Micky Jackson in trouble again

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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?

That's fine. Reed was wrong then. I am all for giving a fools pardon to people on some things if they don't bother to research but when Reed says he researched things and then is easily caught out, you'd question how well he researched things.

I and others have said all along Wade, Safechuck and indeed Reed have credibility issues. Wade said Michael told him to stay away from girls. What Reed left out of the documentary was Jackson set Wade up with his own niece. Terrible story agreed as Wade was only 9, but, its a story that contradicts Wade's version. Anything contradictory or which couldn't be squared Reed left out of the documentary. He also left out the fact that Safechuck's evidence was not permissible at the 2005 trial. So either he didn't research that either (likely) or else decided it was a circle he couldn't square and best to leave it out.

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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?

Its entirely possible he forgot stuff, mixed up timelines or simply relied on others for their memories.

Reed for example omitted a massive disclaimer around Wade's testimony.

"Despite telling the detailed story of his first night at Neverland in the documentary as if it is his own memory, at his 2013 deposition, Robson admitted that he 'did not know' if his memory of that night “came from (his) own recollection or it was told to (him) by someone else.”
"Another email showed that Robson found one particular story from the early 1990s which specifically named him and his mother. He emailed it to his mother and asked whether it was true. She replied, ‘Wow, none of that is true’."

https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/music/1100816/Leaving-Neverland-Michael-Jackson-Wade-Robson-mother-Safechuck-child-abuse-true

So some of what Wade claimed to have directly remembered in the documentary, he admitted before he was unsure if it was his memory or not.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

That's fine. Reed was wrong then. I am all for giving a fools pardon to people on some things if they don't bother to research but when Reed says he researched things and then is easily caught out, you'd question how well he researched things.

I and others have said all along Wade, Safechuck and indeed Reed have credibility issues. Wade said Michael told him to stay away from girls. What Reed left out of the documentary was Jackson set Wade up with his own niece. Terrible story agreed as Wade was only 9, but, its a story that contradicts Wade's version. Anything contradictory or which couldn't be squared Reed left out of the documentary. He also left out the fact that Safechuck's evidence was not permissible at the 2005 trial. So either he didn't research that either (likely) or else decided it was a circle he couldn't square and best to leave it out.

So Safechuck hasn’t been discredited. Thank you.

All people have been able to dredge up about Safecheck is nebulous stuff like lawsuits taken against his father and that he took recreational drugs in his early 20s - *clutches pearls* - and so far nobody has disproven his claim that MJ personally telephoned him asking him to testify. Add this current furore to the list of things that hasn’t discredited him as descriptions in books predating this documentary back up what he has said. People like yourself who claim to be on the fence seem to lack the curiosity to delve deeper when anything comes out that superficially seems to discredit an MJ accuser.

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

So Safechuck hasn’t been discredited. Thank you.

All people have been able to dredge up about Safecheck is nebulous stuff like lawsuits taken against his father and that he took recreational drugs in his early 20s - *clutches pearls* - and so far nobody has disproven his claim that MJ personally telephoned him asking him to testify. Add this current furore to the list of things that hasn’t discredited him as descriptions in books predating this documentary back up what he has said. People like yourself who claim to be on the fence seem to lack curiosity to delve deeper when anything comes out that superficially seems to discredit an MJ accuser.

Possibly not, its unclear as yet. But the director Reed has been! Caught out at best as not having much of a clue about the history of Neverland, and at worst a big fat lie. As I said, they can't both be right. Their behaviour fits into a pattern of being fast and loose with facts and the truth.
Why would Jackson personally ring him if Jackson had abused him? Who puts on the stand or brings into the public realm someone who could easily start talking against him? Unless of course he didn't abuse him. You really need to suspend belief to believe some of what these guys are saying.

ceadaoin.

Why would Safechuck have to resort to reading obscure books to get his description of Neverland when he had been there himself on multiple occasions? No one is denying that he was there and spent a lot of time with Jackson so it doesn't really make sense that he apparently now used the wrong material to make up his entire story (like the whole thing hinges on this one detail). Mis remembering or conflating two structures seems more likely surely?

Mr.Wemmick

These kids were probably very happy to be in MJ's world with him being their protector. They must've blanked out the effects of the abuse during this time and needed to slowly piece it all together as adults. On top of this they were coached to be liars, hide the truth from family, the public.. layers of lies with the added weight of responsibility for MJ's safety. You would wonder what messed them up more the actual abuse or the lies they happily told to protect their abuser.

Anyway, when it comes to child abuse, I never put much importance in a singled out timeline, or a confused memory. The proof is in all of it, all down through the years, all those boys. He was never seen in a normal adult relationship, snogging a girl when he was younger, giggling with a boyfriend, etc. just all those little boys, year after year, decade after decade. Creepy.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Possibly not, its unclear as yet. But Reed has been! As I said, they can't both be right. Their behaviour fits into a pattern of being fast and loose with facts and the truth.
Why would Jackson personally ring him if Jackson had abused him? Who puts on the stand or brings into the public realm someone who could easily start talking against him? Unless of course he didn't abuse him. You really need to suspend belief to believe some of what these guys are saying.

They're not the same person. Safechuck’s account is as believable to me now as it was yesterday - as in, very believable. I don’t really care about Reed. What made the documentary so compelling for me and many others was that the subjects were believable. And this furore has not disproven anything Safechuck has said. And anyone who thinks it has hasn’t delved any deeper because they want something to pounce on. And they are the people who didn’t believe Safechuck and Robson anyway.

As for why Jackson would telephone him - I’m guessing desperation?

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Why would Safechuck have to resort to reading obscure books to get his description of Neverland when he had been there himself on multiple occasions? No one is denying that he was there and spent a lot of time with Jackson so it doesn't really make sense that he apparently now used the wrong material to make up his entire story (like the whole thing hinges on this one detail). Mis remembering or conflating two structures seems more likely surely?

Exactly. Like, seriously. Occam’s razor, people.

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

They're not the same person. Safechuck’s account is as believable to me now as it was yesterday - as in, very believable. I don’t really care about Reed. What made the documentary so compelling for me and many others was that the subjects were believable. And this furore has not disproven anything Safechuck has said. And anyone who thinks it has hasn’t delved any deeper because they want something to pounce on. And they are the people who didn’t believe Safechuck and Robson anyway.

As for why Jackson would telephone him - I’m guessing desperation?



Exactly. Like, seriously. Occam’s razor, people.

Reed is an important player in all this. As I've said before he's omitted anything that shows Wade and Safechuck in a bad light or counters what they are saying. He's omitted anything or anyone that could show Jackson in a good light. This is not the way to put together a credible documentary.
As for WAde and Safechuck its impossible to tell if most of what they are saying is true or not as they say it happened behind closed doors. All we can deal with is provable facts or lies. We can't surmise what happened behind closed doors but unless you were in the room, it will always be a guess.

ToBeFrank123

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

These kids were probably very happy to be in MJ's world with him being their protector. They must've blanked out the effects of the abuse during this time and needed to slowly piece it all together as adults. On top of this they were coached to be liars, hide the truth from family, the public.. layers of lies with the added weight of responsibility for MJ's safety. You would wonder what messed them up more the actual abuse or the lies they happily told to protect their abuser.

Anyway, when it comes to child abuse, I never put much importance in a singled out timeline, or a confused memory. The proof is in all of it, all down through the years, all those boys. He was never seen in a normal adult relationship, snogging a girl when he was younger, giggling with a boyfriend, etc. just all those little boys, year after year, decade after decade. Creepy.

Nope. I will look for the link later but a couple of years ago, two of Jackson's bodyguards came out and said Jackson had several secret girlfriends. They would have known him better than most. After an extensive search of Neverland, investigators turned up a significant amount of adult hetorsexual porn.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Reed is an important player in all this. As I've said before he's omitted anything that shows Wade and Safechuck in a bad light or counters what they are saying. He's omitted anything or anyone that could show Jackson in a good light. This is not the way to put together a credible documentary.
As for WAde and Safechuck its impossible to tell if most of what they are saying is true or not as they say it happened behind closed doors. All we can deal with is provable facts or lies. We can't surmise what happened behind closed doors but unless you were in the room, it will always be a guess.

Yup, but so far, Safechuck’s descriptions haven’t been debunked. And Safechuck has made no statement about dates. He must be confident in his recollections, even if Reed isn’t. So, no statement from Safechuck and books that back up his descriptions within the timeline he stated. So far, so believable.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

These kids were probably very happy to be in MJ's world with him being their protector. They must've blanked out the effects of the abuse during this time and needed to slowly piece it all together as adults. On top of this they were coached to be liars, hide the truth from family, the public.. layers of lies with the added weight of responsibility for MJ's safety. You would wonder what messed them up more the actual abuse or the lies they happily told to protect their abuser.

Anyway, when it comes to child abuse, I never put much importance in a singled out timeline, or a confused memory. The proof is in all of it, all down through the years, all those boys. He was never seen in a normal adult relationship, snogging a girl when he was younger, giggling with a boyfriend, etc. just all those little boys, year after year, decade after decade. Creepy.

Agreed. Here’s what dismays me. I think in one of my first posts in this thread, I said I treat the whole case like a civil case - on balance, who do I believe? And I believe the two men. Can I say I believe them 100%? Absolutely not.

But the people who defend Michael Jackson vehemently won’t even let it near them that it could possibly be true. They act like they are 100% sure. How could anyone be that sure? And because the subject is child sexual abuse, this must all be very dispiriting for anyone who had suffered that at anyone’s hands. They must wonder will they be disbelieved if they confess to someone.

As well as that, people question why others haven’t spoke out against MJ. Can they not understand that anyone who does has MJ’s supporters on them like rottweilers? It’s hard enough to tell anyone about CSA but to know that your character will undermined too? Who would offer themselves up like that?

It's all pretty funny.

https://twitter.com/danreed1000/status/1113426577482760193?s=19

Reed is just digging himself a deeper and deeper hole. No idea why he felt the need to comment on someone else's story and twist it to suit his narrative in the first place.

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Jackson had several secret girlfriends.

You have to laugh.

hetuzozaho

Basil3 wrote: »

It's all pretty funny.

https://twitter.com/danreed1000/status/1113426577482760193?s=19

Reed is just digging himself a deeper and deeper hole. No idea why he felt the need to comment on someone else's story and twist it to suit his narrative in the first place.

I think Reed just believes 100per cent that those kids were abused.

ceadaoin.

hetuzozaho wrote: »

You have to laugh.

Yeah , sure Jan haha

I mean if he really did have girlfriends you'd think he'd have paraded them around the place to dispel the notion that he was a paedophile. But no, all we have are a ton of photos of him acting loved up with a plethora of young boys and not one of him acting similar with any adult, male or female. And not one of these secret girlfriends have ever spoken out about it . Yeah, sounds totally believable

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Nope. I will look for the link later but a couple of years ago, two of Jackson's bodyguards came out and said Jackson had several secret girlfriends. They would have known him better than most. After an extensive search of Neverland, investigators turned up a significant amount of adult hetorsexual porn.

I thought you only dealt in provable facts? Apparently not, when they support MJ.

Dontfadeaway

kunst nugget wrote: »

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

https://twitter.com/TheReal_ELewis/status/1101767789340053505?s=20


The bottle thing is weird but the guy tweeting about that says he insisted he use it, is he just assuming or is it fact? :pac:

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I thought you only dealt in provable facts? Apparently not, when they support MJ.

ok found it.

https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/811228/Michael-Jackson-bodyguards-biopic-Searching-For-Neverland-Whitfield-Javon-Beard

MJ worked with and came across a lot of different people in his time. They all have stories to tell about him, some good, some bad. Its the same with every person. You need to talk to all people to get a fair balanced and rounded version of them.

Obvious Desperate, you have to accept the good with the bad. You said MJ only slept with children. It seems his bodyguards would say otherwise.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

ok found it.

https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/811228/Michael-Jackson-bodyguards-biopic-Searching-For-Neverland-Whitfield-Javon-Beard

MJ worked with and came across a lot of different people in his time. They all have stories to tell about him, some good, some bad. Its the same with every person. You need to talk to all people to get a fair balanced and rounded version of them.

Obvious Desperate, you have to accept the good with the bad. You said MJ only slept with children. It seems his bodyguards would say otherwise.

Aaaah, no, that was another poster you quoted. Pay attention. And see how easily mistakes can be made? It was Mr.Wemmick you quoted with the reply about the claims of Jackson’s bodyguards:

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

These kids were probably very happy to be in MJ's world with him being their protector. They must've blanked out the effects of the abuse during this time and needed to slowly piece it all together as adults. On top of this they were coached to be liars, hide the truth from family, the public.. layers of lies with the added weight of responsibility for MJ's safety. You would wonder what messed them up more the actual abuse or the lies they happily told to protect their abuser.

Anyway, when it comes to child abuse, I never put much importance in a singled out timeline, or a confused memory. The proof is in all of it, all down through the years, all those boys. He was never seen in a normal adult relationship, snogging a girl when he was younger, giggling with a boyfriend, etc. just all those little boys, year after year, decade after decade. Creepy.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Nope. I will look for the link later but a couple of years ago, two of Jackson's bodyguards came out and said Jackson had several secret girlfriends. They would have known him better than most. After an extensive search of Neverland, investigators turned up a significant amount of adult hetorsexual porn.

ToBeFrank123

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yeah , sure Jan haha

I mean if he really did have girlfriends you'd think he'd have paraded them around the place to dispel the notion that he was a paedophile. But no, all we have are a ton of photos of him acting loved up with a plethora of young boys and not one of him acting similar with any adult, male or female. And not one of these secret girlfriends have ever spoken out about it . Yeah, sounds totally believable

Seriously? There are thousands of photos of him with girlfriends and at least one wife.
Just going to ignore those are we?
Also thousands of photos holding hands with female friends. Just google "Michael Jackson Liz Taylor" to see any number of photos of them holding hands.

ToBeFrank123

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I think Reed just believes 100per cent that those kids were abused.

Sure. Raking in several million easy dollars will make you believe anything.
He's been exposed as not doing proper research and casually saying well the abuse must have happened up to when Safechuck was 16 or 17 as if it doesn't matter. Even though Safechuck said he stopped visiting Neverland at the age of 14.

ceadaoin.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Seriously? There are thousands of photos of him with girlfriends and at least one wife.
Just going to ignore those are we?
Also thousands of photos holding hands with female friends. Just google "Michael Jackson Liz Taylor" to see any number of photos of them holding hands.

Thousands of photos with girlfriends? Can you link to some? I genuinely never heard of him having a girlfriend except for I think Brooke shields and of course later his wife. I thought the line was he was asexual?

The pictures with lisa Marie look awkward and stilted to me. Certainly nowhere near as openly affectionate and relaxed as he was with Jonathan spence or James Safechuck for example . It's all a bit weird but I suppose you can always fall back on his lost childhood as an excuse

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

and so far nobody has disproven his claim that MJ personally telephoned him asking him to testify.

Not just Jackson, his secretary and lawyers. Multiple phone calls, threatening him multiple times in a trial which he was precluded from testifying in.

That is probably the most easily verifiable lie that either of them have told IMO.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Not just Jackson, his secretary and lawyers. Multiple phone calls, threatening him multiple times in a trial which he was precluded from testifying in.

That is probably the most easily verifiable lie that either of them have told IMO.

He wasn't precluded from testifying though was he?

Evidence was potentially going to be presented that people had witnessed inappropriate behaviour with James Safechuck. He alleges that first Jackson called him and after he didn't get anywhere, his team called him

DECEDENT’s lawyers, together with Evvy Tavasci, DECEDENT’s executive personal secretary and an employee of MJJ PRODUCTIONS, contacted Plaintiff and told him that he needed to testify and deny anything that the cooks at Neverland said that they saw happen between Plaintiff and DECEDENT. Plaintiff told them that he did not want any further involvement with DECEDENT.

Then the judge ruled that

. Evidence as to Jimmy Safechuck and Jonathan Spence will not be permitted. The witnesses that would be precluded under this ruling would be Jolie Levine and Mary Coller.

Aside from the fact that he still could have testified on Jackson's behalf as to his character etc because he actually wasn't precluded from testifying at all, only witness evidence AS TO his abuse was, unless you can prove that Jackson and later his lawyers didn't call him before the judge ruling then you are talking nonsense. You have no evidence that none of that happened.

Mr.Wemmick

And interestingly, if a team of lawyers for Jackson can easily prove via phone records from their offices or Jackson's private lines that they did not call him, why didn't they, lol!

Quite ridiculous.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boggles wrote: »

Not just Jackson, his secretary and lawyers. Multiple phone calls, threatening him multiple times in a trial which he was precluded from testifying in.

That is probably the most easily verifiable lie that either of them have told IMO.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He wasn't precluded from testifying though was he?

Evidence was potentially going to be presented that people had witnessed inappropriate behaviour with James Safechuck. He alleges that first Jackson called him and after he didn't get anywhere, his team called him



Then the judge ruled that




Aside from the fact that he still could have testified on Jackson's behalf as to his character etc because he actually wasn't precluded from testifying at all, only witness evidence AS TO his abuse was, unless you can prove that Jackson and later his lawyers didn't call him before the judge ruling then you are talking nonsense. You have no evidence that none of that happened.

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

And interestingly, if a team of lawyers for Jackson can easily prove via phone records from their offices or Jackson's private lines that they did not call him, why didn't they, lol!

Quite ridiculous.

Ceadaoin and Mr.Wemmick have said it all really. Nothing for me to add. The bolded bits being the most pertinent parts. It would easy to produce phone records. But it’s also an excellent point that Safechuck wasn’t precluded from testifying.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Then the judge ruled that
Aside from the fact that he still could have testified on Jackson's behalf as to his character etc because he actually wasn't precluded from testifying at all, only witness evidence AS TO his abuse was, unless you can prove that Jackson and later his lawyers didn't call him before the judge ruling then you are talking nonsense. You have no evidence that none of that happened.

The judge ruled relatively early on in the trial which witnesses could testify, that also included character witnesses which was limited.

Safechuck claimed that Jackson contacted him "towards the end of the trial" and continued to try and get him to testify.

There would have been no valid reason even if possible to put him on the stand, The "Cooks" allegation was that Jackson was alone with Culkin in the cinema room and molested him, i.e. no other witnesses.

Like I said it is the more easier verifiable lie.

But you won't get balance from MJFacts, you do know that right? You have all ready rehashed a couple of their lies on this thread all ready.

You won't get balance from pro Jackson sites either by the way.

Best to do your own fact checking if your going to put your name to something.

Boggles

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

And interestingly, if a team of lawyers for Jackson can easily prove via phone records from their offices or Jackson's private lines that they did not call him, why didn't they, lol!

Quite ridiculous.

Because there is no trial. Yet.

Also how do you prove a negative?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boggles wrote: »

Because there is no trial. Yet.

Also how do you prove a negative?

So... it’s not easily verifiable? It is or it isn’t.

Can you say that Jackson did not telephone James Safechuck towards the end of the trial? That is easily something that Jackson could do out of desperation. He didn’t know what the verdict would be at that stage, after all.

Mr.Wemmick

Boggles wrote: »

Because there is no trial. Yet.

Also how do you prove a negative?

They could've proved no calls were made to Safechuck/his house in that time period which link back to MJ personally or to the lawyers.

I have said it before on this thread. When I watched the Doc' it was clear to me that MJ and the lawyers were making sure he would not be a problem in the future. He was a loose end and they wanted to be sure. I thought it interesting when Safechuck said he reassured MJ that he would not say a word. It was over for him and he never spoke to MJ again after that call.

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Raking in several million easy dollars will make you believe anything.

So you think Reed is lying when he says he believes the lads who you think are lying?

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

So... it’s not easily verifiable? It is or it isn’t.

Can you say that Jackson did not telephone James Safechuck towards the end of the trial? That is easily something that Jackson could do out of desperation. He didn’t know what the verdict would be at that stage, after all.

Yes.

It was pretty apparent from early on that the trial was a complete sham, it had basically fallen apart by the end of the trial.

As stated by Matt Taibbi who was not a fan of Jackson.

Virtually every piece of [Sneddon’s] case imploded in open court, and the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles

But I don't think you are actually getting it, Safechuck could not testify at any point in the trial let alone near the end of it.

But if you don't believe that just use some common sense, in a trial that they had basically all ready won, they are trying to threaten a witness that was sexually abused by the defendant to testify. That is the most stupid and reckless legal strategy in legal history if to be believed.

It's nonsense and complete lies.

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

They could've proved no calls were made to Safechuck/his house in that time period which link back to MJ personally or to the lawyers.

Really, how long are carriers obliged to keep records for?

The calls obviously didn't exist, so what phones do they try and track?

ToBeFrank123

It is highly improbable that Jackson or his representatives contacted Safechuck about testifying at the 2005 trial. The trial was going Jackson's way from the off, so there was no need to call in any new "star" witness to save him, especially as the judge had already ruled out any other witnesses. So this one seems to have come straight from Safechuck's imagination.

The problem for Robson and Safechuck is they left their allegations too long, memories of everyone involved have faded, particularly Robson who had to ask his mother if certain things were true or not. And after checking with her, he then proceeded to say he remembered everything exactly.

Robson claimed for years he wasn't abused by Jackson. He changed his story when he saw Safechuck making his pitch for hundreds of millions. No financial motivation? Yeh right! And this came after Robson claimed to have lost the History gig due to stress, when in fact he lost it due to not being the best person qualified.

Safechuck's mother claimed she was happy when she heard Jackson died so he couldn't hurt any more children even though Safechuck didn't tell her until years later he was abused.

Robson's mother swore under oath they visited Neverland 14 times and Jackson was present at most 4 times.

Reed claims Safechuck was abused at Neverland up to the age of 16 or 17. Safechuck claims he visited Neverland for the last time when he was 14.

How many lies and inconsistences do these guys expect us to swallow?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

It is highly improbable that Jackson or his representatives contacted Safechuck about testifying at the 2005 trial. The trial was going Jackson's way from the off, so there was no need to call in any new "star" witness to save him, especially as the judge had already ruled out any other witnesses. So this one seems to have come straight from Safechuck's imagination.

The problem for Robson and Safechuck is they left their allegations too long, memories of everyone involved have faded, particularly Robson who had to ask his mother if certain things were true or not. And after checking with her, he then proceeded to say he remembered everything exactly.

Robson claimed for years he wasn't abused by Jackson. He changed his story when he saw Safechuck making his pitch for hundreds of millions. No financial motivation? Yeh right! And this came after Robson claimed to have lost the History gig due to stress, when in fact he lost it due to not being the best person qualified.

Safechuck's mother claimed she was happy when she heard Jackson died so he couldn't hurt any more children even though Safechuck didn't tell her until years later he was abused.

Robson's mother swore under oath they visited Neverland 14 times and Jackson was present at most 4 times.

Reed claims Safechuck was abused at Neverland up to the age of 16 or 17. Safechuck claims he visited Neverland for the last time when he was 14.

How many lies and inconsistences do these guys expect us to swallow?

No, Robson moved first of the two men. I thought you dealt in facts?

And please tell us you’re not claiming to be on the fence anymore? It was always transparently obvious that you weren’t but credit other forum members with some intelligence, will you?

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No, Robson moved first of two men.

Well the point is still the same. Robson wanted several hundred million. So money has been a motive and their guff about doing it all to empower victims is very hollow.

There's plenty more inconsistencies in their accounts by the way.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Well the point is still the same. Robson wanted several hundred million. So money has been a motive and their guff about doing it all to empower victims is very hollow.

There's plenty more inconsistencies in their accounts by the way.

No, you painted it like Robson defended Jackson and only changed his story when he was inspired by Safechuck. So it absolutely isn’t the same.

I wouldn’t expect them to remember exact dates. They were children. I have key memories from my childhood. I remember the events but don’t remember all the dates. And as of now, Mike Smallcombe has only addressed one of the two books which mention what James described being there in 1990. Despite his attention being drawn to both.

It’s interesting that you make no mention of the things they’ve said that have been backed up since.

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No, Robson moved first of the two men. I thought you dealt in facts?

And please tell us you’re not claiming to be on the fence anymore? It was always transparently obvious that you weren’t but credit other forum members with some intelligence, will you?

Its impossible to be certain of anything based on the testimony of two guys with a long history of telling tall stories and lies.

So yes, I will remain on the fence while there's inconsistencies in their stories. If I am leaning in any direction its that these guys are accomplished liars. And as more and more inconsistencies are uncovered each day, that becomes more obvious.

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No, you painted it like Robson defended Jackson and only changed his story when he was inspired by Safechuck. So it absolutely isn’t the same.

I wouldn’t expect them to remember exact dates. They were children. I have key memories from my childhood. I remember the events but don’t remember all the dates. And as of now, Mike Smallcombe has only addressed one of the two books which mention what James described being there in 1990. Despite his attention being drawn to both.

It’s interesting that you make no mention of the things they’ve said that have been backed up since.

Wait, they are adamant certain things happened, but they can't remember the year or even within 3 years, despite the fact they were in their mid to late teens for some alleged events. They can't remember if the abuse ended in 1992 or 1994 or even later.

FFS. Do you think we are all fools? They are certainly playing a lot of incredibly gullible people for fools. And I include Reed in that, whose either been fooled by these guys or collaborating in trying to fool people.

All I need is a few more inconsistencies from these guys to know for certain they are bullsh*t artists.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its impossible to be certain of anything based on the testimony of two guys with a long history of telling tall stories and lies.

So yes, I will remain on the fence while there's inconsistencies in their stories. If I am leaning in any direction its that these guys are accomplished liars. And as more and more inconsistencies are uncovered each day, that becomes more obvious.

Oh for the love of jaysus. As annoying and all as sligeach is in his MJ defence, at least he has the courage of his convictions.

You’ve ably demonstrated on this very thread how easily little mistakes are made. First addressing me in a reply about a point that was made by another forum member. Secondly by not even knowing that Robson was the first of the two to take legal action. But you’re are nitpicking these two men’s accounts because they might get dates a bit wrong of events that happened in their formative years? “But the station, the station!” - what Safechuck describes has been mentioned in two separate books as being there in 1990. Another mentions the same being there in early 1993. Planning permission can be granted in arrears. And it’s easy to imagine Jackson flinging money at somebody to get it granted. Anyone who disbelieves their whole accounts based on that, never believed them in the first place.

ceadaoin.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its impossible to be certain of anything based on the testimony of two guys with a long history of telling tall stories and lies.

So yes, I will remain on the fence while there's inconsistencies in their stories. If I am leaning in any direction its that these guys are accomplished liars. And as more and more inconsistencies are uncovered each day, that becomes more obvious.

What long history of tall tales and lies? Source? they are so accomplished that between them they estranged themselves from their own mothers, faked nervous breakdowns, walked away from lucrative jobs, developed alcohol and drug problems, and got diagnosed with PTSD and other mental health problems all to lay the basis for a lie they were planning on telling years down the line. That's literally what you have to believe to think they are lying. That's some next level stuff. I mean, it's possible I suppose but it's far more likely that the guy who obsessively slept with children and displayed much of the behaviour of a paedophile ,and has been accused by multiple kids of abuse, was actually a child molester.

Ugh, I just can't anymore with this. Here's a tip - if anyone in real life confides something like this to you, don't try to poke holes in their story and accuse them of lying. Pretty much every case of historic child abuse is based on memories from a long time ago, not "hard evidence". it's normal for there to be small inconsistencies and misremberences, there's a lot more to their story than a train station.

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh for the love of jaysus. As annoying and all as sligeach is in his MJ defence, at least he has the courage of his convictions.

You’ve ably demonstrated on this very thread how easily little mistakes are made. First addressing me in a reply about a point that was made by another forum member. Secondly by not even knowing that Robson was the first of the two to take legal action. But you’re are nitpicking these two men’s accounts because they might get dates a bit wrong of events that happened in their formative years? “But the station, the station!” - what Safechuck describes has been mentioned in two separate books as being there in 1990. Another mentions the same being there in early 1993. Planning permission can be granted in arrears. And it’s easy to imagine Jackson flinging money at somebody to get it granted. Anyone who disbelieves their whole accounts based on that, never believed them in the first place.

I can list countless inaccuracies and inconsistencies. They go on and on. I just gave you a flavour. There's plenty more out there if you search hard enough, by people who are more familiar with this than you or I, who've studied the sworn legal depositions by Safechuck, Robson and their mothers, and the blatant lies and contradictions of those sworn documents they then made in the documentary in order to make the story fit. Some of the lies would make the hair on your neck stand up, putting them and/or Jackson in locations they possibly couldn't have been. Any 3rd rate trial lawyer would have torn their testimony to shreds, and a judge would have thrown the case out. But hey when you have a sympathetic director who doesn't bother to research or ask tough questions, and make up dates on the spot you will always get a free ride to say what you like, unchallenged.

ToBeFrank123

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What long history of tall tales and lies? Source? they are so accomplished that between them they estranged themselves from their own mothers, faked nervous breakdowns, walked away from lucrative jobs, developed alcohol and drug problems, and got diagnosed with PTSD and other mental health problems all to lay the basis for a lie they were planning on telling years down the line. That's literally what you have to believe to think they are lying. That's some next level stuff. I mean, it's possible I suppose but it's far more likely that the guy who obsessively slept with children and displayed much of the behaviour of a paedophile ,and has been accused by multiple kids of abuse, was actually a child molester.

Ugh, I just can't anymore with this. Here's a tip - if anyone in real life confides something like this to you, don't try to poke holes in their story and accuse them of lying.

Where to start?

How about here?

https://tvforum.uk/tvhome/finding-neverland-44366/page-4

Since filing their lawsuit, both men have repeatedly changed their stories, frequently telling directly contradictory versions of the same supposed events. For example, Wade Robson has told at least four directly contradictory stories about the first time Jackson supposedly abused him.

In the lawsuit, Robson was caught lying under oath so brazenly that the judge threw out his entire witness statement and said no rational juror could ever believe his account.

Between 2012 and 2014, Robson wrote two drafts of an abuse memoir and tried unsuccessfully to sell them to publishers. Meanwhile, he lied under oath and said he’d never discussed his allegations with anyone except his lawyers. When the Jackson estate discovered he’d actually been shopping books, the court ordered him to produce the drafts as evidence. They revealed the story of his abuse had changed significantly from one draft to the next.

Robson was also ordered to release his emails as evidence. He breached the order repeatedly, first by claiming they didn’t exist, then by simply refusing to hand them over. Then he redacted all the emails between himself and his family members and cited ‘attorney-client’ privilege, even though none of his family are attorneys.

When he eventually complied with the court order and released the emails, they revealed that at the time he was constructing his lawsuit and abuse memoir, he was researching and emailing himself links to old tabloid newspaper stories about abuse allegations against Michael Jackson.

The emails showed Robson found one particular story from the early 1990s which specifically named he and his mother. He emailed it to his mother and asked whether it was true. She replied, ‘Wow, none of that is true’. He then included it in his story anyway.

Emails also revealed that throughout 2011/12, Robson was lobbying Jackson’s estate for a job directing and choreographing an official Michael Jackson tribute show in Las Vegas. His campaign to secure this role had included sending emails explaining that his amazing friendship with Jackson meant nobody was better qualified for the role than he was, and he was devoted to doing the best job he possibly could ‘for Michael’. After being told someone else had got the job, he suddenly claimed he’d been abused and filed a creditor’s claim against the estate for millions of dollars.

Robson was also ordered to produce his diaries as evidence. In them, he’d written about how these allegations might rescue his failing career by making him ‘relatable and relevant’. He also wrote, ‘It’s time for me to get mine.’ When questioned under oath about what he’d meant when he wrote that, he refused to answer.

Both men tell stories in the TV show which directly contradict stories told under oath in their lawsuit. In fact, they have continued to change their stories as recently as within the last week.

For example, Jimmy Safechuck claims under oath in the lawsuit that he only remembered Jackson had abused him in 2013 when he turned on the TV and saw Robson. Yet in tonight’s TV show and interviews promoting it, he claims he knew he’d been abused in 2005 and thus, when asked to testify for Jackson’s defence ‘towards the end of the trial’, he refused to do so.

But that’s a provable lie. Safechuck was never asked to testify for Jackson’s defence. The judge ruled long before the trial began that testimony could only be heard about certain children, and Safechuck was not one of them. All testimony about Safechuck was literally banned from the courtroom. So Jackson’s defence cannot have asked him to testify – and certainly not after the trial was already underway.

Robson claimed in a BBC interview last week that Jackson had abused him ‘hundreds of times’. Yet his mother’s sworn testimony is that they went to Neverland roughly 14 times but Jackson was almost never there. She estimates the number of times they visited the ranch and he was actually there was four.

Questioned about their financial motive, the men now say they don’t care about money and are only suing to embolden other abuse victims by holding the Jackson estate accountable. This is a provable lie. The lawsuit was originally filed under seal and Robson tried to extract a settlement from the estate with zero publicity. Only when the estate refused to pay a bean did he go public.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Wait, they are adamant certain things happened, but they can't remember the year or even within 3 years, despite the fact they were in their mid to late teens for some alleged events. They can't remember if the abuse ended in 1992 or 1994 or even later.

FFS. Do you think we are all fools? They are certainly playing a lot of incredibly gullible people for fools. And I include Reed in that, whose either been fooled by these guys or collaborating in trying to fool people.

All I need is a few more inconsistencies from these guys to know for certain they are bullsh*t artists.

This is has a certain conspiracy theorist ring to it. “The sheep masses are all so stupid. WE are the clever ones, maaaan”. Professional TV and film critics love to be contrarian, yet with this documentary, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I wouldn’t say 100% of critics rated it highly but a very, very high percentage. Are they all fools? Wow, how did a fool get a nowadays-very-precious staff writer job at the NYT/New Yorker/Washington Post/WSJ?

And yeah right, like you didn’t already disbelieve them. You’re the one who thinks us all fools clearly.

ToBeFrank123

Robson has claimed the first time the abuse happened was when his family went to the Grand Canyon while he was left behind in Neverland with Jackson.

Turns out his mother swore otherwise twice.

In another deposition in 2016, Wade Robson's mum again confirmed that her ‘whole family’, including Wade, had gone on the Grand Canyon trip, debunking a significant part of his story.

https://www.nme.com/news/music/michael-jackson-biographer-exposes-wade-robson-james-safechucks-allegations-false-leaving-neverland-2469413

ToBeFrank123

I have a feeling we haven't heard the end of the contradictions. No wonder Reed was scared sh*tless of letting the other side a right to reply in the "documentary".
If he had nothing to be afraid of, he'd have included them.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Where to start?

How about here?

https://tvforum.uk/tvhome/finding-neverland-44366/page-4

Another messageboard?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What long history of tall tales and lies? Source? they are so accomplished that between them they estranged themselves from their own mothers, faked nervous breakdowns, walked away from lucrative jobs, developed alcohol and drug problems, and got diagnosed with PTSD and other mental health problems all to lay the basis for a lie they were planning on telling years down the line. That's literally what you have to believe to think they are lying. That's some next level stuff. I mean, it's possible I suppose but it's far more likely that the guy who obsessively slept with children and displayed much of the behaviour of a paedophile ,and has been accused by multiple kids of abuse, was actually a child molester.

Ugh, I just can't anymore with this. Here's a tip - if anyone in real life confides something like this to you, don't try to poke holes in their story and accuse them of lying. Pretty much every case of historic child abuse is based on memories from a long time ago, not "hard evidence". it's normal for there to be small inconsistencies and misremberences, there's a lot more to their story than a train station.

These MJ threads tend to thin out to just a few posters discussing it. When a thread gets to that stage, it’s easy to believe that a lot more people think MJ is innocent than actually do. But on pretty much every news site or messageboard I’ve seen (apart from dedicated Jackson messageboards of course), almost every poll I’ve seen taken has had a large majority believing the two men. Which is really heartening. But, like, we’re all sheep, maaaan.

On the second bolded bit, hell yes. A member of my extended family suffered CSA and I am so horrified at the idea of people trying to trip her up on dates and the clarity of her memories. Happily, she was believed. But I bet she wouldn’t have been able to give 100% correct details if probed.

Finally, anyone who thinks that someone who openly says they want to help children couldn’t hurt them should read up about convicted sex offender Jerry Sandusky (convicted of rape and CSA) who started a charity for underprivileged children. He met his victims through the charity. This fascinating article talks about him and other offenders and how calculated they can be. www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/24/in-plain-view/amp

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

These MJ threads tend to thin out to just a few posters discussing it. When a thread gets to that stage, it’s easy to believe that a lot more people think MJ is innocent than actually do. But on pretty much every news site or messageboard I’ve seen (apart from dedicated Jackson messageboards of course), almost every poll I’ve seen taken has had a large majority believing the two men. Which is really heartening. But, like, we’re all sheep, maaaan.

On the second bolded bit, hell yes. A member of my extended family suffered CSA and I am so horrified at the idea of people trying to trip her up on dates and the clarity of her memories. Happily, she was believed. But I bet she wouldn’t have been able to give 100% correct details if probed.

Finally, anyone who thinks that someone who openly says they want to help children couldn’t hurt them should read up about convicted sex offender Jerry Sandusky (convicted of rape and CSA) who started a charity for underprivileged children. He met his victims through the charity. This fascinating article talks about him and other offenders and how calculated they can be. www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/24/in-plain-view/amp

All this thread demonstrates is that if people want to believe something, they will use anything they can do strengthen their view, and ignore anything to the contrary.

One thing you have to realise regarding the positive reception of the documentary is not necessarily that people believe the boys, or that they think Jackson is guilty. It's often an indication that Reed did a fantastic job of producing a compelling, convincing story.

hetuzozaho

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

These MJ threads tend to thin out to just a few posters discussing it. When a thread gets to that stage, it’s easy to believe that a lot more people think MJ is innocent than actually do. But on pretty much every news site or messageboard I’ve seen (apart from dedicated Jackson messageboards of course), almost every poll I’ve seen taken has had a large majority believing the two men.

Yeah that's pretty much how it is in my circle of friends too. And it's not because of the hours of documentary.
It's because of the agreed fact that he slept with children in his bed unsupervised.

So when people come forward and say, when I slept alone as a child in Michael Jacksons bedroom (again all agreed by everyone) he touched me inappropriately - well yikes, that's a pretty large possibility, what was everyone thinking allowing those children to be treated like that! Bull**** artists or not.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Basil3 wrote: »

All this thread demonstrates is that if people want to believe something, they will use anything they can do strengthen their view, and ignore anything to the contrary.

One thing you have to realise regarding the positive reception of the documentary is not necessarily that people believe the boys, or that they think Jackson is guilty. It's often an indication that Reed did a fantastic job of producing a compelling, convincing story.

It sure does.

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Yeah that's pretty much how it is in my circle of friends too. And it's not because of the hours of documentary.
It's because of the agreed fact that he slept with children in his bed unsupervised.

So when people come forward and say, when I slept alone as a child in Michael Jacksons bedroom (again all agreed by everyone) he touched me inappropriately - well yikes, that's a pretty large possibility, what was everyone thinking allowing those children to be treated like that! Bull**** artists or not.

I know, I don’t understand how some people won’t let that possibility near them. I’ve said I believe the men on balance. Of course I can’t say I believe them 100% but I do believe them. I just can’t understand people who think there is no way it's possible. I especially can’t believe that some people still trot out the “he had the mind of a child” dreck as if that’s likely. MJ doing inappropriate things with unrelated boys who shared his bed - impossible, MJ having a childlike mind - possible? Rrrrrrriggght. It’s most bizarre.