave enough to speak of his abuse”.
    To this Brett Barnes replied in May 2014: “I’M BEING BRAVE. I’VE GOT YOU ALL TO DEAL WITH “.

    To make the harassment non-stop these people set up different accounts and come again and again under different names. Witnesses to the process say that it amounts to a harassment case that may be taken to court and wonder why all of it started only after Robson’s made his claims?

    See the respective tweets here please: https://twitter.com/IAmBrettBarnes/status/467180522892845056

    Ahother example of them: https://twitter.com/iambrettbarnes/status/467448879076487168

    Brett’s replies to his harassers:
    The thing with you fools is, no matter what I say to you you’ll just twist it to go along with your “views”
    – Why are you so against other people’s opinions when you share yours so freely?

    Brett’s harassers continue to twist his hands and demand that he tells the “truth” (which will be to their liking) and here comes the hallmark feature that makes them so easily recognizable – they say to Brett speaking of MJ’s fans: “If you told the truth tomorrow, they’d hate you”. But this is exactly what they said to me when they left a comment on this blog (see above).

    Same idea repeated everywhere = same people.

    From Brett’s replies we also learn that he is actually president of the Mensa IQ society (probably in Australia), so he is a highly intelligent guy.

    And an honest, brave and honourable one at that.

    Like

  46. April 2, 2015 5:01 am

    “If Brett Barnes comes forward and says Michael Jackson molested him, would you believe him?” – Curious

    And you still hope to get Brett Barnes over to Wade Robson’s side? Well, we can never know – the pressure on him from Michael’s detractors is indeed unprecedented. They bombard him with insulting tweets, ridicule him and harass him, and do their utmost to make him break in some nervous breakdown. God help the man.

    However all they have from Brett at the moment is this – on May 8, 2013 immediately after Robson’s allegations he said:
    “I wish people would realise, in your last moments on this earth, all the money in the world will be of no comfort. My clear conscience will”

    And this is what he said about Diane Dimond: “She ain’t worth my time, or any of my 140 characters”.
    And if she contacted him, he said that “the outcome wouldn’t sell stories or create any scandals”

    Incidentally here is also an interesting input from James Safechuck’s cousin – Tony Safechuck:

    “my cuz/I were 2 of the kids that used 2 hang out with him!
    Great person, it’s all bullshit, no settlement happened”

    Like

  47. Lynnette from MI permalink
    April 2, 2015 2:01 am

    I am wondering the same. If Brett were to seek compensation would everyone hate him?

    Like

  48. Curious permalink
    April 1, 2015 11:13 pm

    Can I ask a question?

    If Brett Barnes comes forward and says Michael Jackson molested him, would you believe him?

    Like

  49. April 1, 2015 1:23 pm

    “One poster stated that MJ-facts and “the family” now have joined forces.”- wkatriina22

    Katriina, what family are you talking of? The Jacksons??? If this is what they say I wouldn’t believe if I were you. Such a statement could easily come from someone like Stacy Brown or that giant rogue Terry Harvey who makes himself out to be a “long-term friend of the Jacksons”.
    When we hear some gossip it is top important to first find out who the source is. In very many cases it solves 90% of the problem.

    Like

  50. April 1, 2015 1:10 pm

    “Helena, just to correct a point – any penetration of a child is classed as statutory rape, because children by definition cannot give consent.” – Candy

    It is preposterous to even suggest that you need to “correct” me in what I perfectly know myself – that children by definition cannot give consent! This blog is defending Michael’s innocence and not pedophiles who have totally opposite views on the problem.

    Even if “any penetration of a child” were not classified as statutory rape in the US law, I would still perfectly know how horribly criminal the act is because I myself was once sexually abused at a very early age and will never forget it even though more than half a century passed since then. And it is the same for other Michael’s defenders, some of whom were sexually abused even on a continuous basis – from childhood to adulthood. So we know what it’s like to be a child sex abuse victim and how traumatizing this experience is.

    Any penetration or even some milder sex abuse of a child is still rape or at least a huge act of violence against a child – irrespective whether the child agreed to it or not. No consent can even be sought from a child by an adult as there can be no “equality” between them in principle, so there is nothing for them to even discuss here.

    A child is naturally trustful of an adult and will often consent to anything an adult suggests to him or her. This is how nature determined it to be – the child is a pupil and the adult is a teacher, and this is valid for all the time until the child is ready for adult life, is fully adapted to it and equipped with various skills needed for living on his own at last.

    An adult should educate and help the child to enter life as a healthy and capable human being, but some monsters teach them vice instead, thus ruining their lives and future, and doing it solely out of their desire to satisfy their perverse feelings. This is a huge abnormality and a crime against humanity as it distorts the normal path of a human life already at its budding stage.

    Considering the role determined for different generations by nature itself children and adults can NEVER be equal to each other, especially in matters of sex. NEVER! And once you understand my position on this issue, let me also comment on your further statement:

    “So there doesn’t need to be violence or threats involved, or resistance from the child, for it to be rape.”

    This wholly true statement from you is telling me how Wade Robson is planning to build the line of his defense. He is going to say that he agreed to whatever acts he is now falsely claiming about MJ “out of love” for him.

    His explanations will be exactly as you said: “There was no need for violence or threats, and no resistance on my part as I thought it was normal and done out of love, and only after the therapy I realized that it was rape”. This is how Robson will try to escape from the disastrous situation he found himself by saying one thing in 2005 and the opposite in 2013.

    I don’t want to give away all my arguments to show how horrible a liar Robson is (not to let him prepare the answers in advance) but I will still mention one fact which is there in the 2005 transcripts – Robson testified under oath then that Michael had never as much as ever touched him.

    He sometimes kissed him on the cheek (same as his sister and mother), probably put his hand on his head (this Robson didn’t clearly remember), but apart from that he never physically touched him.

    And now he suddenly decided to recall the “anal rape”??? Or present it as if he he didn’t “realize” that it was rape???

    Who is he taking us for? Complete imbeciles?

    And I am not even talking about the psychological side of the matter which is again totally inconsistent with the behavior of a physically abused child. He could have been abused by someone else and then he would have sought Michael’s company for the same reason Corey Feldman was friends with Michael – he turned to him for regaining his innocence and was actually convalescing in his presence.

    But let us leave this talk until some other time. I want to hear all Wade Robson’s arguments first.

    Like

  51. t (@wkatriina22) permalink
    April 1, 2015 8:36 am

    One poster stated that MJ-facts and “the family” now have joined forces. I tend to agree with this, and they are part of the steering wheel of this protracted, vague and ever changing legal process going on. A profitable game for many.It has indeed become an ugly game.
    I liked MJ but was not a fan until I saw Helenas first aricle on the devious contract.This started with a deceitful contract with AEG. Since then more and more mud has been slung on MJ.Where does indeed all the cost for this macabre theatre come from?

    Like

  52. April 1, 2015 4:14 am

    “Pearl went o the LA Superior Court online service and didn’t see the case either. She was going to the free public site. All the documents are there on the paid public site but to have them come up you have to log in to purchase them.” – Lynande51

    Lynande, thank you for the clarification. Probably the picture is indeed different if you register with them but I still doubt that all documents are there. Ivy from Daily Michael for example said that Robson “served his third amended complaint on December 16, 2014. However the online system does not show this document.

    And she is registered with the system and can see all of them available for purchase. And still the amended complaint is not there. She had to analyze that document in an indirect way, via the Estate’s response to it filed three months later, on March 10, 2015 saying about it: “Luckily this document is available at the online system”.

    And this means that far from all documents are listed even on the paid public site.

    Like

  53. lynande51 permalink
    March 31, 2015 9:25 pm

    Helena just one thing. We ran into a similar problem and had a misunderstanding about a possible settlement made by The Estate.
    Pearl went o the LA Superior Court online service and didn’t see the case either. She was going to the free public site. All the documents are there on the paid public site but to have them come up you have to log in to purchase them.

    Like

  54. Candy permalink
    March 31, 2015 5:55 pm

    Helena, just to correct a point – any penetration of a child is classed as statutory rape, because children by definition cannot give consent.

    As an example (and this happens hundreds or even thousands of times a day), if a 15 year old young woman begs her 18 year old boyfriend to perform cunnilingus and he reluctantly agrees, as soon as he complies he is raping her (even though she asked him and is enjoying it).

    The same as if a young boy sells himself on the streets of some US city (and I know this happens a lot in Moscow) and willingly goes with a client, that client is guilty of rape as soon as there is any form of penetration whether digital, oral or genitally.

    So there doesn’t need to be violence or threats involved, or resistance from the child, for it to be rape.

    Otherwise, good work with the blog.

    Like

  55. March 31, 2015 11:13 am

    “if you can see the lies and inconsistencies, so too can the trained professionals who are handling the case. They must be laughing in delight at every elaborate amendment! Even so, you need to send your findings their way, for you can never have enough ammunition in one’s defence.” -Helen-Marie

    Helen-Marie, you know, I’ve never sent my findings to the Estate because I always think that they as professionals will surely see what I see. The facts I am writing about always seem so obvious to me that I cannot even imagine that others will not notice them, especially if they are experts in the field.

    But you are probably right – help can never too much. However my posts are long and detailed as I am trying to explain the process of coming to this or that conclusion (so that everyone is able to do the same), and the Estate lawyers probably don’t need that or don’t have time for reading all of it in so much detail.

    This is why I have a suggestion to you and others willing to help the truth and justice – when you see something substantial please send the gist of it to the Estate with links to respective blog posts in case they want to read the details or follow the train of thought leading to a conclusion. This will help me as it will save me from writing a summary besides the text, and will help the Estate as it will save their time.

    Like

  56. March 31, 2015 10:17 am

    “It will be the thruth executed for the money,or at best another joke of the legal system. (The joke refers to the AEG trial).” wkatriina20

    Katriina, the AEG trial was indeed a joke, and a nasty one at that. I hope everyone has seen how terribly pro-AEG it was and how ridiculous, formal and defying all logic the judgement was.
    Since then I have somewhat lost my faith in justice in today’s world, but it doesn’t mean that we should no longer uphold the truth. We should and all the more so, considering that there is almost no one else to seach and stand up for it except real truthseekers.

    “Alan Duke´s turn around is an ”everything for money”

    As to Alan Duke I take it as his big human catastrophe. He has probably acquired money but lost himself as a journalist. I’ve read two articles by him on RadarOnline and it was so typical in style for RO that I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw Alan Duke’s photo below the text. Thought it was a joke or mistake until I found an article about him joining RadarOnline. A big human catastrophe.

    Like

  57. March 31, 2015 9:55 am

    “The case summary of Robson’s civil case became visible only this year in January, I think. I don’t know the reasons for it, but it is possible that the Safechuck civil case will also show up at a later time.”- Susannerb

    Susanne, yes, it is quite possible – it can be just suspended for a time being and waiting for some progress with the probate case. I will add this point to the post.

    If we or readers learn of some changes in the status of these cases I suggest adding the news to the comments on this post – to keep the information updated.

    Like

  58. March 31, 2015 8:37 am

    This is awesome! Helena sure can spot the liars! Good up…………..

    Like

  59. t (@wkatriina22) permalink
    March 31, 2015 7:40 am

    Helen-Marie,Mascha-in re to to mother-son: How could a child dance after such a gruesome physical and emotional trauma?As the one RW claims? ´

    Like

  60. Helen-Marie permalink
    March 31, 2015 6:38 am

    Once again you have debunked many of the lies and inconsistencies of this case and I totally agree with you when you say…

    “These days publicity has become the key to success. Even wars now are mostly won not on the field of the battle, but in the information field in the first place”

    In the busy world we live reading a headline on a newspaper stand is as far as it goes for some people and unfortunately headlines are one of the most damaging feeds the press can arm themselves with. Once read it’s set in stone for some.

    In a previous post someone noted that your excellent debunking of ‘Lies v Truth’ may be used by the haters, I had considered that too. But we must remember, if you can see the lies and inconsistencies, so too can the trained professionals who are handling the case. They must be laughing in delight at every elaborate amendment! Even so, many value your insights and as others have said before me, you need to send your findings their way, for you can never have enough ammunition in one’s defence.

    Marsha covered a very good point and one that I had also thought of as a Mother of a Son. She states…
    “If there was indeed anal sex would not there have been some physical trauma? Would not there moms have seen some blood in their underwear at least once?”

    I totally agree, as a Mother you instinctively know if your child is unwell or traumatised and lets leave no doubt anal rape would be a life changing act. The consequences of such an act would render a child to all kinds of internal injuries, ones that a mother would surely pick up on.

    Needless to say it would be painful to walk, run, climb, cycle or even sit down comfortably, all the things young boys in particular are keen to be doing and yes, underwear would be a key indication that all was not well in that department, not only immediately after the act. There would also be changes in mood as the child tries to make sense of what has happened to them, many signs a Mother would sense.

    One last point, has there ever been a personal Bodyguard come forward and testify against Michael? I only mention this as some of them came from Police/Military backgrounds and would have undoubtedly picked up on if a child had left Michael’s company traumatised.

    Great work as always Helena x

    Like

  61. t (@wkatriina22) permalink
    March 31, 2015 6:36 am

    Alan Duke´s turn around is an ” everything for money”.As is RW/ Robsons,, and the lawyers fees to be paid, and all the “interesting articles about “bad boy” Michael in the press.
    It will be the thruth executed for the money,or at best another joke of the legal system..
    Still ,above all my earnest thanks to Helena for starting this blog and for all the extensive work.(-The joke refers to the AEG trial).

    Like

  62. March 31, 2015 5:50 am

    Helena, good that you found out about Safechuck’s civil case number BC545264.
    Although this “supplementary declaration” of Safechuck definitely only refers to the probate case, I don’t think that Safechuck’s civil case necessarily disappeared or was cancelled just because it doesn’t show up on the LA Court case information system so far. It was the same with Robson’s civil case earlier. I checked it several times last year and Robson’s civil case never was there, just the same explanation (“no match found”). The case summary of Robson’s civil case became visible only this year in January, I think.

    I don’t know the reasons for it, but it is possible that the Safechuck civil case will also show up at a later time. Perhaps they include it in the Online Services only after a certain process has been reached or after a certain amount of proceedings held/papers filed.

    We will see what happens.

    Like

  63. March 31, 2015 3:42 am

    “Where could I contact you? So we could discuss more of this tabloid bull.” Rockwell Scratch

    You can reach me by using the “contact me” button but these days I have very, very little time, especially for private communication (and even don’t look up my mail that often), so it would be better if you discussed this tabloid bs here. Over there I can’t guarantee you any discussion.

    Divine Truth, Luv & Light be with you! – Lilly Diaz

    Oh Lilly, thank you very much! The same to you and all those who want to know and seek the Divine Truth!

    Like

  64. Lilly Diaz permalink
    March 31, 2015 3:34 am

    As always, thank you so much for your hard work & enlightening us with the truth! Divine Truth, Luv & Light be with you!

    Like

  65. March 31, 2015 3:31 am

    “the tide would change negatively for Michael’s reputation and would hurt Michael’s enourmous popularity and earnings for his estate. The estate losing money would be the only reason for a settlement from the estate (even though, if they chose to settle would be bad for Michael’s legacy in a worst way).” -Glaucia

    Glaucia, I think you hit the nail on the head. All this leakage of “declarations” is a sort of cynical blackmail of the Estate. It is something like: “The more you resist, the more stories we will leak to the press, the more unbearable the pressure will be, and the bigger will be the damage to Michael’s reputation and Estate’s earnings – so choose which decision is more profitable for you to take”.

    Jordan Chandler’s lawyer did exactly the same to Michael in 1993 and unfortunately it was these very legal advisors who are now the executors of MJ Estate who then advised him to settle “for it to go away”. And of course it never went away and later Michael was very sorry about it and wished he had never listened to that advice.

    I hope these lawyers have learned their lesson and will not repeat the same mistake.

    Like

  66. March 31, 2015 2:59 am

    “I do not understand why the court is even taking these people seriously.” – Marsha

    Marsha, I also wondered about it and Daily Michael explained why: http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/287-opinion-understanding-legal-process-for-robson-safechuck-claims

    A quote from there:

    “the judge is required to accept everything Robson/Safechuck alleges as true. So that explains why the Judge won’t be expressing any skepticism about the claims. However this in any way isn’t a proof of veracity of the allegations.
    Here judge is mentioning the pleading rules and how he is required to treat everything Robson/Safechuck alleges as true.

    Here you can see a part from Robson/ Safechuck’s documents. In a more legal language their lawyer explains how all of the pleading has to be accepted as true – no matter how unlikely or improbable. It also mentions how Robson/Safechuck do not have to provide any evidence to support the allegations they claim (for the time being).

    So it is important to remember that this is the demurrer phase. Demurrer is not about the truth of the allegations, it’s only about if there’s enough grounds to justify a legal action. For example if I sue Jane Doe claiming she stole $10,000 for me, the judge will not determine if my allegation of theft is true or not. To the contrary the judge will accept my allegations as true and will only consider if I can file a theft lawsuit against Jane Doe – such as if my lawsuit is filed in correct jurisdiction, within statute of limitations, valid cause of action and so on.”

    So at this stage they are discussing just formal reasons for making a complaint – whether there are any at all, and the judge cannot even express his opinion about the allegations.

    We also learn that if the case goes forward, it is only then that the complainants will be obliged to produce their “evidence”. In fact they have already started the process, only in the media – they are already bombarding the public with their stories. It gives them publicity and allows to fine tune their lies by getting feedback which ideas work and which don’t.
    Considering that what they are doing is a WAR on Michael (and his Estate) all this leakage of “declarations” may be compared to preliminary artillery fire and also a kind of a reconnaissance operation.

    These days publicity has become the key to success. Even wars now are mostly won not on the field of the battle, but in the information field in the first place. And the winner is often the one who totally disregards the truth and cynically throws in lies after lies. Unfortunately if these people have all publicity tools in their hands they have a big chance to win, even if their cause is totally false.

    Like

  67. March 30, 2015 10:12 pm

    Your research is very interesting, Helena. Where could I contact you? So we could discuss more of this tabloid bull. I’ve got a notion.

    Like

  68. Glaucia permalink
    March 30, 2015 5:56 pm

    The haters aren’t gonna simply give up. Safechuck came to try to give credibility to Wade , but their claims didn’t make a impact in the estate’s earnings at all. And the estate is fighting these claims. So haters are trying to convince others Michael’s childhood friends to “join” them. They think with more supposed “victims”, it’s more hard to the media ignore these allegations like they are doing now, so the tide would change negatively for Michael’s reputation and would hurt Michael’s enourmous popularity and earnings for his estate. The estate losing money would be the only reason for a settlement from the estate (even though, if they chose to settle would be bad for Michael’s legacy in a worst way). It would be a admission of guilty in the haters eyes like It was in 1993.

    Like

  69. Marsha permalink
    March 30, 2015 5:48 pm

    I find this whole thing sickening, And I do not understand why the court is even taking these people seriously. No.1 Either way Wade is a liar. Even God won’t entertain a liar in the last Judgement, why is the court system. Also in a trial if one is found to be a liar isn’t the jury instructed that they can disregard anything they say. No.2 If there was indeed anal sex would not there have been some physical trauma? Would not there moms have seen some blood in their underwear at least once? No.3 Isn’t clear to see that the only reason that thee people are saying what they are saying now is because the Estate has shown a profit? No. 4 Is not this point driven home by the 1.6 bill. number. In all of the abuse cases I have heard of, no one has asked for the total wealth of anyone or any organization why so in this case. It seems to me that it a case based on money, jealousy and envy driven by people like Diane Dimond (boy was I tempted to cha afew letters in her name LoL) who lust for fame. Even families of murdered victims don’t ask or get the entire wealth of the accused.Why should these guys get anything. No.5 As for giving them the heads up that their lies have been seen through perhaps it would be more prudent to send such info to the lawyers esp. Messereau for safe keeping and let them wonder if their lies are being taken seriously until trial. and stop giving them a chance to amend their statements untill such trial.

    Like

  70. March 30, 2015 4:48 pm

    Is very sad that these guys are doing this now ! But, there’s not much fans can do. It’s up to the Estate of Michael Jackson and these two lawyers. I hope it ends one day!

    Like

  71. March 30, 2015 2:06 pm

    Reblogged this on mjjjusticeproject and commented:
    The LIE CYCLE of James Safechuck and his MJtroll script writers . .

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: