Skip to content

THE MESS of Jimmy Safechuck’s Civil Suit

August 7, 2015

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

3 material?

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

1 from.

2 Q. Assuming this comes from Michael Jackson’s

3 residence.

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

7 material?

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. 

MORE ABSURDITY

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:

“Dear Jimmy,

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.

September 1987.  Michael is shooting The Way You Make Me Feel with Tatiana Thumbtzen, and the happy look on his face is telling us  all we need to know about his real interest 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.

A shot from “Batteries Not Included”

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.

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’. 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

Michael Jackson gave the 14-year old David Smitee his jacked and sequined glove. “The boy was in heaven”, his mother said

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.

Kahala Hilton hotel. MJ and unknown woman

Alan Light's comments on one of his photos

A screenshot from Alan Light’s site

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.

At a Pepsi convention in Hawaii, early February 1988

At a Pepsi convention in Hawaii, early February 1988 (picture by Alan Light)

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).

The Moonwalker gang - Kellie Parker, Brandon Adams, Sean Lennon and MJ

The Moonwalker gang – Kellie Parker, Brandon Adams, Sean Lennon and MJ

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

FoxNews.com

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.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118795,00.html

Paragraph 19 is about Michael teaching Safechuck dancing in 1988. And the next paragraph is where real mess is beginning to take place.

THE MESS

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?

I don’t.

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.

46 Comments leave one →
  1. Paul permalink
    January 4, 2016 7:31 am

    Don’t forget Star and Gavin’s claims that MJ told his son Prince: “you’re missing out on a whole lot of pussy”

    Like

  2. nannorris permalink
    December 22, 2015 10:14 am

    Vulcan, disgusting what people were willing to say. or do to smear MJ..I dont see how Sneddon could not have known these people were all liars..
    None of it is true, but Sneddon must have disregarded Star testimony when it didnt fit.
    According to Sneddon, MJ was not supposed to be attracted to any females .
    So he ignored that lie, and stuck with the ones he thought he could fakea case with .
    He also disregarding the pill thing Star had claimed also.
    Now we see Adrian McManus on ebay selling mj stuff.
    Adrian was supposed to be Sneddons crackerjack 1108 witness, who claimed she didnt steal a room full of MJ memorabelia , and here she is years later, selling all kinds of things
    http://www.ebay.com/itm/262199051088
    I think it is interesting that both she and Blanca had Guiterrez in common, and they both seemed to keep keys after their employment at Neverland ended
    http://www.ebay.com/itm/262199051088
    Maybe he asked them to hold onto them
    If I am not mistaken, the police called Blanca to open a file cabinet for them after she had left her employment .I could be wrong about that though…
    But at any rate , I dont see how this team of prosecutors , could have believed any of these people ..

    Like

  3. vulcan permalink
    December 22, 2015 2:38 am

    Michael with Marie Nicole:


    Like

  4. vulcan permalink
    December 22, 2015 2:37 am

    Michael with Marie Nicole over the years:







    Like

  5. vulcan permalink
    December 22, 2015 2:35 am

    Michael with Marie Nicole over the years:







    Like

  6. vulcan permalink
    December 22, 2015 2:34 am

    @paul

    The Arvizos were even more rotten than the Chandlers if that is possible.
    Not only because previously they said MJ helped Gavin recover from cancer, not only because they used the ranch like they owned it but if you want to see how completely
    perverted and rotten they were just red this part of Star Arvizos grand jury testimony.
    Frankly when I read this I couldn’t believe my eyes and almost started to believe in the devil and I’m not even religious.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWp8DkiXIAA6R6s.jpg:large

    This pig made something like this up! think about it.
    If I were Dominique Cascio (Nicole’s father) I would have punched this filthy prick until he apologized both to Michael and Marie Nicole.
    Michael loved the Cascio family! He would never disrespect anyone like that let alone a child let alone Marie Nicole!

    Apparently this was even too much for Sneddon. While this was part of the Arvizo story for the grand jury during the trial itself neither Sneddon or Arvizo mentioned it.

    Like

  7. vulcan permalink
    December 22, 2015 2:31 am

    @paul

    The Arvizos were even more rotten than the Chandlers if that is possible.
    Not only because previously they said MJ helped Gavin recover from cancer, not only because they used the ranch like they owned it but if you want to see how completely
    perverted and rotten they were just red this part of Star Arvizos grand jury testimony.
    Frankly when I read this I couldn’t believe my eyes and almost started to believe in the devil and I’m not even religious.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWp8DkiXIAA6R6s.jpg:large

    This pig made something like this up! think about it.
    If I were Dominique Cascio (Nicole’s father) I would have punched this filthy prick until he apologized both to Michael and Marie Nicole.
    Michael loved the Cascio family! He would never disrespect anyone like that let alone a child let alone Marie Nicole!

    Apparently this was even too much for Sneddon. While this was part of the Arvizo story for the grand jury during the trial itself neither Sneddon or Arvizo mentioned it.

    Michael with Marie Nicole over the years:







    Like

  8. paul permalink
    December 21, 2015 7:22 pm

    @Vulcan

    They are very evil people. Never would I make such allegations even against my worst enemy let alone a man who was nothing but kind to me and helped me in my darkest hour. This is exactly why it is not good to be too kind to people. If you are too nice, they will see you as an easy mark and use you for their own gain. Whne these people came to MJ begging for help, he could have just lent them some money to help out and left it at that, but instead he moves them into his home, pays for Gavin’s medical bills, brought them a car, ran blood drives, shopping sprees, etc. He was too nice and that is why people always took advantage of him.

    Like

  9. vulcan permalink
    December 21, 2015 1:55 am

    @Zee

    “2)many people surely watched the ‘living with mj documentary’, gavin talked about d ‘sleeping on the bed/sleeping on the floor’ issue with an excited look on his face,now this boy was old enough to know if he was being molested,if he was really being molested, would he want to revisit the issue and even if he did revisit d issue, would he have a smile on his face like it was a joke? ”

    1. Remember the Arvizos claimed that the molestation happened AFTER the Bashir documentary aired in the US which was Feb 6. They of course changed the timeline first
    Gavin said MJ started to molest him right after they came back from Miami which was Feb 7 then he said it only started after Feb 20th.
    Why did he changed that?
    Because he and his family praised MJ to Bradley Miller on Feb 16 2003 and there was a tape proving it, they again praised MJ during the “rebuttal interview” on Feb 19 and then again to the social workers who interviewed them on Feb 20th.

    Of course they contradicted themselves about why they was so positive about MJ during that interview. They both said that MJ’s people threatened them (Frank wanted to make their grandparents disappear LOL no kidding) but they also said that up until Feb 20th they really believed MJ was a good guy. In other words they wanted to have it both ways which was just one of the 57165715 reasons why a sane person instantly knew they were professional liars.

    2. However, they did claim that back in Aug 2000 when the Arvizos were first in Neverland
    MJ and Frank showed them naked women on a laptop computer. Of course when it came to the details they again changed their story but it sure begs the question: if MJ had indeed done that why in the world would he invite that boy to talk to Bashir especially since he thought the documentary was a great opportunity to show the world that he really cared about kids he didn’t want to harm them.
    And of course Gavin showed absolutely no sign that MJ did anything strange during that night in 2000, he said it was great fun that night.
    We know from Frank’s book what really happened.
    It was Gavin and Star who started to look for naked women on the net while Frank and Mj were not even in the room. Then they came back (after raiding the kitchen) and Frank caught the boys! MJ told Frank to make them stop as he didn’t want this to come back at him and then left. Later he went back to the room and put on some cartoon.

    This is from Frank’s book:

    ” I didn’t pay much attention, but when Gavin and Star tried to show Michael something on the screen, he said, “Frank, they can’t do that. I don’t want this coming back on me,” and left the room. At some point I made the boys stop watching the porn. I hadn’t introduced them to it, suggested it to them, or shown them anything in any way. As far as I was concerned, they were just being boys … doing what boys with access to the Internet tended to do. Later, Michael came back to the room and put on a movie, some kind of cartoon. ”

    http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books-jetzi-02/11mfm/11mfm20.html

    The way the Arvizos rewrote history was typical. They did something then twisted it around and pointed the finger at MJ (and in this case Frank too).

    They did the same with the alcohol. In reality they drank behind Mj’s back. Stole alcohol from the kitchen (Simone Jackson’s testimony) stole alcohol from MJ’s room (Rijo Jackson’s testimony) were caught in the wine cellar alone (Shane Meredith’s testimony) demanded alcohol from the stuff while MJ wasn’t around (Angel Vivanco’s testimony).
    Then they twisted it and said it was Michael who gave us alcohol.

    They did the same with the magazines, they broke in to MJ’s room while he wasn’t around (Gavin lied about this too) they rummaged through his stuff, found the suitcase and learned that MJ had those magazines. Maria Gomez found Star’s backpack the guest unit where the boys stayed and there were adult magazines in the backpack. Now, neither Gavin nor Star ever claimed that MJ actually GAVE them those magazines so who in world did they have them? They either stole them from his room or brought them from home, which is actually what Star said when an employee at the amusement park caught him with an adult magazine.
    It’s very telling that Zonen suggested that the magazine belonged to MJ but didn’t have any proof and then ignored to explained well if it did belong to MJ who did it end up with Star if MJ didn’t give it to him?
    Nothing would explain that that Star stole those magazines!

    They did the same with the mannequin. they didn’t do a forensic analysis on it because they knew they might find the traces of the two boys on it!
    You can be sure it was them who fooled with that mannequin not MJ. Then they took this episode twisted it around and said it was Michael.

    They did this game over and over again. It was so obvious.

    Like

  10. Zee permalink
    October 16, 2015 2:06 pm

    Most of the time, the truth lies in the most basic things,so i have some very basic questions for mj haters to which i want straightforword answers….1)as a parent,if someone molested ur child,would u just take money and leave as did the chandlers? 2)many people surely watched the ‘living with mj documentary’, gavin talked about d ‘sleeping on the bed/sleeping on the floor’ issue with an excited look on his face,now this boy was old enough to know if he was being molested,if he was really being molested, would he want to revisit the issue and even if he did revisit d issue, would he have a smile on his face like it was a joke? 3)and if michael really did molest him, would he talk about letting the boy stay in his bedroom? Cos if something fishy was really going on, he definately wont even talk about it 4)as for the robson case, if michael really molested that guy,would he want him to be a witness for him in a CHILD MOLESTATION CHARGE, suppressed memory or not?…i wud like it if these haters answered these question honestly without twisting anything. I really think a bigger plan was going on, reading latoya’s second book, the part that got me most aware of this is the part where she wrote that jack gordon said while watchin mj’s investigation in 1993 and i quote “they are bringing him down,i always knew they would but just didnt know when” and then he got on the phone and called some people sayin “you guys did it”. Mj got really great that he stepped on some pretty big toes and isnt it pretty obvious that the people who handled the 1993 case are the same ones who handled the 2005 case…..a very huge scheme was going on,this i am very certain of and i think the media was in on it, i am so impressed by how mj was able to rise up again and do what he does best….if i admired him a lot before, definitely i admire him a lot more now. I’m so sure a lot of big names were involved in this scheme becos someone or some people have to be providing the big checks for these liars, they didnt really want to put him in jail cos they knew they had no proof and that he was innocent,they just wanted to humiliate him and damage his reputation. I really really appreciate the honest work you guys are putting in this, every fan and strong believers in mj’s innocence should hold on tight because this is another trying time for the truth, and please please please do not believe whatever u read in the papers about mj, lies are always made to be convincing, just because u read it in the papers doesn’t make it factual,lies run sprints but the truth runs marathons. Thanks a lot

    Like

  11. September 15, 2015 3:07 am

    “But how do you know Jason said that? Looks like the judge said it.” – kristinpan

    Kristinpan, I think you right:

    6 THE COURT: All right. You may step down.
    7 He needs to move away.
    8 MR. SNEDDON: Don’t forget your jacket.

    I didn’t notice that “A” (for answer) was missing there, so this must be the continuation of what the judge said.

    Then I fully withdraw my comment about Jason. Good to know the truth. We don’t need any illusions here.
    Thank you very much!

    Liked by 1 person

  12. September 14, 2015 1:47 pm

    Yes Francia seemed trapped by them and his mother. He couldnt escape from the plan they had with him. And also his testimony seemed so coached and rehearsed.
    But how do you know Jason said that? Looks like the judge said it.

    Like

  13. September 13, 2015 4:51 pm

    “Oh wow that is so telling. I didnt know Katz was responsible for all this.” – kristinpan

    Kristinpan, here is a special post about Dr. Katz made in 2010: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/reading-between-the-lines-of-larry-feldmans-speech-who-is-dr-katz-part-5/ It contains many surprises about this doctor.

    “The suggestive techniques as in the McMartin preschool case were also used on Jason Francia just a lot more coersive”

    Yes, the techniques were so coersive that Jason Francia said at some point that he wanted to strike his interviewers with something heavy on their heads.
    And when his testimony at the 2005 trial was over he openly addressed Michael and advised him to move away from the country. Apparently he knew that they would never leave him alone and he was in constant danger while he stayed.

    The end of Jason Francia’s testimony when he suddenly blurted it out is impressive. And Sneddon’s seemingly chance remark looks like a reminder not to forget himself too much:

    6 THE COURT: All right. You may step down.

    7 He needs to move away.

    8 MR. SNEDDON: Don’t forget your jacket.

    Like

  14. September 13, 2015 5:53 am

    Oh wow that is so telling. I didnt know Katz was responsible for all this. The suggestive techniques as in the McMartin preschool case were also used on Jason Francia just a lot more coersive.And propably on most if not all the other children they interviewed in 1993. So ultimately not one psychologist or expert that ever intervied them believed Gavin and Jordan. And is it possible that Katz would have profited from a civil case through Larry Feldman perhaps?
    Ofcourse that whole ritual thing looks like pure fantasy. I dont think Robson and Safechuck care about making their stories believable.
    Yes the rules from some kind of club I heard about those could have been an initiation of some kind that Safechucks fantasy spun out of control.
    Thanks keep on going

    Like

  15. September 12, 2015 5:46 pm

    “it seems like the secret ritual thing is an idea that might stem from the moral panic over child sexual abuse in the 80s and 90s (at least in the US). For example bizzare allegations arose from Children in the McMartin Preschool trial, which were elicited by unprofessional and suggestive questioning techniques. (a parrallel to the 1993 police interrogations).” – kristinpan

    Kristinpan, yes, McMartin preschool case is a horrible example of the way too zealous interviewers can force children to produce false memories. That case is especially interesting to us because the doctor who trained those interviewers and who devised the interview technique was no other than Dr. Katz who was involved in two Michael Jackson cases.

    In 1993 he was asked by Larry Feldman to assess the video tape of Jordan Chandler’s interview with Dr. Gardner (evidently Dr. Gardner did not believe Jordan and Larry Feldman approached another psychologigst) and the second time Dr. Katz interviewed the Arvizo family ten years later. His methods are best illustrated by his conversation with Gavin where he (a doctor!) asked Gavin if he realized that if they filed a civil case against Michael he would receive money. To me it looked like a suggestion. And why would a doctor speak about it at all?

    By the way Dr. Katz said in a taped telephone conversation with Detective Zelis that MJ did not fit the pattern of a ped-le, and the detective agreed.

    And regarding the so-called “secret ritual” if I were you I wouldn’t even pay attention. It may be pure fantasy akin to horror stories told by children from McMartin school, or it may have indeed been some funny ritual.

    For example, one of Michael’s friends said that they were supposed to keep to the following rules: “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.” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118795,00.html)

    Like

  16. September 12, 2015 6:20 am

    Hi I wanted to add something regarding the `secret ritual`that Safechuck is talking about.Ive been thinking for a long time that he not only got his inspiration from Chandler and co. but also from other sources. And it seems like the secret ritual thing is an idea that might stem from the moral panic over child sexual abuse in the 80s and 90s (at least in the US). For example bizzare allegations arose from Children in the McMartin Preschool trial, which were elicited by unprofessional and suggestive questioning techniques. (a parrallel to the 1993 police interrogations).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

    Like

  17. vulcan permalink
    September 2, 2015 10:08 am

    @Alan

    Nice story thanks for posting it here.

    ” or what ulterior motives Michael may have had in mind regarding Jimmy”.

    The way you described how MJ and Jimmy interacted is exactly how he behaved with Mac Culkin, Frank Cascio, Eddie Cascio, Sean Lennon, Brett Barnes, Emmanuel Lewis, Nicole Richie, Amy Agajanian, Kelly Parker, Jonathan Spence most of whom also had sleepovers with him and all of whom have been adamant that MJ never did anything wrong, he was pretty much a kid himself.
    It’s hard to see why he would behave differently with Jimmy or any other kid, especially since Jimmy defended him under oath in 1993, again denied abuse in 2005, has stated many obvious lies in his lawsuit, the judge caught him in a contradiction and wants everyone to believe that he really didn’t understand that sex between a man and a child is wrong until recently after he saw Wade Robson file a lawsuit against the Michael Jackson Estate and demand millions of dollars.

    To say that his claim is absurd would be the mother of all understatement.

    Like

  18. nannorris permalink
    September 2, 2015 3:05 am

    Just looking at this part here
    ‘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.

    Doesnt it make more sense for the PLAINTIFF to be asking to stay in MJ room, his mom says no, so as soon as he wakes up in the morning, the PLAINTIFF goes running over to MJ room
    So it is Safechuck , that is anxious to wake up and get to see MJ again.
    Just like Wade and Chantal said on the stand under oath,it was them who wanted to stay with him and was pestering the parents to hang out with him.
    When the parents said no , MJ didnt insist the children stay with him, he only allowed it , when these parents said yes and pretty much put him on the spot.,

    He never even would audition children for videos in front of them , because he couldnt bear to see the rejection in their eyes.He would look at tapes of kids , rather than reject one , in person.So if a child was pestering him , to his face and the parents didnt say no, he allowed them to.

    As for him inviting them to his room , after the helicopter ride..I suppose Safechuck would like people to think , MJ found him appealing , when he was throwing up.
    Naturally , MJ has the best room with the best service, while these people were in the cheapest rooms, because they had no status with Pepsi
    If MJ planned to spend a vacation with this family, I would think he would have just allowed them to stay in his suite all together , as he has with other people he brought with him

    Like

  19. August 28, 2015 2:54 am

    KEEP UP THE GOOD DETECTIVE WORK!

    Like

  20. August 25, 2015 2:28 pm

    “Thank you so much to Alan Light that he took the chance to contact us and was ready to answer a few questions.” – Susannerb

    Susannerb, I also very grateful to Alan for his account of that event and all extra details he provided, including the newspaper article, and for his invaluable help in identifying the woman in the photo. It’s amazing how much people can do when they pool their efforts.

    Now the post needs to be supplemented with this information (will try to do it asap).

    Like

  21. August 25, 2015 2:37 am

    Wow, it’s great when people talk together and can solve a few mysteries and misunderstandings. Thank you so much to Alan Light that he took the chance to contact us and was ready to answer a few questions.
    Helena, your investigations are invaluable. This is really a huge result and a damper to MJ’s haters who use and distort everything for their agenda.

    Like

  22. August 24, 2015 5:48 pm

    Thank you, Alan.
    I’m happy that you’ve come here. You are welcome any time.
    All the best to you.

    Like

  23. August 24, 2015 5:43 pm

    @ Vindicatemj (Helena):

    Re: Let me also make a small contribution to your story. It seems that the woman depicted on your photos is Jimmy Safechuck’s mother, after all. The photos coming from various sources show that she is probably the one. – what do you think?

    I think you have solved the mystery that has gone on all these years! That’s not a small contribution, that’s huge. After 27 years we know who the mystery womann is. Yes, that is definitely the same woman. Thanks.

    Like

  24. August 24, 2015 5:17 pm

    Alan, thank you very much for removing the link to that inaccurate source – this way you are doing a big favor to the truth. No one is expecting you to be Michael’s fan or defender – just stay a true witness you really are and that will be it. If all of us say just what we know (and don’t imagine) it will already be a big step forward towards restoring the truth.

    And when you are in doubt about MJ I for one understand you very well – I was also once where you are now.

    The article is very nice, thank you. Warm and genuine and having a personal touch. Not like thousands of them copied from one another.

    Let me also make a small contribution to your story. It seems that the woman depicted on your photos is Jimmy Safechuck’s mother, after all. The photos coming from various sources show that she is probably the one.

    Michael’s haters published this photo of her with Jimmy’s father – over here she is older than at the time you saw her:

    And this was found by Michael’s fans – here she is the same age as the woman in your photos (the one on the right):
    And this is the enlarged photo from your Hawaii collection:

    And before you go – what do you think?

    Like

  25. August 24, 2015 4:43 pm

    Vindicatemj (Helena):

    No need to apologize! I realize you were upset, but you still were calm and you made a good point. I have removed the links to the article in question.

    Like

  26. August 24, 2015 4:18 pm

    @ Vindicatemj (Helena):

    Hi Helena, yes I sometimes update the captions on my Michael Jackson photos to try to make my wording more clear. I did the original captions quickly and the wording was sometimes sloppy and subject to misunderstanding, so I add detail to clarify. I try to recount the experience as clearly as I remember the experience today, 27 years later (wow).

    The fact that I knew Michael was in Hawaii to make an appearance at a Pepsi bottlers convention was printed in this local newspaper article (in my hometown newspaper) at the time, from February 14, 1988. The writer says that Michael told me he was there for Pepsi, but I think that is the writer’s inaccurate conclusion. I don’t recall Michael telling me that, I remember reading in the Hawaii newspaper about the Pepsi convention and put two and two together – or perhaps the Hawaii newspaper article mentioned Michael made an appearance. 27 years later, my memory isn’t perfect on small details.

    Here is the article about meeting Michael that was written up in my local Moline, Illinois newspaper on February 14, 1988. I put this article on flickr at the same time I put the MJ photos on flickr long ago:

    Newspaper Article

    Larger, more readable version:

    Newspaper Article

    You’re right that my original captions to the MJ photos did not say why he was in Hawaii, and I regret that lack of detail in my first hastily-written captions led some people to believe that Michael just took Jimmy there for a sort of personal vacation. So I added the information about the Pepsi convention a little while back.

    I have no personal opinion one way or another about Michael’s guilt or innocence. All I know is how nice he was to me, but then I suppose someone who once met Bill Cosby might say the same. Just because Michael was nice to me, that’s all I know. I have no special knowledge of anything else. It is a fascinating case that has become almost religious or political for fervent believers…”you’re either with us or them.” No, I haven’t joined the ranks of Michael’s haters.

    For a long time no details of any sort could be found about Jimmy Safechuck. Now there seem to be way too many, many of which are of questionable veracity.

    I placed the link to the article about Jimmy because I thought it added detail to the situation, not to endorse it’s conclusions. But you’re right that by merely linking to it as fascinating or interesting it implies that I am endorsing that position. So I will remove the link from the photo captions. That is the fair thing to do.

    Best wishes to you!
    Alan

    Like

  27. August 24, 2015 4:04 pm

    And Alan, Susannerb was right – I meant that we didn’t really know why Michael and Safechuck were in Hawaii together and that it was a business trip for both of them. We, like Michael’s haters were also led to believe that Michael had taken Safechuck on a sort of a vacation. The media, haters and prosecution have been teaching us for decades that this was “the only possibility” and we also fell victim to these stereotypes.

    So you don’t have to apologize to me as none of us are free from misconceptions.

    But I have to admit another thing – that when writing that post I was angry with you. Angry because I couldn’t believe that someone who had previously left so truthful an account about Michael (without all those “embellishments” usual for others) could fall into the trap of Michael’s haters and start believing their stories, instead of his own eyes.

    Sorry for that.

    Like

  28. August 24, 2015 3:23 pm

    Hello Alan, I’m happy that you told us about Michael’s stay in Hawaii in so much detail. I first read your account and saw your unique photos several years ago on your photo page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-light/1877471831/in/photostream/. And today you’ve added even more information – for example, the fact that it was you who asked Jimmy Safechuck to join you and Michael for the photo. Of course the boy was happy to be invited – you can see it from the way he looked and even embraced Michael.

    It’s obvious that when the boy was Michael’s sole companion he was elated but when Michael was talking with others he grew bored (or at least looked that way).

    Your original story did not contain information about the reason why Michael was in Hawaii, so my impression was that you either didn’t know or didn’t think it necessary to mention – which was a shame as this omission led many people to believe that Michael was taking that boy on a sort of a vacation while in reality both of them were there “for business” and were there on an invitation from Pepsi. When some information is missing people tend to fill it in with their own imagination, and this is how myths are very often created.

    But on the whole your account of that meeting has always impressed me as very balanced and respectful towards Michael – you just stated what you saw and that was it.

    However now it is no longer so. The latest additions you’ve made to your page suggest that you have joined (probably without knowing it) the ranks of Michael’s most vicious haters who never say a word of truth about him, distort facts and disregard everything that doesn’t fit their story. These people can easily promote one thing but when their lie is discredited make a U-turn and claim exactly the opposite.

    And they are not even above impersonating others or writing from fake email addresses like they did it with journalist Charles Thomson who is known for writing serious investigative reports about Michael Jackson. The lies spread in Thomson’s name led to blocking their original site on Yola, however they shamelessly created a new one and are again spreading dirty stories about MJ as if they were “facts”.

    You can read about that impersonation story on Charles Thomson’s site here http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.ru/2011/01/anti-jackson-propagandist-posing-as.html and here http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.ru/2011/01/update-on-impersonation-saga.html

    Hopefully this will give you some idea what kind of people you are now promoting on your page by giving a reference to their “fascinating account of James and Michael’s alleged relationship”. Of course it is “fascinating” as half of it is not quite true and the rest of it is a flat lie. Lies are always fascinating, and it is only simple truth which is not that spectacular.

    You probably don’t know it, but your own account of that meeting in Hawaii is now circulating in the Internet in a combination with some pieces from Michael’s haters, and it was probably on one of such combination sources that I read your words about the boy “enjoying complete attention of Michael”. Here it is and I would be grateful if you clarified whether it’s wholly or only partially you:

    “He enjoyed the singer’s complete attention, and went on tour with him. Jimmy’s parents received a Rolls Royce worth 0,000, and afterwards, a Mercedes Benz each. Reasons why their friendship ended are unknown.” http://miljacka1942.blogspot.ru/2015/02/me-with-michael-jackson-1988-also-with.html

    This person says that “he found this information on the Internet”. Well, you can find a lot of lies on the Internet, for example, even numerous impersonations of our vindication website which is done – you’ve guessed it – by the same people who are responsible for the “fascinating” story about Safechuck. We have a post about it with some screenshots from their fake sites https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/fake-vindicatemj-sites/ and if you press the links provided there they will take you to the same “facts” site which you are recommending to others.

    I hope this information will help you to learn who is who in this horrible saga and stay with the truth after all.

    Like

  29. August 24, 2015 2:48 pm

    @susannerb:

    Re: “Regarding not knowing the reason why Michael was in Hawaii, I think Helena didn’t mean you, but meant that we didn’t know it.”

    — Thank you for pointing that out. I think you’re right and I apologize for thinking the comment was referring to me not knowing that Michael was in Hawaii to make an appearance at the Pepsi bottler’s convention.

    Re: “I would be interested in your thoughts about this young boy you saw at that time with Michael (apparently having a good and happy connection) and his extreme allegations now in the court documents. Can you bring this together?”

    — I wish I could tie what I saw to the persistent allegations, but just seeing them in public together several times over a period of three days unfortunately doesn’t give me any special insight into what may have happened when they were behind closed doors, or what ulterior motives Michael may have had in mind regarding Jimmy. As I said in my original comment, I never personally saw any suspicious behavior between them.

    The only thing I take exception to in this article is the author inferring that Jimmy was bored around Michael because he looks bored in a couple of my photos. He may look bored in the photos, but that is misleading. I was there and can tell you it was clear watching them together that Jimmy wasn’t bored at all. He was obviously having fun with Michael and vice versa.

    I wish I had more to say about the allegations but really all I can say is what I saw, which was nothing suspicious or inappropriate, and that Michael Jackson was extremely nice to me and my friends. It was so surreal seeing this supposed recluse superstar seven different times during three days around the hotel. My friends and I got so used to it we’d just say “Well, there he is again.” When I had my camera with me I took pictures; other times I didn’t have my camera with me.

    Like

  30. susannerb permalink*
    August 24, 2015 2:07 pm

    @Alan Light: Thank you very much for giving us more details about your observations at the Kahala Hilton Hotel in Hawaii in early February, 1988, when you met MJ. This information is very valuable.
    The fact that you saw MJ so often on these 3 days shows that he was not hiding in his hotel room with his young friend and that he was not the recluse the media often wanted to portray him. He wished to go out and enjoy himself outside like everybody else.

    Regarding not knowing the reason why Michael was in Hawaii, I think Helena didn’t mean you, but meant that we didn’t know it: “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.”

    Thanks again for joining in and explaining a few things.

    I would be interested in your thoughts about this young boy you saw at that time with Michael (apparently having a good and happy connection) and his extreme allegations now in the court documents. Can you bring this together?

    Like

  31. August 24, 2015 8:21 am

    Hi, my name is Alan Light and I took the many photos of Michael Jackson and Jimmy Safechuck at the Kahala Hilton Hotel in early February, 1988, that are posted in my flickr account. A few are seen here on this page. I just read this article and have a minor correction as far as what you reported about me. I don’t recall saying “The boy enjoyed the complete attention of Michael” but if I did say that it would pretty much be the truth. Michael and the boy I later learned was Jimmy were staying at the same hotel I was, and I saw them together all around the hotel 7 different times over 3 days. It was funny because, for a supposed recluse, every time my friends and I turned around there he was again. They were inseparable around the hotel- running after each other, playing tag, making soap bubbles on a room’s balcony, walking closely together on the hotel’s small private beach, looking at the hotel’s dolphins, turtles and penguins together. Another time I saw them together in the hotel lobby.

    The still-unidentified woman in white was with Michael & Jimmy on 2 of those 7 different occasions I saw them – once the balcony when they were making soap bubbles, and the other time out during the daytime around the pool area talking to fans who had spotted Michael, where you say Jimmy looks bored. Jimmy may look bored in those daytime photos but at no other time in the trip did he look bored with Michael when I saw them together. I think Jimmy just knew to back off when Michael was spotted by fans, because that’s how he behaved when I first spotted Michael and asked for a photo with him.

    When I asked Michael if he would pose for a picture with me he agreed, but said we should move farther away from the hotel so as not to attract attention. As Michael and I stood side by side ready to take the picture it occurred to me that it would be polite to ask Michael’s young friend to join us. I didn’t want the boy to feel left out, shoved aside by a fan only interested in the star. The boy seemed happy to be invited to join us the photo. I only found out Jimmy’s name later, and that he was the boy appearing in a Pepsi TV commercial with Michael at the time.

    Michael was extremely sweet and nice to us, and we talked to him for about 15 minutes. He asked us where we were from and told us he was going to be touring in Europe later in the year. When I saw him and asked for this picture he said “They’d be mad if they knew I was out here” which I assumed meant he had sneaked out of the hotel away from his security and that they would be upset if they knew he had ventured out alone. But there was nobody out around the pool and animal area but he and Jimmy, myself and my friend’s Jack and Don. Just the 5 of us, so he was in no danger of getting mobbed. Still, he didn’t want to attract attention.

    Later as we were talking a young girl and her parents wandered by, they saw Michael and got his autograph and their own photo with him. All I know is that they were the Butler family and from England.

    You say that at the time I didn’t know the reason Michael was in Hawaii, but I did. I had read about the Pepsi convention in the newspaper there and put two and two together.

    I never personally saw any suspicious behavior between them, just a lot of playfulness. Michael was acting more like someone Jimmy’s age, 10, than a 29 1/2 year old man. They obviously connected on a childlike playful level.

    Like

  32. August 11, 2015 7:00 am

    Guys, I’ve now read the whole claim of Safechuck – and, oh my God, there is so much to say about it. Like Helena says, this whole claim could come straight from a pedo storyteller like Victor Gutierrez, and it’s definitely the narrative of MJ’s haters like DD, VG, Stacy Brown, Sneddon and their later followers. But if someone will try to say now that all of this just confirms the allegations and suspicions of these haters, let me tell you that the crucial thing here is that this is a narrative that leaves out all facts about MJ and that is written from the perspective of adults, perhaps even of pedophiles, but never ever from the viewpoint of a child that was abused. There is so much in it that does not in the least reflect the experiences of real abuse victims and their reactions.
    Alone the report that Safechuck as a 12 year old felt nothing but jealousy when he was “replaced” by another boy says it all, when a real victim would have felt relieved that the abuse finally stopped. He says permanently that he felt upset and jealous, that he cried and tried to preserve the relationship with MJ when he felt neglected by him. Which child would feel like that when it is abused in the horrific way they want us to believe? Why did Safechuck continue to visit MJ when real victims rather want to escape their molesters?
    And all this anxiety, panic, sleeplessness and depression mentioned in point 93. that he feels now as an adult, he never felt in the years of abuse, but only jealousy!

    The text of this claim reveals a lot about the real motivation behind the case. Like in the other cases (Chandler, Arvizo) it is jealousy and the frustration that the relationship with MJ didn’t bring them an everlasting advantage for their whole life.
    The text also reveals that the Safechuck family was very star-struck and expected more from this relationship. It is completely different to the Cascio family. Just compare it to what Frank Cascio wrote in his book about those times and about persons like Evvie Tavasci.
    In addition, the claim shows that Safechuck has a clear culprit for his failed education and career. How easy is it to hold Michael Jackson liable now as a dead man, when others had tried it before during his life?

    In point 62. Safechuck says that MJ threatened him in 2005 with his lawyers who “would get him for perjury in 1993”. Really??? In 1993 Safechuck denied any abuse, so does that mean MJ would have been ready to admit his abuse of him just to take him to court for perjury??? And that he could be threatened with this as a 25-year-old in 2005? Illogical nonsense! – And there is more of it…

    Like

  33. August 9, 2015 10:20 am

    “if you read number 65, says number 23 next to it , it says MJ had called him at the END of the trial, still pressuring him to testify, which is ridiculous” – nannoris

    Nannoris, thank you – I’ve read the whole document of course, and not once, and remember the point where he says the second call was towards the end of the trial: “The call was towards the end of the trial […] The Decedent continued to pressure Plaintiff to testify…” But I wanted to check up something else. Will tell you and everybody when/if I manage to do it.

    “these two are trying to make anything at all ,positive , that Jackson did , into something evil .and vindicate the tabloid press and VG book . I think someone got to them”

    Michael Jackson’s haters got to them and are guiding them in what to write and how to write it. It is obvious, especially after reading Safechuck’s lawsuit.

    Like

  34. nannorris permalink
    August 9, 2015 9:44 am

    Sorry I dont think that link to the court papers will work but if you go to Ivys daily page , she links to the actual court papers , ..
    The take away for me , from this thing, is these two are trying to make anything at all ,positive , that Jackson did , into something evil .and vindicate the tabloid press and VG book .
    I think someone got to them

    Like

  35. nannorris permalink
    August 9, 2015 9:34 am

    if you read number 65, says number 23 next to it , it says MJ had called him at the END of the trial, still pressuring him to testify, which is ridiculous , as even the part with Robson, Barnes and Mac, had passed and again, there was nothing to dispute regarding “what the cooks saw ” becausae nothing was presented in trial, about Safechuck..It is a total lie .
    Nevermind , by then , MJ was so paranoid of people throwing him under the bus for money , he was BEGGING Mesereau NOT to be bought off.
    So , he supposedly calls this guy and says all this stupid stuff.
    This is pathetic.

    Like

  36. August 9, 2015 2:18 am

    “You have Safechuck saying MJ called him during the trial , trying to coerce him into testifying for him, when the judge already made his ruling on anything with JS., not being brought in. That was determined during the prosecutors case , before Mesereau had made decisions who he would call. There was no reason for him to testify” – Nannoris

    Oh, you are making a great point here. Need to look into this further as it could settle the matter of that “Safechuck’s testimony” and all the alleged “treats” around it once and for all.

    “Makes no sense whatsoever.Why would MJ threaten someone with perjury charges for saying he was innocent in 93…”

    It doesn’t make sense from many points of view – even if we assume that 1) some lawyers (not Michael!) threatened him and 2) perjury applies to teenagers at all, “threatening him with perjury” was theoretically possible only if Safechuck wanted to testify for the prosecution, and not if he simply wanted to stay away from it and refrained from taking part in the trial.

    And having an unwilling witness to testify in the defense is one of the worst possible options in general – no one can guarantee that he will not break up in the first minutes of cross-examination and ruin the case.

    As to threatening him with perjury charges for stating that Michael was innocent in 1993 – this is the quintessence of absurdity. You don’t treat a headache with a guillotine.

    Like

  37. August 9, 2015 2:10 am

    “It’s also ridiculous to believe that Safechuck would remember what MJ told before handing out a 100 bill. This is just another attempt to smear MJ and show that he was not generous from the heart that he was arrogant and full of himself.” – vulcan

    Haters will surely present it as such, though my thoughts about why Michael could say it were different – it’s easy for some old and nearly blind people living in the street to confuse a one-dollar bill with a hundred – without one’s spectacles it is easy, especially if they didn’t expect it to be a hundred. So Michael just wanted to make sure that they would not be robbed of their money by some fraudsters.

    Like

  38. nannorris permalink
    August 9, 2015 1:49 am

    Thank you for doing this article.
    I dont think Robson and Safechuck are expecting to have to answer questions under oath about this stuff,
    IMO, they have already been paid , and they were hoping , if they got lucky ,and the estate threw them a bone , all the better .
    They just sling smut at a dead man and hide behind their lawyers
    Wade goes on tv and is interviewed by Matt Lauer, not his co host Savannah Guthrie, who covered the trial , and watched him testify ..
    All arranged to protect Wade and give him a platform with a couple of slow pitches .
    A coward , enabled by the media
    If you look at Wades testimony and this mans statements , MJ isnt really around these people , these are families trying to catch MJ eye to help their childrens careers
    The Robsons especially used his name for years , in an attempt to elevate themselves in stature .
    Safechucks aspirations puttered out decades ago.
    He never made it
    Wade made it and lost it .

    They cant even profit off him by writing a book of interesting anecdotes about him , like Frank Cascio, because they weren’t around him much
    They see his estate making money , his family etc, they are just bitter and broke

    What also amazes me , is the utter lack of effort by these two, to even make their stories /, time lines even make sense at all
    You have Safechuck saying MJ called him during the trial , trying to coerce him into testifying for him, when the judge already made his ruling on anything with JS., not being brought in
    That was determined during the prosecutors case , before Mesereau had made decisions who he would call.

    There was no reason for him to testify
    Wade , Brett and Mac accusations were allowed to come in , and they came in as part of a
    GROUP of people all saying the tabloid stories were ridiculous

    This line also from Safechuck
    ——–
    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.
    ———–
    Makes no sense whatsoever .Why would MJ threaten someone with perjury charges for saying he was innocent in 93…and they are not coming in to say anything different at a later date ?
    It is absurd, but then when you look at each group of accusations individually , they are ALL absurd,

    Like

  39. vulcan permalink
    August 8, 2015 9:00 pm

    The comment about the nose tape is typical hater talk to make people believe what a disgusting freak MJ was. The problem is : this element is completely missing from the other “victim” stories or for that matter Mark Ronson’s or Sean Lennon’s stories who had sleepovers with MJ in the late 80s.

    It’s also ridiculous to believe that Safechuck would remember what MJ told before handing out a 100 bill. This is just another attempt to smear MJ and show that he was not generous from the heart that he was arrogant and full of himself.
    Haters need to kill the image that MJ simply loved to give things to people because if one accepts that all the stuff he gave the “victims” and their families would look like simply nice acts instead of grooming.

    Like

  40. August 8, 2015 4:10 pm

    “The lies literally jump into one’s face, but somebody needs to write them down and expose them publicly.” – Susannerb

    Susannerb, yes, the lies are so blatant that by some point you get the impression that they clearly “overdid” it and that you are not reading a document but a fiction story by Gutierrez. There is a lot more to say about this lawsuit, but then it should be a whole series of posts.

    “they all had been very jealous of one another and became angry when they felt abandoned or neglected by Michael. They all wanted to benefit from Michael’s power in the business and became upset when it didn’t work out for them– until today. They regard Michael as responsible for all the mess in their lives and it seems they therefore even consider it their RIGHT to accuse Michael of anything.”

    You are right and you know, it makes me very sad. It is so typical of imperfect human nature to take advantage of another person’s kindness and try to monopolize for themselves his love and attention, and then turn on him if their Napoleonic hopes and plans are not fulfilled.

    And just think of it – all of it sprang from Michael’s genuine love for people and his best intentions. If he had never helped anyone or had been dismissive, no one would have expected anything of him and he would have been just fine.

    Like

  41. August 8, 2015 3:21 pm

    “Do you ever forward your writings/findings to the Estate? If not I think you should, I am sure they don’t know half as much as you know and it will help them to get the complete picture. If I was you I would send this to Alicia to pass on to the Estate Lawyers.” – Elke Hassell

    Elke, I am sorry but I don’t even know who Alicia is, her email address or anything. I never send anything to the Estate because it always seems to me that they have better opportunity and resources for discovery.
    But if you think that this post may be useful I urge you to forward it to Alicia and the Estate with my full agreement and hope that it may indeed help.

    Like

  42. Elke Hassell permalink
    August 8, 2015 10:30 am

    Do you ever forward your writings/findings to the Estate? If not I think you should, I am sure they don’t know half as much as you know and it will help them to get the complete picture. If I was you I would send this to Alicia to pass on to the Estate Lawyers.

    Like

  43. susannerb permalink*
    August 8, 2015 8:54 am

    Helena, I am so glad you wrote this absolutely great post. You ask the right questions, expose the lies and show the complete incredibility of these claims. The lies literally jump into one’s face, but somebody needs to write them down and expose them publicly.
    It’s obvious from all these abuse claims from all these accusers that they all had been very jealous of one another and became angry when they felt abandoned or neglected by Michael. They all wanted to benefit from Michael’s power in the business and became upset when it didn’t work out for them– until today. They regard Michael as responsible for all the mess in their lives and it seems they therefore even consider it their RIGHT to accuse Michael of anything.

    Like

  44. Mahsa Piroozfar permalink
    August 8, 2015 3:29 am

    Hello my dear Helena Thanks for sharing this information that prove king of pop always was innocent. Unfortunately or luckily Liar is forgetful. All of these allegations are false. But I don’t know why God does allow to these liars speak about one who is innocent. Thanks so much for keep the truth. God bless you and king of pop. I hope the truth will win.

    Sincerely Mahsa

    Like

  45. August 8, 2015 2:24 am

    “This really needs to stop” – Jovana

    Of course this needs to stop, and this is why I am still writing. As long as they tell their lies we will write the truth.

    Like

  46. Jovana permalink
    August 8, 2015 1:03 am

    I just want to say thank you for still writing the truth about Michael and exposing his alleged victims. I would think after everything that has happened this ridiculous accusations would finally stop, but no they keep coming even now when Michael sadly is not here anymore to defend himself. I had to laugh at Safechucks accusations of Michael because it is just so ridiculous but in all truth I wish they would stop. I wish that the courts stop this nonsense once and for all because it is very disappointing such things are still allowed to be brought up. This really needs to stop,, Michael needs to rest in peace at least now. It should be illegal to drag his name through the mud now that he is not here anymore. It is not fair to Michael, it wasn’t fair back then and it is not fair now.

    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: