THE MESS of Jimmy Safechuck’s Civil Suit
Recently the text of Safechuck’s civil complaint against MJ companies surfaced and left a clear impression that Safechuck is either completely mad or his text was inspired by hard-core pedophiles. The filth he is writing is staggering and can be compared only with the creations of Victor Gutierrez and the like.
The text is a complete fake and one recognizes it from a simple fact that though Safechuck is describing the early years of his association with Michael Jackson his story looks like a kind of a summary of everything that has ever been invented about Michael by his haters for the past 30 years.
WHEN THINGS ESCALATE IN THE REVERSE ORDER
For example, back in the 1990s no one even dared claim that MJ showed to children any erotic magazines or even possessed any, because everyone knew that Michael was still very much a Jehovah Witness and was “very prissy and proper and prim, and the very essence of the proverbial Victorian old maid” as Macaulay Culkin’s father put it.
At the time he was indeed squeaky clean as Deepak Chopra called him – no drugs, no alcohol and no meat. And in his free time he used to read the poetry by Sufi and Tagore (see the post about the books Michael read then). Though being almost 30 Michael was still so “proper” that he wouldn’t use a single word of profanity – it would “cause him to all but faint” as Kit Culkin incredulously noted.
So seeing Michael the way he was it never even dawned on Jordan and Evan Chandler that it was possible to lie that Michael had shown any “porn” to the boy.
The first lies about it appeared only 12 years later, after some legal adult magazines were seized by the police from Michael’s home. Gavin Arvizo jumped at the chance and happily claimed that he had been shown some of them. To forge the evidence Sneddon attempted to plant Gavin’s fingerprints on those magazines right in front of the grand jury but the jury noticed that the boy was not wearing gloves, and the lie fell flat anyway as the magazines in question were found to be issued several months after the family left Neverland.
The testimonies of Jason Francia, Robson, Barnes and Culkin at the 2005 trial also made it clear that Michael had never shown them any explicit materials and they learned only at the trial that Michael possessed them.
Like all others Robson had no idea who the adult magazines he was shown belonged to and the prosecution had to resort to discussing them in terms of “assuming that he knew they were Michael Jackson’s”.
A quote from Robson’s testimony:
1 When you were a young child, did Michael
2 Jackson ever show you any sexually explicit
4 A. No.
5 Q. Did you ever see Michael Jackson show
6 sexually explicit material to any child?
7 A. No.
22 BY MR. ZONEN:
23 Q. Mr. Robson, when did you first learn that
24 Michael Jackson possessed material of the nature
25 that’s before you right now?
26 A. Right now I did.
27 Q. All the years that you have known Michael —
28 A. Actually, no one’s told me where this came
2 Q. Assuming this comes from Michael Jackson’s
4 A. Assuming it does, this is the first I know.
5 Q. All right. And you had never, ever known
6 that Mr. Jackson collected sexually explicit
8 A. No.
9 Q. This is something new that you’re learning
10 just today; is that right?
11 A. Yes.
Apparently Robson doesn’t remember how convincing his testimony was at the 2005 trial because now his suit claims that MJ did show it to him. However Safechuck who was allegedly an earlier “victim” of MJ takes his lie even further – he says that he not only watched “porn” with MJ but also movies where “children were masturbating and engaged in sexual activities”.
His civil suit says:
“.. together they would watch porn films. Some of the porn films were heterosexual in nature as were the pornographic books the Decedent showed to Plaintiff. Decedent also showed Plaintiff movies in which children were masturbating, and told him that they were “not really porn”. The movies that Decedent referred to as “porn” involved adult sexual activities, whereas the films where children engaged in sexual activities were “not porn”
This bold statement is surely meant for those uninitiated who don’t know that the FBI scanned all MJ’s computers and never found anything even remotely connected to the above – no traces of the respective websites visited, no photos, no nothing, and of course no movies of that kind.
You’ll say that MJ could get them from a nearby rent-a-movie shop. My vivid imagination is painting to me the sight of Michael Jackson going to a shop and renting there porn or movies where children were engaged in sexual activities…. or his aides doing it under false names……. where are the receipts then? … and witnesses of all this activity? …. and why didn’t they find the owners of those shops?…. and where were the tabloids? …. and vigilant Sneddon?….and the FBI?… and what were the names of those movies?…. and did those movies exist at all?
Indeed, are films showing “children masturbating and engaged in sexual activities” on sale in the US? No, they are not? Then isn’t it hilarious to assume that they were freely produced and available in late 80s–early 90s which Safechuck is describing?
The whole story is comic science fiction of course, and if you are honest with yourself you will agree that Safechuck’s tale is intended solely for shocking the public and running away with a lie.
However the biggest mistake Safechuck is making is aggravating his story to a point when it sounds filthier than the stories of those who lied about MJ decades after Safechuck.
Once every ten years some opportunist emerged in MJ’s surrounding (Chandler 1993, Arvizo 2003, Robson 2013) and each of them learned from the previous one and incorporated the earlier story into their own tale embellishing it even further.
But Safechuck is supposed to be before all of them and simple chronology suggests that in order to sound truthful his account should be much more subdued than the one by Arvizo, for example – especially when we consider Michael’s shy and proper ways in late 80s and the fact that the alleged “sexual” activities should theoretically escalate and not go into reverse with time.
So the crux of the matter is that Michael of the 80s simply can’t be worse than Michael of the 90s or 2000s – however Safechuck is portraying him as such.
Let me repeat that back in the 80s Michael was still very much a Jehovah Witness and was very genuine and ardent in following the laws taught to him by his mother. He couldn’t make himself celebrate Christmas or his own birthday, let alone watch some “bad” films involving, God forbid, “children in sexual activities”. Especially considering that such films were not even made and the police never found traces of them in any of Michael’s homes.
Safechuck is describing things that defy both the chronology and simple logic, and this makes his story impossible even in principle.
The same is true not only for the alleged “porn” Michael never showed Safechuck (or anyone at all), but for all other parts of his lawsuit. Look, for example, at another of Safechuck’s statements, this time concerning the 2005 trial.
According to Safechuck in 2005 he allegedly confessed to his mother that Michael was a “bad man” and “he was abused”, but he asked her not to disclose it to Michael Jackson and when Michael requested her to testify in his defense she “pretended she was not aware of the abuse” (paragraph 63):
63. A few days after this telephone conversation, Decedent called Plaintiff’s mother to try to get her to convince Plaintiff to testify on his behalf at the criminal trial. Decedent also wanted both of Plaintiff’s parents to testify on his behalf. One to two days prior to Decendent’s call to his mother, Plaintiff had told his mother about the call he had received from Decedent and that he had declined to testify at the criminal trial. Plaintiff talked to her about the call and told his mother that the Decedent was a “bad man,” but was unable to tell her any details or say anything but the briefest statement that he had been abused. Plaintiff told his mother not to let Decedent know that she had found out. Plaintiff was panicked that Decedent would find out that he had told his mother. When the Decedent called Plaintiff’s mother, she pretended that she was not aware of Decedent’s earlier threatening call to her son, or about the abuse”
Imagine the situation for yourself. Your child tells you that he or she was abused when young – will it be possible for you to speak quietly to the offender the next day and “pretend that you don’t know”? Or will you be still furious and hysterical and tell him that you will not only refuse to testify in his defense but will also approach the prosecution instead?
Of course Safechuck is trying to explain it by a tale that he was terrorized by MJ:
62. In 2005, Decedent contacted the Plaintiff, and asked him to testify on his behalf in the criminal trial against Decedent in Santa Barbara for criminal sexual abuse. Plaintiff was approximately 25 years old at the time. Decedent started out the telephone call by saying that he wanted to help Plaintiff with his music and directing. He then asked Plaintiff to testify at trial on his behalf. When Plaintiff said no to the request, Decedent got angry and threatened him. Plaintiff told the Decedent never to call him again, and that he wanted a normal life. The Decedent got very angry and continued to threaten Plaintiff, telling him that he had the best lawyers in the world and that they would get Plaintiff for perjury from the 1993 Chandler trial. Plaintiff had never experienced the Decedent being so angry. Plaintiff was also panicked about the Decedent talking to his mother – fearful that she would find out about his abuse by the Decedent and be threatened by Decedent’s lawyers.
Firstly, the story about the Chandler “trial” is meant only for the uninitiated – the young generation may indeed not know that in 1993 there were no charges brought against MJ and absolutely no trial. This is a deliberate invention on the part of Safechuck and his lawyers.
Secondly, in 2005 Michael wasn’t calling his witnesses himself and it was only his lead lawyer who decided who of them would be asked to testify depending on their frame of mind, stamina and the ability to withstand a harsh pressure from the other side. Remember that it was Thomas Mesereau who decided not to call Frank Cascio – Frank is a nice guy and his book is the quintessence of truth about MJ, but his interviews show that when he talks he can be easily lost for words and may sound not convincing enough.
Thirdly, it is impossible to imagine Michael threatening anyone at any time of his life, let alone the moment when he was barely alive during the trial. It was also impossible for him to insist on Safechuck’s testimony – who would need so unreliable a witness if there were three witnesses ready to testify in his defense of their own free will and Thomas Mesereau was still thinking whether he would resort to them at all?
And finally, why did his mother “pretend that she wasn’t aware of her son’s abuse”? What power on earth can force a mother to pretend such a thing? And if she really did, shouldn’t she be held responsible for never coming out and withholding the key evidence?
The truth of the matter is much simpler of course – Safechuck is a psychotic coward who didn’t want to be involved in a trial and when his own parents evidently urged him to speak up for Michael he defended his cowardice by degrading Michael in some way. His mother understood the problem and this is why she was calm and quiet when talking to MJ’s lawyers and explained that their family would prefer to carry on with their normal life rather than be involved in a scandalous trial.
The psychotic and embittered Safechuck is indeed able to blame Michael for all his life misfortunes and frustrated hopes and this is why he is inventing all sort of crazy stories about MJ now – up to him being “married to him” in some secret ritual (paragraph 43).
And though Michael is not alive and cannot look Safechuck in the face to make him ashamed for what he is doing, it is still possible for us to check up a few things in Safechuck’s claim and this will make it clear what a virtuoso Safechuck is in spreading innuendoes about his old friend and twisting facts where there is absolutely nothing to twist.
FACTS VS INNUENDOES
Safechuck’s complaint begins with a little of his biography.
From paragraph 7 we learn that he met Michael Jackson when he was nine. For two years before that Safechuck’s family had already been seeking a career in movies for their son as he started working on television at age 7. This is how and where Michael must have met him – through some TV or movie agents who suggested the boy for a Pepsi commercial:
7. Plaintiff was born in Simi Valley, California on February 28, 1987. Plaintiff started working in television commercials at the age of 7-8 in approximately 1984/1985. In the late 1986/early 1987, Plaintiff was hired to work on a Pepsi commercial shoot. Karen Faye, the Decedent’s hairstylist, was present at the shoot and for the first conversation between Plaintiff and Decedent in Decedent’s trailer. Following the conversation, Decedent asked Plaintiff to sit on the stage and watch as Decedent performed for the commercial shoot.
The next episode of the suit is a polite letter written by Michael to Jimmy Safechuck on March 10, 1987. The text makes it clear that Michael was replying to the boy’s letter though a clear attempt is made to present it as Michael’s initiative.
Another small note: since Safechuck wants to involve in his lawsuit Norma Staikos (Doe 2) who worked for MJJ Productions at the time he specifically mentions that Michael’s letter was written on the office stationery.
8. Several months after the Pepsi commercial was shot, Decedent wrote a letter to Plaintiff on Doe 2’s stationery dated March 10, 1987. It stated:
Thank you for your letter. It was nice hearing from you again! I’ve been working on a new video for my album and have been really busy.
It was fun working with you on the Pepsi commercial! Maybe we can work together again. I’d like to have you come and visit me on the set sometime or when I have some free time you can come to my house.
Keep sending me letters! I love to hear from you!
Speak with you soon, [Decedent’s signature]”
The Decedent also enclosed photographs from the Pepsi commercial that they shot together.
The detail we learn from the above is that after shooting the Pepsi commercial MJ did not maintain any contact with Safechuck for several months and at some point the Safechuck family decided to remind Michael of themselves – the nine-year old Jimmy wrote a letter to Michael to which Michael replied on March 10, 1987.
Paragraph 9 continues:
9. After receiving Decedent’’s letter, Plaintiff and his family were invited to dinner by Decedent to Decedent’s home on Hayvenhurst Avenue in Encino, California (“Hayvenhurst house”). The invitation was made by Decedent through Jolie Levine, Decedent’s then secretary/personal assistant. Ms. Levine later became Decedent’s production assistant on the “BAD” Tour, and his production coordinator on the “BAD” album.
The above introduces to us another player in the saga – Jolie Levine, who was Michael Jackson’s secretary at the time (not to be confused with Quincy Jones’ daughter of the same name) to whom a tabloid author Christopher Andersen attributed a lot of dirt allegedly said about Michael, none of which she confirmed to the authorities as I hear.
This character may be instrumental to Safechuck’s case as she was “one of the MJJ Productions” company whom Safechuck is now finding responsible for his association with Michael, and if she surfaces she will surely be confronted with all the lies she allegedly told about Michael.
Before we pay attention to a deception in the timing of Safechuck’s story please read the rest of paragraphs 9 and 10:
9. … Plaintiffs’s parents accompanied him to Decedent’s Hayvenhurst house for the dinner. After eating, all four of them watched the film Batteries Not Included in a small home theater in Decedent’s Hayvenhurst house. During the visit, when Decedent was alone with Plaintiff, Decednet gave Plaintiff presents – a globe and $700. Plaintiff’s parents were not aware that Decedent had given their son money at the time, and when they discovered it later, they asked Decedent not to give Plaintiff money. In response to their request, Decedent giggled and said that he could not help himself.
10. Shortly after their first visit to the Hayvenhurst house, on Thankgiving Day, Plaintiff was on the telephone with Decedent. Plaintiff’s parents suggested that he invited Decedent to come over to their home. Decedent said yes, and Plaintiff and his parents drove over to the Hayvenhurst house to pick up Decedent and bring him back to their home. On multiple occasions after the first visit to the Hayvenhurst house, either Plaintiff and his family, or Plaintiff on his own, would go over to see Decedent at the Hayvenhurst house.
Reading this smooth story you will certainly get the impression that the events came in a close succession of one after another and followed Michael’s letter sent to Safechuck in March. This effect is an intended one and is created deliberately to produce the impression of how “intensive” their friendship with Michael Jackson was.
The reality of course is very much different. Though some scraps of the above may be true when you bring these scraps together the story will be a totally different one.
The thing is that between the time when the polite letter was sent and the invitation to a dinner at Hayvenhurst at least seven or eight months passed, during which time the nine-year old aspiring actor surely bombarded Michael with more letters – after all Michael asked him to keep writing and even promised him that “maybe they would work together again”.
Learning the approximate time of that dinner at Hayvenhurst is easy as the telephone episode came on Thanksgiving day and the visit was “shortly before that”. In 1987 Thanksgiving day fell on November 26, so the visit was sometime in autumn and when we learn that Michael went on a Bad tour on September 12 and had a break in the tour on October 13 – November 10 we can even narrow down the date to early November when Michael was in the US.
So while Safechuck is trying to present to us a picture of Michael being greatly “interested” in him Michael was busy with something else and was actually interested in someone totally different. That summer he was auditioning for a girl for his short film “The Way You Make Me Feel” and was very much impressed by Tatiana Thumbtzen as the right girl.
The video was shot in September 1987, after which Michael went to Japan on the first leg of his Bad tour. The happy look on Michael’s face when shooting that video is telling us all we need to know about his frame of mind at the time.
On October 13 -November 10 Michael had a temporary break in the tour due to some cancellations in New Zealand, and went back to the US where the video of The Way You Make Me Feel was finished and released on MTV on October 31.
It was probably after that that he invited the Safechucks to a dinner at his house, and we may be sure that it came after a lot of letters from the boy sent to him since March.
The visit to Hayvenhurst was nothing out of ordinary. It was a dinner followed by watching a newly released family-comic science fiction movie – the type of film Michael Jackson really liked.
The movie was produced by Steven Spielberg and was about a family of small extraterrestrial living machines (father machine, mother machine and their children) that saved an apartment block under threat from property development.
Why did Michael give to Safechuck a globe and $700 during that visit? A globe is an educational tool to make the boy interested in geography and $700 were surely meant for the family. Safechuck’s father was a garbage collector and it was a delicate way for Michael to give them some financial help. In the same way Michael tried to help Murray when AEG Live was not paying him – he used to pass some $100 bills via his son Prince knowing that a child could not be refused.
Safechuck’s poor but proud family naturally told Michael not to do it again (though accepted the money) and to save everyone from the embarrassment Michael laughed and said that he “could not help himself” which was absolutely true. He really couldn’t help himself when he saw someone in need of money or attention.
Soon after that dinner Michael returned to Australia, and “shortly after that” came a telephone call on Thanksgiving day which Safechuck is describing.
Who called whom on that day?
Safechuck’s text avoids an answer to this question saying that “Plaintiff was on the telephone with the Decedant”. This vague wording makes it clear that the call came from the Safechucks as otherwise they would have made it a special point that it was Michael. Indeed, it was a perfect opportunity for the Safechucks to thank Michael for the dinner and remind him of their son again – they wanted him to pursue a career in the movies and Michael Jackson was planning to go into movies after the tour.
So it was them who badly needed Michael Jackson and were keen on cultivating a friendship with him, and not the other way about.
Safechuck’s text says that during that Thanksgiving call his parents suggested that Jimmy should invite Michael to their home and Michael said yes, and we again have the impression that almost immediately after the call Jimmy’s father picked Michael up and brought him to their home.
But this was impossible as Michael was in Australia. The next day after Thanksgiving day Michael was performing in Brisbaine and was to meet the winner of the MJ dancers’ contest who was no other than Wade Robson, aged five. The day after (November 28) Michael had his second concert in Brisbaine to which he invited Wade Robson to perform with him on stage and a day later (November 29) Wade Robson and his mother went to his hotel to meet him again and had a two hours’ talk with him.
That show in Brisbaine was Michael’s last on his first leg of the Bad tour and on November 30 he returned to the US. So any invitations to Safechuck’s home could take place only in December 1987 at the earliest and this is when Michael evidently agreed to visit the family’s home.
The next paragraph in Safechuck’s story surprises us with the news that the second time he visited Hayvenhurst his parents “dropped him off” there and went to dinner (elsewhere?) while the boy “stayed with the Decedent”:
11. On the second occasion that Plaintiff went to the Hayvenhurst house, Plaintiff was dropped off by his parents. Plaintiff’s parents went to dinner while Plaintiff stayed with Decedent. Plaintiff and Decedent drove off in Decedent’s Mercedes and passed out $100 bills to homeless people. Decedent said to one homeless man, “You do know how much this is,” and then landed him a $100 bill.
After reflecting on what it could mean I realized that the dinner could be at Hayvenhurst after all, only Michael and the boy probably didn’t stay for dinner and went driving to find the homeless, and this is when Michael handed them out $100 bills. To me it sounds like Christmas time and Michael sincerely wanting the homeless to have some joy.
The point about Michael asking a homeless man if he knew the value of the banknote shouldn’t confuse anyone – Michael surely didn’t want the man (evidently old and half-blind) to mistake it for a 1-dollar bill and be robbed of it by some swindlers.
Paragraph 12 is about the Safechucks’ third visit to Hayvenhurst and seeing Michael’s recording studio there. And since the text mentions Jermaine Jackson there this episode could take place not earlier than January 1988:
12. The third time Plaintiff visited the Hayvenhurst house he was accompanied by his parents and they took a tour of Decedent’s recording studio which was located there. Three of Decedent’s brothers were in the studio working, including Jermaine Jackson, and they all exchanged a quick hello.
Jermaine Jackson moved into Hayvenhurst with his second wife Margaret Maldonado in early January 1988 according to her book and this is when Jermaine and brothers were indeed working there on their new album. This places the Safechucks’ third visit to Hayvenhurst at approximately the first half of January.
As is usual with all horror stories Safechuck is building up suspension and in paragraph 13 suddenly raises the subject of Michael’s bedroom (how can any story about MJ go without a bedroom?). Safechuck says that he would hang out in Michael’s room during his “many” visits to Hayvenhurst.
To add even more thrill to the narration he notes that Michael had a staircase on the exterior of the house leading to his bedroom over which “anyone could enter it” and this immediately plants all sort of horrible ideas into our suspicious minds.
However none of it has any bearing on his claim, as first of all, absolutely no “sleepovers” took place at the time and second, Safechuck is lying that he made “multiple” visits to Hayvenhurst. The visits were few and his own follow-up text is proving it.
13. During his many visits to the Hayvenhurst house, Plaintiff would “hang out” with the Decedent in Decedent’s bedroom, and spend time with him in Decedent’s dance room. There was a staircase leading to Decedent’s bedroom on the exterior of the Havenhurst house so that one could enter if from the outside. The upstairs portion of Decedent’s bedroom overlooked the main, downstairs portion of his bedroom. It was reachable by a spiral staircase from the main part of the bedroom below. Decedent kept the mannequins that he collected in the upstairs portion of the bedroom, and positioned them so that they looked down to the lower portion. Plaintiff and Decedent played with the mannequins on Plaintiff’s many visits. The main, downstairs portion of Decedent’s bedroom had a giant glove that was lit from the inside. Decedent had a closet located in the upstairs portion of his bedroom on the left side, that he kept filled with jackets from his past music videos and performances. Decedent let Plaintiff touch and play with his many jackets. Decedent let Plaintiff try on the “Captain EO” jacket, and gave him the Thriller jacket to keep. Decedent took back the Thriller jacket a few years later, saying that the jacket would still belong to the Plaintiff, but they he needed to display it in a museum. The Decedent told Plaintiff that there would be a plaque saying “on loan from Jimmy Safechuck”. In the meantime, the Decedent let Plaintiff choose between two of the other jackets used in the Thriller video – the “Zombie” jacket and the “clean” one.
If you think that all these memories are provided here just for fun you are greatly mistaken. Safechuck is trying to explain to us that he was special to Michael and became very close to him during those visits (and that this was part of the “grooming” process of course).
In reality none of it is true. Safechuck was not “special” to Michael as he allowed almost anyone to his closet and gave his jackets as gifts to children on a regular basis.
Look at David Smithee for example to whom Michael gave his “Beat it” jacket and a sequined glove:
David Smithee, a 14-year-old cystic fibrosis sufferer, fulfilled a lifelong dream when he was invited to Michael’s Encino family home through the auspices of the ‘Brass Ring Society’, an organization that fulfilled the wishes of terminally ill children.
The pair shared an enjoyable afternoon watching movies in the private screening room, eating lunch and playing video games.
Before leaving, David was treated to a black sequined glove and Michael’s red leather jacket from his hit, ‘Beat It’. Seven weeks later, the young boy passed away, but not without having had his last wish granted. http://www.michaeljacksonslegacy.org/index.php/his-humanitarian-work
Actually the way Michael spent that afternoon with David Smithee is strikingly in common with the treatment he gave to Safechuck and his parents.
But let’s go back to Safechuck so-called “multiple” visits to Hayvenhurst and see how we can learn that he is lying.
Michael’s timeline of that period proves that Safechuck’s visits were limited to a short period of a week or so. The available period spanned from the moment he saw Jermaine (in the first half of January) to January 21 when Michael began rehearsing for the second leg of the “Bad” tour. The rehearsals were in Florida and covered the period of January 22 – February 18, 1988.
After the last rehearsal to which he invited 420 children Michael went home for a few days and on February 23 he was already performing in Kansas City on the second leg of his tour.
There were no more returns to Hayvenhurst as the deal over Neverland was finalized on February 28, 1988 (according to Gloria Berlin, MJ’s real estate agent) and Michael moved to Neverland sometime in May. The move took place within a couple of weeks between the American and European legs of his tour.
All these details of Michael’s exceptionally busy schedule are important for realizing that Safechuck is gravely exaggerating his place in Michael Jackson’s life. With so dense a schedule and so little time Michael spent at his Hayvenhurst house there was no chance for Safechuck to make “multiple” visits there. His visits were few and this is actually the reason why “he was never introduced to the other family members except Jermaine and Janet Jackson once” as he complained in his lawsuit.
Now Safechuck is making himself out as a very close friend of MJ or Michael being “interested” in the boy. But Michael treated him no better and no worse than other children around him – he treated all children well. And there was absolutely no special interest in Safechuck as their scarce meetings often initiated by the Safechucks themselves prove it.
However the text insinuates the opposite and following the usual haters’ pattern the next paragraph says that the Decedent “began telephoning the boy” and “he became part of their family”.
It is even annoying that all these insinuations are so predictable – if we were to write a story of the “abuse” we would do a much better job than Safechuck.
14. Decedent began telephoning Plaintiff at home on a frequent and regular basis. Their relationship had grown to a point where Decedent had become part of Plaintiff’s family. Decedent would call Plaintiff at home when he was alone or lonely, and Plaintiff’s family would drive over to the Hayvenhurst house and pick up the Decedent and bring him back to Plaintiff’s home in Simi Valley. One time Plaintiff and Decedent went to the part in Simi Valley. They shot some video footage there that ended up in the closing credits of one of Decedent’s documentaries. On another occasion, Plaintiff and Decedent went to the Zales jewelry store in Simi Valley. The Decedent was wearing a disguise and the saleperson at eh Zales store called the police. When the police arrived and saw that it was the Decedent, they did not pursue the matter. On another occasion, Plaintiff’s father picked up Decedent from the Havenhurst house, and they had to drive away quickly in order to evade the paparazzi. Plaintiff and his family viewed this to be exciting – as was the entire experience of being with a “star” with such celebrity status as Decedent. At this time, Decedent was in his late 20’s, Plaintiff was approximately 8-9 years old, and Plaintiff’s parents were in their 40’s.
Okay, all these beautiful things could easily take place on that first and probably only visit to Safechuck’s home in early December 1987.
Michael was a busy man and still needed time for other things – like releasing in December 1987 the single “The Way You Make Me Feel” and having a sort of an affair with Tatiana Thumbzten and working out matters with her and his managers after she famously kissed him on stage. And also attending the wedding of his attorney John Branca and releasing the “Man In The Mirror” single along with a video (all in January 1988), as well as shooting new Pepsi commercials (a four part story) and having a round of rehearsals in Florida (on January 21- February 18). And also finalizing his deal on Neverland by February 28, 1988 and moving in there, as well as preparing and going on the second leg of his Bad tour.
In short, Jimmy Safechuck was not the center of Michael’s life though he is trying hard to make it look like he was.
And there was not any “relationship” between them either. Michael began telephoning him in 1988 for the only reason that he was staying away from home – first in Florida and then in various American cities he visited on a tour. Speaking on the phone was Michael’s favorite pastime and actually his only door to the outside world from hotel rooms where Bill Bray used to lock him in to save him from the temptation to go out.
Actually the only thing that comes across to us through Safechuck’s statement about Michael “beginning to call” him is that previously he did not call him at all.
By the way Michael was 29 years old at the time, Safechuck was nearly 10 (and not 8-9 as his vague text says) and his parents were already in their 40s. These age details are important too as his suit is pretending that Michael had a long “relationship” with the boy – almost since age 8.
The next paragraph says:
15. In 1988, when Plaintiff was 10 years old and Decedent was 29-30 years old, Decedent invited Plaintiff to a convention in Hawaii at which the Pepsi commercial they had both appeared in was being featured. The Plaintiff attended the Pepsi convention with Decedent and appeared with him on stage. Decedent and/or Does 2 and 3 made all the arrangements and paid all the expenses for Plaintiff and his mother to fly first class to Hawaii, travel by limousine to the Kahala Hilton Hotel and for all of their accommodations and expenses during the convention. Plaintiff and his mother travelled together with Decedent’s entourage. Plaintiff stayed with his mother in her hotel room on that trip. On later trips, when Plaintiff travelled with Decedent, his parents would never have a room near Decedent’s room, and would be on a different floor.
Oh, so now we know how Michael and Safechuck found themselves at the Kahala Hilton Hotel in 1988 – it was a Pepsi event featuring their joint commercial shot a year earlier. We’ve known about that visit for a long time from the photos made in Hawaii in early February 1988 by a chance visitor Alan Light, only didn’t know the reason why they were there.
The convention took place during a break between Michael’s rehearsals in Florida and the photos of the visit show Michael together with Jimmy Safechuck and an unknown woman.
The woman is very much at ease in Michael Jackson’s company.
I’m not sure that this is Jimmy’s mother as she doesn’t look like a 40-year old, but no matter who she is, what’s notable is that almost all pictures show Michael engrossed in a conversation with her, while the boy is just hanging around them looking bored.
For some reason Michael’s attention seems to be focused on that woman while Jimmy 1) looks at the pond with his back to them 2) stands waiting while the fans take a picture with Michael and 3) is following the woman and Michael at a distance looking somewhat detached.
As to who paid for the trip and why it was arranged at all, as far as I know all expenses on journeys made by Michael for official events like that Pepsi convention were usually covered by Pepsi, so Safechuck’s attempts to involve the MJJ Productions company here are fruitless.
Pepsi invited Michael and Jimmy Safechuck independently of each other – as the two characters of their 1987 commercial – and though Norma Staikos may have arranged the details of the visit the money for the journey was surely coming from Pepsi.
And the boy naturally stayed with his mother in their own separate hotel room.
Paragraph 16 goes into the usual haters’ mantra that “MJ wanted the boy to sleep with him, but his mother didn’t allow it”:
16. “During the convention, Plaintiff spent a great deal of time with Decedent and got to know him well, and their friendship deepened. On this trip, Decedent asked if Plaintiff could sleep over in his room, but Plaintiff’s mother did not permit it. This was the first time Decedent asked if Plaintiff could “sleep over” in his room.
I’m sick and tired of having to repeat it, but Michael never invited anyone “to sleep with him”. It was always the other way round – children followed him like ducks and kept nagging with their parents to allow them to stay with Michael. So what Safechuck is claiming here is a blatant lie.
The next paragraph says:
17. While they were in Hawaii, Decedent rented a helicopter to take Plaintiff and his mother on a tour. Plaintiff got airsick 5-10 minutes after take-off, so they had to land. Decedent asked Plaintiff to stay in his room when they got back to the hotel, but Plaintiff’s mother said no. Decedent had also rented out an amusement park for everyone to visit. Plaintiff met Michael J. Fox at the convention, and for the entire time he was treated on a V.I.P. basis.
Though the episode is a trivial one what is standing out in the narration is that Michael allegedly “asked” the boy to stay in his room” but his mother said a firm no.
The reality was much more down-to-earth of course – the boy got sick and Michael offered them his hotel room where he could enjoy more comfort. However his mother evidently didn’t want them to be a nuisance and they kept to their quarters.
Is it so big a thing that it is worth mentioning in a lawsuit?
The next paragraph is interesting though. It says that Michael gave Jimmy a mock interview:
18. The Hawaii trip lasted a weekend. On the return flight to Los Angeles, California, Plaintiff conducted a “mock” interview of Decedent, using his cassette recorder. In that recorded interview, Plaintiff asked Decedent a series of questions, and Decedent provided responses, as follows:
Plaintiff: “What do you think about lying?
Decedent: “People make up stories about [Decedent – referring to himself in the third person]”
Plaintiff: “Do you like performing?”
Decedent: “Favorite things are writing songs, performing, and being with Jimmy [Plaintiff]”
Plaintiff: “Any new plans?”
Decedent: “Smooth Criminal” short film, new Pepsi commercial, best Pepsi commercial was the one with Jimmy [Plaintiff] because he had ‘heart’, best thing about Hawaii was spending time with Jimmy [Plaintiff], love [Plaintiff’s] family and want to spend time with them”.
During that interview, Decedent referred to Plaintiff by the nickname “Rubba”. This was a nickname that Decedent used to refer to Plaintiff early on in their relationship, and one that Decedent used to refer to other children, short for “rubber head”.
What a nice mock interview. Michael was clearly playing up to Jimmy and this means that during that weekend in Hawaii they must have indeed become friends.
His plans are also interesting to us – Michael was going to make a short film involving three children (but not Safechuck).
These were Kellie Parker, Sean Lennon and Brandon Quintin Adams, all of whom have very tender memories of Michael and are deeply resentful of the fictional stories told about him.
Rubba was indeed Michael’s nickname for all children, however it wasn’t anything sinister as haters (and Safechuck) are implying.
Roger Friedman once wrote a special article about it:
Published May 03, 2004
Much has been made of some kind of secret club Jackson may have had called the “Rubbaheads,” which had typed rules and regulations.
A note to other Rubbaheads was found in the Jackson family storage bin purchased by a man in New Jersey. There’s an implication that because Jackson called some boys “Rubbas,” it connotes any number of unseemly things.
So I asked one of the boys, now grown, about the alleged Rubbahead Club of 10 years ago, when all this happened. He says when he heard about all this a few weeks ago and again yesterday, he was stymied.
“First of all, there was no Rubbahead Club. Rubba was a name Emmanuel Lewis, who played Webster, came up with,” he explained. “Everyone called everyone Rubba. It didn’t mean anything. What we did have was the Applehead Club, and that was from ‘The Three Stooges.’ Everyone was an Applehead because Michael loved ‘The Three Stooges.'”
“It’s nothing sexual,” my source continued. “Michael even called one of the younger kids Baby Rubba. It didn’t mean anything.”
So what about the typed list of rules found in the storage bin? They included requiring members to be “idiots and act crazy at all times”; be vegetarians who fast on Sundays and avoid drugs; watch two episodes of “The Three Stooges” daily; know the Peter Pan story by heart; and when seeing another member, “give the peace sign, and then half of it.”
In fact, insists my source, “there were no rules at Neverland. The whole thing was about not having rules and having a good time. It was all from Peter Pan. There was no club, no initiation, and I never heard of a ‘club kit’ or anything else.”
Paragraph 19 is about Michael teaching Safechuck dancing in 1988. And the next paragraph is where real mess is beginning to take place.
Paragraph 20 is telling us something extremely strange – it says that “in 1988, Decedent began sleeping over at Plaintiff’s family home”.
How was that possible and when?
20. In 1988, Decedent began sleeping over at Plaintiff’s family home. The first night that Decedent slept over, he stayed in Plaintiff’s bedroom. Decedent ended up sleeping in Plaintiff’s bedroom with him on a regular basis, which Plaintiff’s parents knew. Plaintiff and Decedent would also sometimes pitch a tent in the living room and sleep in there. Plaintiff observed Decedent’s nightly regimen before going to sleep – taping his nose using white bandage tape, to form a shell to cover his nose. Decedent also used the empty bedroom of Plaintiff’s older brother to meditate.
I wonder if Safechuck has checked the packed schedule of Michael’s Bad tour.
A quick recap tells us that after the Hawaii Pepsi convention in the first half of February Michael returned to Florida to continue his rehearsals. On February 23 he started on a tour over American cities. In May the tour finished in the US but started in Europe with a two-weeks break between them, and this is when Michael moved into Neverland. On May 23 the European leg of the tour began and lasted until December 1988 when Michael performed in Japan. In January 1989 the tour was resumed in the US and this is when it was really over.
So when does Safechuck think Michael had time for sleeping in their family home? Especially “on a regular basis” as he claims in his suit?
Do you believe it? I don’t and think that he is adding this totally unnecessary episode as an extra embellishment to his story which is already crazy as it is. It was clearly inspired by June or Evan Chandler’s accounts of Michael spending time in their homes, but in Safechuck’s case it only backfires against his own tale.
The next paragraph tells us that on March 11 they attended the Phantom of the Opera on Broadway, New York.
21. On March 11, 1988, Plaintiff and his mother accompanied Decedent as his guests to attend a performance of The Phantom of the Opera on Broadway, and both before and after the performance they all spent time together with Liza Minnelli. After the show, they all went backstage to meet the stars of the show, including Michael Crawford. Jolie Levine again made all the arrangements through Doe 2 for them to fly to New York and Decedent and/or Doe 2 paid for all of their expenses for the trip. Plaintiff and his mother stayed at the Trump Tower in Manhattan for the weekend. They went to FAO Schwartz, the famous toy story, in addition to attending with him the performance of The Phantom of the Opera. Plaintiff stayed in his mother’s hotel room. Again Decedent asked for Plaintiff to stay in Decedent’s room with him, but Plaintiff’s mother said no. But as soon as Plaintiff woke up in the morning, he would go to the Decedent’s room and stay there with him.
The mantra about “MJ asking Safechuck to stay in his room and his mother said no” should be read in the reverse order of course – Safechuck asked his mother to let him stay with Michael and she allegedly said no to it (again).
It is exceptionally interesting that this point comes immediately after Safechuck’s claim that his parents allowed Michael to stay in their son’s bedroom in their family home and didn’t say a word of objection to it. Can anyone understand anything in the mess Safechuck is creating here?
Paragraph 22 is also absolutely amazing. If you know the dates you will see that Safechuck is blatantly lying here again – he claims that in February he was invited to attend some of Michael’s rehearsals in Florida and he stayed with MJ “for the first time” and his parents didn’t object to it:
22. In or about 1988, Decedent invited Plaintiff to meet him in Pensacola, Florida, where Decedent and his band were rehearsing. Decedent and Does 2 and 3 arranged for Plaintiff and his parents to travel to Florida, and stay in one of the houses that Decedent and Does 2 and 3 had rented there. Plaintiff stayed with Decedent in one house, and Plaintiff’s parents stayed in one of the other houses. This was the first time that Plaintiff stayed with Decedent on a trip. Decedent also took Plaintiff and his parents for a side visit to Disney World.
If you still didn’t get it, let me remind you that only a moment ago, in the previous paragraph he claimed that a month after those rehearsals, on March 11, during the Phantom of the Opera event his mother clearly said NO to her son’s stay in Michael’s room. Doesn’t Safechuck’s mother look like an incredibly inconsistent woman?
What’s really taking place here is that Safechuck is working on the impression that the “relationship” evolved from one thing to another, but is doing it without any regard for the real dates. He most probably expected no one to look, but we did, and what we see here is that nothing is fitting in.
At first the parents lure Michael into their family home and allow MJ to stay in one room with their son (see the reflection of Chandler’s story here?). Then they go to Hawaii in early February where the mother refuses Michael’s offer to take the sick boy to his room. Then they go to Florida rehearsals in late February and allow the boy to stay in MJ’s house. And then during the Phantom Opera episode on March 11 the boy wants to stay in Michael’s room but his request is refused.
- early Feb. Hawaii, Pepsi convention (“mother said NO”)
- late Feb. Rehearsals in Florida (“stayed with MJ in one house, parents stayed in another one”)
- March 11-12 New York City (“mother said NO”)
Do you see any logic in this mess?
And the next few paragraphs are making it even more illogical. Paragraph 23 says that the time the boy spent with MJ in 1988 “increased significantly”. Considering that Michael was on a tour at the time it is extremely hard to believe it:
23. The time that Plaintiff and Decedent spent together in 1988 increased significantly. Decedent encouraged Plaintiff to dress like him and grow his hair long like Decedent’s. Decedent had coaxed Plaintiff to become a “miniature version” of Decedent. Plaintiff did. Decedent gave Plaintiff many gifts of his clothing, some of which remain in Plaintiff’s possession to this day. The “Thriller” jacket in which Decedent had famously performed, was given previously to Plaintiff but Decedent later took it back. Decedent had become part of Plaintiff’s family circle. However, the Decedent never introduced Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s family to his own – Plaintiff saw Jermaine Jackson once at the Hayvenhurst house, and met Janet Jackson once when Plaintiff spent a weekend at Neverland when Janet Jackson and her husband, Renee, were also there.
All this pathetic talk finally brings us to a climax when Safechuck announces in paragraph 24 that “in the early part of 1988 Decedent invited Plaintiff to join him on the “Bad” tour”:
24. In the early part of 1988 Decedent invited Plaintiff to join him on the “Bad” tour”. Plaintiff spent six (6) months on the “Bad” tour with Decedent, accompanied by his mother. Plaintiff joined Decedent for the second leg of the “Bad” toiur – in June (Europe) and stayed on the tour through December (where it concluded in Japan). During that 6 month period, Plaintiff returned to the US to go back to school for several months. For the Japan portion of the tour, Plaintiff received course and homework from his school in Simi Valley so that he could keep up his studies.
From other Safechuck’s papers we know that he joined Michael on the Bad tour in Paris and this was June 28, 1988.
But now he is adding to that story a detail that he spent with Michael six months, out of which “several months” he stayed in the US as he was studying at school.
Did you get it?
He says that he spent six months with Michael from June 28 until the December concerts in Japan, however several months out of it he was back home in Simi Valley as he was going to school there.
Though the above is a bigger mess than anything we’ve seen from Safechuck up till now, the real situation was possibly as follows – he and his parents received a 6-months’ visa for the tour over Europe and Japan, and used it from June 28 to the end of his summer holiday when Safechuck returned to school. He then joined Michael only in December, during his Christmas holiday.
Only this explanation can make Safechuck’s mess more or less comprehensible to a reader, though it is absolutely none of our intention to bring any logic into his lies.
The above means that a loud statement that “he stayed with Michael for 6 months” is totally wrong – the longest it could last was two (2) months in summer and another couple of weeks in December 1988.
Well, the Cascios travelled for a much longer time with Michael Jackson, so what of it?
Safechuck then proceeds to tell us what he did during the tour and this is where another big surprise is awaiting us. To our amazement we learn that he “performed nightly with Decedent on stage” but “was not paid for his services”!
Does he mean to say that after a couple of lessons from Michael Jackson the MJJ Productions hired him for a dance job?
25. On the tour, Plaintiff performed nightly with Decedent on stage. He was not paid for his services, but Decedent and Doe 2 organized and paid for all hotel and other accommodations; made and paid for all travel arrangements for Plaintiff and his mother (and also for Plaintiff’s father who joined the family for certain portions of the tour); and paid for all food, entertainment and shopping sprees for Plaintiff and his parents. Jolie Levine was the point person for Decedent and [redacted] to make all the arrangements.
26. The first portion of the “Bad” Tour that Plaintiff attended was in Paris, France in approximately June 25-29, 1988. A replica of Decedent’s “Bad” Tour outfit was specially made by Michael Bush for Plaintiff to wear when he performed onstage with Decedent and for publicity events. During the “Bad” Tour, Plaintiff’s parents would go out to see tourist attractions – sometimes alone, and sometimes with other members of Decedent’s entourage and/or other employees of Does 2 and 3. Plaintiff could not go, because if he went out in public, he would be hounded by the paparazzi and fans because of his role on the tour with Decedent. No children participated on the “Bad” Tour other than Plaintiff.
Why “no other children participated on the Bad tour”? The five-year old Wade Robson also participated in one of the shows, however it hasn’t yet occurred to him that his performance could be considered as his employment with MJJ Productions.
As to the rest of Safechuck’s statements the cheek of them is unbelievable – so he “performed with MJ nightly”, but “wasn’t paid” though he “had a special outfit” made for him by no other than Michael Bush and “his role on the tour with Decedent” was so special that he couldn’t leave the hotel.
Isn’t it incredible stuff?
I wonder why all others who travelled with Michael on his tours did not make similar claims – Deepak Chopra’s son, for example, who accompanied Michael on the Dangerous tour at age 17 and who, same as Michael, was also confined to Michael’s hotel room and admitted that eventually he was so bored to share Michael’s forced isolation that he started to go out to night clubs and hang out with Michael’s crew while Michael was sitting all alone in his hotel.
Paragraph 27 of Safechuck’s suit is where his sexual allegations start. It is heavily redacted same as all others which describe the alleged sex abuse. He claims that the “abuse” started right after his arrival in Paris:
27. The first incident of sexual abuse occurred during the Paris portion of the “Bad” Tour in June 25-29, 1988. At the time, Decedent was 29 years old and Plaintiff was 10 years old. Decedent [redacted] Decedent and Plaintiff were together in Decedent’s room at the Hotel de Crillon in Paris. It was dark in the room. Decedent [redacted]. Later on, Decedent told Plaintiff when other sexual acts were involved, it was a way of “showing love”.
Before you even start looking in the above direction I suggest we make a quick recap of the events to check how “intensive” their frienship was during a year prior to that:
– At age 7 Safechuck starts working on TV and two years later makes a joint commercial with Michael Jackson sometime in early 1987.
– For several months after that Michael does not have any communication with the Safechucks.
– Then the nine-year boy sends Michael a letter and on March 10, 1987 he gives him a polite reply. He asks him to “keep writing” and thinks that one day they will probably work together again.
– Then Michael goes away on a tour. Jimmy continues writing letters to him and when Michael comes home during a break he invites the family to a dinner at his home (early November 1987).
– On Thanksgiving Day (November 26) the family calls Michael when he is in Australia and invites him to their home.
– After the end of the first leg of the tour MJ comes to the US and in early December visits the family in Simi Valley.
– At Christmas time there is another visit to Hayvenhurst, when MJ takes Jimmy on a trip to homeless people and hands out money to them.
– In January 1989 the family comes to Hayvenhurst and visits MJ’s recording studio there.
– In the first half of February Pepsi invites both of them to Hawaii to their official convention where the 1987 commercial is shown. Safechuck says he got to know MJ much better during those three days and records an interview with Michael. He and his mother stayed in a separate hotel room in Hawaii.
– Later in February they are invited to attend Michael’s rehearsals in Florida. Safechuck claims that he stayed in MJ’s house and the parents didn’t object to it.
– On March 11 they are invited to see the Phantom of Opera in New York. Safechuck wants to stay in Michael’s room, but his mother doesn’t allow it.
– Safechuck claims that some time in between these events Michael went to their family’s house and stayed in his room, and on a regular basis too. However the timeline does not support this statement.
– On June 28 Safechuck and his family join Michael on the “Bad” tour and it is right at this point that the alleged “abuse” suddenly begins.
And even his strict mother who four months prior to that decidedly said no, suddenly overlooked the problem. And the abuse struck just right out of the blue. Evidently out of some “special” love for Safechuck which none of us noticed in Michael’s behavior towards the boy.
Do you believe it possible?
I don’t. Probably because I know who Michael travelled with prior to Safechuck. This person was Michael’s roadie on the earlier leg of the Bad tour and is a very special kind of a man, and his opinion about Michael is much more valuable and precious than Safechuck’s.
The name of this person is Jimmy Osmond. He is part of a big Mormon family that loves Michael and adheres to an exceptionally strict and clean code of behavior. Mormons don’t drink alcohol, coffee and tea and allow themselves only hot chocolate as a drink. And telling the truth is a fundamental principle of their life.
Jimmy Osmond was a virgin until the age of 29 and his wife is the only woman he ever had a relationship with. His ways were very close to MJ’s as Michael’s mother raised him in a very much similar way and this is probably why both of them enjoyed some really “great chats” – they indeed had a lot in common and had much to discuss with each other.
One of the next posts will hopefully be about this other Michael’s companion and the Japan leg of his Bad tour when Jimmy Osmond was accompanying Michael, and after that you will surely understand that what Safechuck is describing now was impossible.