Micky Jackson in trouble again

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

A very interesting opinion piece on why the writer (who believes Robson and Safechuck) thinks Reed actually did them a disservice by leaving some information out of the documentary, such as the legal actions they’ve taken. She believes it would have bolstered their assertions rather than discredit them.

The most astute point she makes is that it’s no surprise that Jackson targeted children whose parents were on the make.

https://slate.com/culture/2019/02/leaving-neverland-accusers-wade-robson-james-safechuck.amp

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

She believes it would have bolstered their assertions rather than discredit them.
]

She is wrong, IMO.

Common sense would dictate that if it was a balanced piece of filming making which incorporated the whole story and not just the 2 lads point of view opinion would be far more split.

We have had 1 or 2 posters on here, watch the documentary, state they believed them 100% until they went off and did a bit of background research and it at least left some significant doubt in their minds after reading about details left out of the "documentary".

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boggles wrote: »

She is wrong, IMO.

Common sense would dictate that if it was a balanced piece of filming making which incorporated the whole story and not just the 2 lads point of view opinion would be far more split.

We have had 1 or 2 posters on here, watch the documentary, state they believed them 100% until they went off and did a bit of background research and it at least left some significant doubt in their minds after reading about details left out of the "documentary".

Everyone knows the MJ estate party line at this stage. The documentary wasn’t about him, it was about the two men.

Though personally, I’d have been absolutely fine with more characterisation of Jackson in the documentary. Refreshing the memory of viewers of the weird shít he admitted to would be no bad thing. And I don’t think having the party line trotted out by the MJ estate and his family (who all have no ulterior motive themselves of course) would be the boon his defenders think it would be either.

If people don’t believe the two men, that’s their call. Nothing that has come out since the documentary has changed my mind personally. And, yes, it’s a documentary, not a “documentary”.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Everyone knows the MJ estate party line at this stage. The documentary wasn’t about him, it was about the two men.

Though personally, I’d have been absolutely fine with more characterisation of Jackson in the documentary. Refreshing the memory of viewers of the weird shít he admitted to would be no bad thing. And I don’t think having the party line trotted out by the MJ estate and his family (who all have no ulterior motive themselves of course) would be the boon his defenders think it would be either.

If people don’t believe the two men, that’s their call. Nothing that has come out since the documentary has changed my mind personally. And, yes, it’s a documentary, not a “documentary”.

There's a lot more to the other side than the estate's party line, that's the problem.

retro:electro

You’d have to admire the persistence of the Jackson defenders at this stage. They’re worse than Theresa May, coming back time after time with the same argument dressed up as new points. Pity no one’s interested. No deal

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Everyone knows the MJ estate party line at this stage.

There is far more to it than the "estate party line" and it's pretty disingenuous to write anyone off who has simply offered a different view or narrative based on a more complete picture.

But I agree any documentary released by the estate to combat this one may redress the balance somewhat, but it won't be balanced, what a documentary (the best ones) in my opinion should be.

The whole story needs to be comprehensively told IMO, with balance, facts and alternating view points. At some stage it probably will be a 12 part from Netflix or one of them given the vast scope of it. It may be some years away, as this current chapter is still in motion.

Lets not forget they have made the most serious allegations against people who are still alive, and have named them in court documents. It would appear that once the appeal is ruled on there will be lawsuits going the other way, apparently Jackson's kids are taking legal advice.

Smertrius

its wrong to have documentary , 2 people accusing a dead person , more rightful for 2 people accusing go to court and justice deal with it

i want evidence from all the children michael jackson was with at neverland, evidence from 2 people isn't enough to accuse him as pedophile, remember this from a tv show not testify from court case, nobody has gone to court yet it still wrong to make accuse him sexually abusing children on tv, they should brought this to court end of story, bring it to court is rightful way end of story this why we have rules, the law and regulations to protect us from wrong

My news feed now has the odd Michael Jackson article popping up.

I found this one interesting:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8771319/leaving-neverland-james-safechuck-michael-jackson-train-station/

MJ supporters: Yet another example of where Safechuck was lying.

Safechuck/Robson supporters: This only shows he was confused about when the abuse ended. It must have gone on until when he was 16/17 rather than ending when he was 14.

IAMAMORON

Basil3 wrote: »

My news feed now has the odd Michael Jackson article popping up.

I found this one interesting:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8771319/leaving-neverland-james-safechuck-michael-jackson-train-station/

MJ supporters: Yet another example of where Safechuck was lying.

Safechuck/Robson supporters: This only shows he was confused about when the abuse ended. It must have gone on until when he was 16/17 rather than ending when he was 14.

Yeah it obviously never happened, because The Sun newspaper would know. They're good like that.

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Yeah it obviously never happened, because The Sun newspaper would know. They're good like that.

That's the link that showed up in my news feed, but feel free to look it up from another news source if it makes you feel any better

8-10

Basil3 wrote: »

That's the link that showed up in my news feed, but feel free to look it up from another news source if it makes you feel any better

Don't buy the S*n

Don't give them the clicks

Ursus Horribilis

Ah jaysus, is this still rumbling on?

ToBeFrank123

Whether you believe Jackson is guilty or not, its actually laughable that people would doubt something that Reed himself admits must be untrue.

The source of this story is not the Sun. The source is Smallcombe's twitter, Smallcombe being a biographer who produced evidence that the train station was not built until two years after Safechuck claimed to be abused. So this calls into question some timelines.

Here is a non Sun link.

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/entertainment/celebrity/leaving-neverland-director-challenged-on-jackson-abuse-dates-and-agrees-they-could-be-wrong/ar-BBVwnlv?ocid=spartanntp

And here is the conversation.

Mike Smallcombe
@mikesmallcombe1


So @danreed1000 is now saying because the story has been debunked, suddenly the end of Safechuck’s abuse was when he was 16/17 rather than 14. It’s a three year discrepancy. Just hold your hands up, don’t change the story. This is what happens when you don’t investigate properly.
Dan Reed
@danreed1000
Replying to @mikesmallcombe1
Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse.

2,067
4:02 PM - Mar 31, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

1,092 people are talking about this

And you wonder why many people think Safechuck is talking through his...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Well, Dan Reed didn’t ignore it. He said “Yup, that’s a discrepancy.”. A good thing, no?

It isn’t a smoking gun that Safechuck is lying though. I have a lot of people in my life, both young adults and old who have absolutely shocking memories for when events happened, even relatively recent events. They are sometimes off by years.

So, we can’t conclude anything from this really. Anyone with good memory can’t understand this but some people have awful memories. I am constantly agog at how my husband can’t recall exactly when some big events in our relationship happened.

It is very telling of how much harder James Safechuck has been to discredit than Robson though that stuff like this is being dug up.

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, Dan Reed didn’t ignore it. He said “Yup, that’s a discrepancy.”. A good thing, no?

It isn’t a smoking gun that Safechuck is lying though. I have a lot of people in my life, both young adults and old who have absolutely shocking memories for when events happened, even relatively recent events. They are sometimes off by years.

So, we can’t conclude anything from this really. Anyone with good memory can’t understand this but some people have awful memories. I am constantly agog at how my husband can’t recall exactly when some big events in our relationship happened.

It is very telling of how much harder James Safechuck has been to discredit than Robson though that stuff like this is being dug up.

I just don't get how they can be 3 years out in their timelines. And then Reed tries to stretch things to make the "truth" fit.

I'm still on the fence about Jackson's guilt or not, and like others I'd like to see a proper investigation and a proper two sided documentary so we can actually get at the truth.

But Reed's documentary was as shoddy and embarrassing a piece of investigate journalism as you can get. 3 years out in one time line. How on earth can you be 3 years out? Its mind boggling. If this was an article for the Washington Post or NYtimes, he'd have been fired for inaccuracies and poor research.

Reed seems to be making it up as he goes along.

And Smallcombes intervention shows the absolute critical importance of detailing both sides.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I just don't get how they can be 3 years out in their timelines. And then Reed tries to stretch things to make the "truth" fit.

I'm still on the fence about Jackson's guilt or not, and like others I'd like to see a proper investigation and a proper two sided documentary so we can actually get at the truth.

Reed's documentary was as shoddy and embarrassing a piece of investigate journalism you can get. 3 years out in one time line. How on earth can you be 3 years out? Its mind boggling. If this was a piece for the Washington Post or NYtimes, he'd have been fired for inaccuracies.

Well, firstly, it could be only two years. And it’s a quarter century ago. A quarter century. It’s not surprising to me that the dates of recollections might be a bit off.

Sexual crimes reported soon after they happened are difficult enough to prove. The task of proving this happened would be near impossible. But it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I honestly thing that the only think that would convince MJ’s most ardent defenders is a videotape of abuse happening. And even then, I think some would set out to prove that it’s fake.

Reed’s documentary was about these two men telling their story. I find it odd that people talk about it like it should be a trial. I have never watched any documentary ever that took that format and I’ve watched a lot of documentaries. The men told their stories and people can make up their minds.

As for your claim that he’d be fired for that discrepancy if he worked for the NYT or Washington Post. No he wouldn’t. The NYT posts corrections and clarifications all the time. It’s known for it. They understand that journalists are human and mistakes can be made.

I find your claim that you are on the fence to be mealy-mouthed, to be honest. You have never posted anything in favour of either Reed or the two men featured in the documentary. I feel like someone truly on the fence would have at least something positive to say about them.

ceadaoin.

There's two railroads at Neverland. One was definitely in existence at the time Safechuck said. It's entirely possible there was another train station too. All that we know is that a new station was built in 1993 or whenever the year was. So I don't think it's definitive proof either way. There's a hell of a lot of other stuff in his account that doesn't include the train station and can't be disproven

The amusement park included two railroads: one 3 ft (914 mm) narrow gauge named "Neverland Valley Railroad", with a steam locomotive named Katherine after his mother (Crown 4-4-0 (2B), built in 1973), and two coaches. The other was a 2 ft (610 mm) narrow gauge, with a C. P. Huntington replica locomotive made by Chance Rides.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There's two railroads at Neverland. One was definitely in existence at the time Safechuck said. It's entirely possible there was another train station too. All that we know is that a new station was built in 1993 or whenever the year was. So I don't think it's definitive proof either way. There's a hell of a lot of other stuff in his account that doesn't include the train station and can't be disproven

And some of the things he says in the documentary seem very likely to have happened. Unless Jackson was hanging around jewellery stores in Safechuck’s hometown with a child who wasn’t Safechuck. Possible, but unlikely. And he mentioned the rooms above the cinema.

Interesting about there being two railroads. Though maybe the station building wasn’t built until the second railway was. But maybe there was some kind of building there before. Who knows? It will be treated like a smoking gun by MJ superfans though. In other news, water is wet. And people wonder why more victims don’t come forward? Who would offer themselves up to have their character undermined publicly? Nobody has lived a perfect life.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And some of the things he says in the documentary seem very likely to have happened. Unless Jackson was hanging around jewellery stores in Safechuck’s hometown with a child who wasn’t Safechuck. Possible, but unlikely. And he mentioned the rooms above the cinema.

Interesting about there being two railroads. Though maybe the station building wasn’t built until the second railway was. But maybe there was some kind of building there before. Who knows? It will be treated like a smoking gun by MJ superfans though. In other news, water is wet. And people wonder why more victims don’t come forward? Who would offer themselves up to have their character undermined publicly? Nobody has lived a perfect life.

It's usually journalists who seem to come up with discrepancies in their stories, but they're probably just MJ superfans who just happen to be journalists.

hetuzozaho

Basil3 wrote: »

but they're probably just MJ superfans who just happen to be journalists.

Yup you're prob dead right. With a super star like Jackson it's probably the case, and at a time when a lot of journalists were growing up.

joeguevara

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There's two railroads at Neverland. One was definitely in existence at the time Safechuck said. It's entirely possible there was another train station too. All that we know is that a new station was built in 1993 or whenever the year was. So I don't think it's definitive proof either way. There's a hell of a lot of other stuff in his account that doesn't include the train station and can't be disproven

I think it was clear that he remembered a particular clock which wasn’t in the first railroad. Also the railroad only opened 2 years after he alleged the acts stopped. So he would have been 16 and didn’t he say they happened for years in the room so not only is he out by 2 years it’s anything from 4-5. A lot of discrepancies.

ceadaoin.

joeguevara wrote: »

I think it was clear that he remembered a particular clock which wasn’t in the first railroad. Also the railroad only opened 2 years after he alleged the acts stopped. So he would have been 16 and didn’t he say they happened for years in the room so not only is he out by 2 years it’s anything from 4-5. A lot of discrepancies.

Did he specifically mention the clock? I thought that was just shown in the drone footage because that it what is there now. Could be wrong but as far as I remember he just said it was a room above the train station nothing about the clock.

the "evidence" that the station wasn't there then consists of a photo image of blueprints unearthed by a fan. there are also sources which mention a station with a clock being in existence in 1990 so it's not entirely clear what was there before the new place was built, unless they are also misremembering. Either way, there was definitely a railroad there prior to 1995, whether there was a station with a room above it is what isn't clear.

hetuzozaho

Can we all just agree that he slept alone with children in his bed and that it's not right. I think Jackson would be cool with us saying that.

Let's close this down

joeguevara

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Did he specifically mention the clock? I thought that was just shown in the drone footage because that it what is there now. Could be wrong but as far as I remember he just said it was a room above the train station nothing about the clock.

the "evidence" that the station wasn't there then consists of a photo image of blueprints unearthed by a fan. there are also sources which mention a station with a clock being in existence in 1990 so it's not entirely clear what was there before the new place was built, unless they are also misremembering. Either way, there was definitely a railroad there prior to 1995, whether there was a station with a room above it is what isn't clear.

Yes in his testimony he made specific reference to the striking floral clock. The clock couldn’t be mistaken with any other one. And never has testimony said it was moved from one to the other.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Basil3 wrote: »

It's usually journalists who seem to come up with discrepancies in their stories, but they're probably just MJ superfans who just happen to be journalists.

It’s certainly possible. MJ defenders are not exactly a rare breed. Whether we realise it or not, I bet everyone here has come across people who would defend MJ to the hilt if the topic came up.

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It’s certainly possible. MJ defenders are not exactly a rare breed. Whether we realise it or not, I bet everyone here has come across people who would defend MJ to the hilt if the topic came up.

Not a superfan nor even a fan.

The only interest I have in defending to the hilt is journalistic integrity and proper research.

It seems a bit obvious Safechuck fed Reed a lie or two and Reed didn't bother to check if it was true or not.

And rearranging timelines to make the story fit, the credibility of someone who does that would be immediately questioned in court.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

This thread really illustrates to me how the Catholic Church could get away with what they did for so long.

People will defend MJ to the hilt, despite the fact he shared his bed with little boys over and over and over again. It's rather perverse.

ToBeFrank123

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

This thread really illustrates to me how the Catholic Church could get away with what they did for so long.

People will defend MJ to the hilt, despite the fact he shared his bed with little boys over and over and over again. It's rather perverse.

No-one said sharing his bed with boys was normal.

That's not really what is being questioned here.

Care to explain why Safechuck made a specific allegation of abuse that has been proven to be wrong?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Not a superfan nor even a fan.

The only interest I have in defending to the hilt is journalistic integrity and proper research.

It seems a bit obvious Safechuck fed Reed a lie or two and Reed didn't bother to check if it was true or not.

And rearranging timelines to make the story fit, the credibility of someone who does that would be immediately questioned in court.

It’s interesting that you never seem to have anything good to say about Reed, Safechuck or Robson, being on the fence and all.

As for the bolded, he may have dates wrong. It’s a long time ago and describing events that happened in his formative years. Can you exactly date all your teenage memories? I know I can’t. And to be honest, we don’t know enough yet to know if he was lying. But you’ve decided that he is. You’re apparently interested in journalistic integrity but seem too easily persuaded by any claim that the two men are lying. Anything to say about the credible things Safechuck said in the documentary?

I don’t believe you’re on the fence. Show, don’t tell.

BorneTobyWilde

Safechuck was abused in a Train Station that didn't exist, I think arguing about just the timeline is silly. How the hell could be abused in a Train Station that didn't exist unless he just assumed it existed and used it as an abuse location in his concocted story. Makes no sense, only thing that makes sense is he's lying. He assumed the Train Station was there all along and use it in his story.

BorneTobyWilde

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

This thread really illustrates to me how the Catholic Church could get away with what they did for so long.

People will defend MJ to the hilt, despite the fact he shared his bed with little boys over and over and over again. It's rather perverse.

Here is an actual weirdo/creepy guy who loves to rub his hands all over kids. You've seen 1000's of videos of michael with kids, have you seen anything like what this guy is doing? No, you will not.
And this guy could be president. This is a pervert hiding in place sight. Seems Michael is guilty on zero evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ-YjGmpO4Q

ceadaoin.

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Safechuck was abused in a Train Station that didn't exist, I think arguing about just the timeline is silly. How the hell could be abused in a Train Station that didn't exist unless he just assumed it existed and used it as an abuse location in his concocted story. Makes no sense, only thing that makes sense is he's lying. He assumed the Train Station was there all along and use it in his story.

Is there definitive proof that there was no train station there at all until 1993? That the blueprint referenced isnt an addition or an update but the very first one? There isn't . Two Michael Jackson biographies reference the/a station being there in at least 1990. It's known that there are two railroads there.

From Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson

Reporters invited to tour Neverland during its 1990 public unveiling most often began by inspecting the towering statue of Mercury (the Roman god of profit, trade, and commerce) in the driveway outside the mansion, then climbed a hill out back that led to a near replica of the Main Street train station at Disneyland, with a floral clock that was barely less magnificent than the one Walt Disney had designed for his own park.

From Remember the Time: Protecting Michael Jackson in His Final Days

"In 1990, Michael Jackson opened the gates of his Neverland Valley Ranch to the public for the first time...Neverland's visitors entered the ranch at its train station, boarding a steam engine that took them up to the main house.

I admit that it would be strange if Safechuck claimed to have been abused at a train station when there wasn't one there at all, (but again there is far more to his story that can be verified) but there are indications that there was some kind of station there and we know for definite that there was already a railroad prior to 1993. It's not a stretch to think he got them mixed up given his age and how long ago it was.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Is there definitive proof that there was no train station there at all until 1993? That the blueprint referenced isnt an addition or an update but the very first one? There isn't . Two Michael Jackson biographies reference the/a station being there in at least 1990. It's known that there are two railroads there.

From Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson

"Reporters invited to tour Neverland during its 1990 public unveiling most often began by inspecting the towering statue of Mercury (the Roman god of profit, trade, and commerce) in the driveway outside the mansion, then climbed a hill out back that led to a near replica of the Main Street train station at Disneyland, with a floral clock that was barely less magnificent than the one Walt Disney had designed for his own park."

From Remember the Time: Protecting Michael Jackson in His Final Days

"In 1990, Michael Jackson opened the gates of his Neverland Valley Ranch to the public for the first time...Neverland's visitors entered the ranch at its train station, boarding a steam engine that took them up to the main house."

I admit that it would be strange if Safechuck claimed to have been abused at a train station when there wasn't one there at all, (but again there is far more to his story that can be verified) but there are indications that there was some kind of station there and we know for definite that there was already a railroad prior to 1993. It's not a stretch to think he got them mixed up given his age and how long ago it was.

That would be very understandable. And the floral clock is mentioned in the account of the 1990 unveiling.

ceadaoin.

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Here is an actual weirdo/creepy guy who loves to rub his hands all over kids. You've seen 1000's of videos of michael with kids, have you seen anything like what this guy is doing? No, you will not.
And this guy could be president. This is a pervert hiding in place sight. Seems Michael is guilty on zero evidence.

Yeah Joe Biden is a creep and acts completely inappropriately.

But I'm sure you must know that there are pictures and videos of Michael holding hands with kids, wrapping his arms around them, bouncing them on his lap (a 13 year old!), lying on a bed with a kid and drinking from baby bottles (wtf), staring into their eyes, being half naked with them, having his hands high up on their thighs and basically acting like a loved up boyfriend with them. Oh and he slept alone in a bed with many of them and some have accused him of abuse, so yep he did act like a creep out in the open just like Joe Biden and also continued the inappropriate behaviour in private by bed sharing and allegedly abusing them! Doesn't sound like "zero evidence" to me.

BorneTobyWilde

I've not seen such pictures. I've seen countless pictures of him with kids acting normally though.

hetuzozaho

It would be such a stupid thing to lie about. He was alone in his bed multiple times. It's not like he's trying to prove to us that he was alone with Michael in compromising positions. We know this. The Jackson family admit this. That alone for me is some form of child abuse anyway. Surely.

ToBeFrank123

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I admit that it would be strange if Safechuck claimed to have been abused at a train station when there wasn't one there at all, (but again there is far more to his story that can be verified) but there are indications that there was some kind of station there and we know for definite that there was already a railroad prior to 1993. It's not a stretch to think he got them mixed up given his age and how long ago it was.

I agree there is more to the story to be verified.

But when Reed was pressed on it, he simply changed the year the abuse allegedly happened to something like 1995 to make sure it fitted in with the new railway station.

Seriously? Is this the level this guy is operating at? Someone queries a timeline and he just changes the year on the spot without bothering to do any research.

Its clear he's unsure about the railway stations. And to cover his ignorance he makes things up.

Good documentaries take years and years of research and talking to as many people as possible. They aren't created over a couple of days of interviews with a small number of people from one side of the story.

I'm all for a proper documentary investigation into Michael Jackson which is well researched. Unfortunately this documentary is not it.

kunst nugget

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I've not seen such pictures. I've seen countless pictures of him with kids acting normally though.

https://twitter.com/councilof9/status/1099521587827621888

ToBeFrank123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Whether you believe Jackson is guilty or not, its actually laughable that people would doubt something that Reed himself admits must be untrue.

The source of this story is not the Sun. The source is Smallcombe's twitter, Smallcombe being a biographer who produced evidence that the train station was not built until two years after Safechuck claimed to be abused. So this calls into question some timelines.

Here is a non Sun link.

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/entertainment/celebrity/leaving-neverland-director-challenged-on-jackson-abuse-dates-and-agrees-they-could-be-wrong/ar-BBVwnlv?ocid=spartanntp

And here is the conversation.

Mike Smallcombe
@mikesmallcombe1


So @danreed1000 is now saying because the story has been debunked, suddenly the end of Safechuck’s abuse was when he was 16/17 rather than 14. It’s a three year discrepancy. Just hold your hands up, don’t change the story. This is what happens when you don’t investigate properly.
Dan Reed
@danreed1000
Replying to @mikesmallcombe1
Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse.

2,067
4:02 PM - Mar 31, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

1,092 people are talking about this

And you wonder why many people think Safechuck is talking through his...

Just to add to this, Safechuck's final visit to Neverland was 1992 when he was aged 14.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/entertainment/a26762732/michael-jacksons-wade-robson-james-safechuck-allegations-timeline/

1992 - Though James says he is not able to name an exact date or month when the molestation ended, he made his last visit to Neverland aged 14.

But Reed, without it seems any research has now changed it to aged 16/17 when challenged on timelines.

Boggles

That's Weird, Reed on every interview I have watched him give, stated vehemently he fact checked every single detail to the nth degree.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

But, once again, a supposed smoking gun that Safechuck is lying is not at all clear. It does show how hard people are working to try and discredit him though as he has not been anywhere as easy to as Robson. Two books mention what he describes existing (including the clock) in 1990 on the Neverland ranch as Ceadaoin has shown above. Safechuck and his presence in the documentary have proven to be a problem for the ‘Jackson is innocent’ crowd. Wouldn’t it be much easier if it was just Robson (who I also believe but who is easier to refute)?

I’m surprised Reed agreed so easily that it was a mistake. Though as I pointed out before, journalists make mistakes all the time. (As I said above, the NYT is well known for posting corrections) It’s no surprise if documentarians also do.

But it’s not clear that this is even a mistake. It actually seems like it isn’t. I think Reed probably felt like he had to tweet something.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But it’s not clear that this is even a mistake. It actually seems like it isn’t. I think Reed probably felt like he had to tweet something.

Totally logical and believable.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Basil3 wrote: »

Totally logical and believable.

Well, we know that what Safechuck describes has been documented in a number of books as being present at the 1990 unveiling. That much we do know.

Hey, maybe those book authors put those descriptions in because they could see into the future and hear Safechuck’s future descriptions and thought “Let’s back him up by putting in a false description!”. Amiright?

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, we know that what Safechuck describes has been documented in a number of books as being present at the 1990 unveiling. That much we do know.

So he could have read those books?

Agreed?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Here is an actual weirdo/creepy guy who loves to rub his hands all over kids. You've seen 1000's of videos of michael with kids, have you seen anything like what this guy is doing? No, you will not.
And this guy could be president. This is a pervert hiding in place sight. Seems Michael is guilty on zero evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ-YjGmpO4Q

There's loads of creepy and wrong images and videos of Jackson with kids.

Mentioning Joe Biden is just straight up whataboutism. That's not an argument to counter what Jackson did.

Scotty #

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It’s a long time ago and describing events that happened in his formative years. Can you exactly date all your teenage memories? I know I can’t.

Are you seriously suggesting that he's confused/can't recall as to whether he was abused as a 12-14 year old pre-pubic kid or as a 16-17 year old young man?

His credibility is gone.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boggles wrote: »

So he could have read those books?

Agreed?

Indeed he could have.

But they do demonstrate that what was supposed to not exist at Neverland in the timespan that Safechuck visited did exist. What’s more likely - that he saw these things with his own eyeballs while at Neverland or that he read about them in a book?

It does show that people are working hard to discredit Safechuck. Honestly, MJ’s most ardent defenders must be cursing his presence in the documentary.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Scotty # wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that he's confused/can't recall as to whether he was abused as a 12-14 year old pre-pubic kid or as a 16-17 year old young man?

His credibility is gone.

You haven’t been keeping up with the thread, have you? Two books describe what Safechuck describes existing in 1990. Go to Ceadaoin’s post to see the descriptions in the books, including mention of a floral clock.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Is there definitive proof that there was no train station there at all until 1993? That the blueprint referenced isnt an addition or an update but the very first one? There isn't . Two Michael Jackson biographies reference the/a station being there in at least 1990. It's known that there are two railroads there.

From Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson



From Remember the Time: Protecting Michael Jackson in His Final Days



I admit that it would be strange if Safechuck claimed to have been abused at a train station when there wasn't one there at all, (but again there is far more to his story that can be verified) but there are indications that there was some kind of station there and we know for definite that there was already a railroad prior to 1993. It's not a stretch to think he got them mixed up given his age and how long ago it was.

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Indeed he could have.

But they do demonstrate that what was supposed to not exist at Neverland in the timespan that Safechuck visited did exist. What’s more likely - that he saw these things with his own eyeballs while at Neverland or that he read about them in a book?

It does show that people are working hard to discredit Safechuck. Honestly, MJ’s most ardent defenders must be cursing his presence in the documentary.

Its not other people working to discredit Safechuck. Its Safechuck and Reed that are discrediting themselves with stories that are contradictory.
One says one thing, the other says the opposite. Safechuck says he was abused in a railway station when he was between 12 and 14. Reed says it must have been when he was 16-17. Who is right? Both of them can't be so at least one of them is talking nonsense.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its not other people working to discredit Safechuck. Its Safechuck and Reed that are discrediting themselves with stories that are contradictory.
One says one thing, the other says the opposite. Safechuck he was abused in a railway station when he was between 12 and 14. Reed says it must have been when he was 16-17.

Well, we have back up for Safechuck’s descriptions. As far as I know, Safechuck hasn’t said anything about making a mistake with timelines. Has he? So how is Safechuck discrediting himself if he’s sticking to what he said and books about Neverland back up his descriptions?