Latest on MJJC

Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

MJJ2theMAX;4246695 said:
Read Charles Thompson’s (investigative journalist) Facebook update to get the issues with James and Wades lawsuits. Perhaps this should be a sticky.....

https://www.facebook.com/577086997/posts/10156642832831998?sfns=mo
Click to expand...

For five years, these men – both professional actors – have been suing Michael Jackson’s estate for hundreds of millions of dollars. This lawsuit has generated thousands of pages of court records: witness statements, motions, depositions and disclosure. These public documents PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that the men are lying. The whole media knows about these documents, but is refusing to report on their contents.

I’ve tried not to fill my Facebook feed with posts about this, but you are all being lied to from every direction. So this is my contribution to the debate on Facebook – a list of just some of the public record information the media is refusing to tell you.

*Both men strenuously defended Jackson, including under oath, for decades, and only decided they’d been molested years after his death, when they were both in financial trouble and filed a lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars. That lawsuit was thrown out of court – twice – but the men are in the middle of an appeal, giving them a gigantic financial motive to lie.

*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.

*Months later, according to Jimmy Safechuck, he flipped on the TV and saw Wade Robson being interviewed about his lawsuit. In that moment, Safechuck suddenly remembered that he had been abused by Jackson as well, so decided to join the lawsuit. He didn’t mention that this epiphany coincided exactly with his inheritance circling the drain after a relative died and the surviving siblings started suing each other – including him – for control of the family business.

*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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that.
 
Bill shares a lot of info. He even claims Safechuck and Robson werent even there a lot of the time. Those families folowed MJ all the time like stalkers he claims..
 
MJJ2theMAX;4246697 said:
Here’s Charles Facebook post... posting again


**FACT-BOMB: The evidence the media refuses to show you about Michael Jackson’s accusers**

I’ve felt total and utter shame at my industry as the coverage of tonight’s Michael Jackson TV show has grown increasingly dishonest and dangerous. I’ve worked in the media since I was a teenager. The whole media knows these two men are liars. But that’s not good for clicks or ratings.

For five years, these men – both professional actors – have been suing Michael Jackson’s estate for hundreds of millions of dollars. This lawsuit has generated thousands of pages of court records: witness statements, motions, depositions and disclosure. These public documents PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that the men are lying. The whole media knows about these documents, but is refusing to report on their contents.

I’ve tried not to fill my Facebook feed with posts about this, but you are all being lied to from every direction. So this is my contribution to the debate on Facebook – a list of just some of the public record information the media is refusing to tell you.

*Both men strenuously defended Jackson, including under oath, for decades, and only decided they’d been molested years after his death, when they were both in financial trouble and filed a lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars. That lawsuit was thrown out of court – twice – but the men are in the middle of an appeal, giving them a gigantic financial motive to lie.

*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.

*Months later, according to Jimmy Safechuck, he flipped on the TV and saw Wade Robson being interviewed about his lawsuit. In that moment, Safechuck suddenly remembered that he had been abused by Jackson as well, so decided to join the lawsuit. He didn’t mention that this epiphany coincided exactly with his inheritance circling the drain after a relative died and the surviving siblings started suing each other – including him – for control of the family business.

*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.

I could continue, but if you’re still on board with the TV show and its accusers at this point, you are irrational to the point of mania.

Tonight’s TV show covers up all of this information, instead presenting two professional actors’ heavily edited and completely unchallenged testimony without ever examining their credibility, their proven lies and perjury, their constantly changing stories or their financial motives.

It is a stain on the journalistic profession, as has been the rest of the media’s coverage.
Click to expand...



by parts some things are wrong here. I do not know where this information comes from but there are some things that have not been read well in the lawsuits or directly who wrote them copied from somewhere without contrasting.

Point one is incorrect. the two men did not defend michael for years, only wade did. James made an affidavit in 1993 when he was still a child. in 97 it was the last time he was close to michael and he never returned to defend him or publish or privately ever. in 2005 he was not called to testify.

Following with the thread He was not called to testify as a witness in 2005, so he did not defend michael in 2005 or in court nor did he ever do so in later years.

james in his lawsuit tells that michael personally called him in 2003-2005 to make sure he remained loyal to him and asked him if he would declare if he needed it, james tells that he said he would not defend him and michael got angry. He called him back for the same thing and James had the same answer because he felt that he did not do well to support him since he felt that his relationship with Michael when he was a child was not good but he was not prepared at that moment to accept it or count it so he simply refused to support him.

James told his mother at that time without being able to explain that he had been abused because he was not prepared, he just told him that michael was not good with the boy when he was a child and could not give more detail, he was 26 years old and asked his mother do not say anything so his mother accepted his request because he was already an adult man.

his mother did not know he had been abused the way he was because he did not tell her anything else but she knew that something bad happened because of his son's reaction, but she respect his son's decision not to talk about it .
this was in 2005 so James does not lie in the interviews or in the documentary does not change the version. It is always the same but some people do not read the demands or document well which is an error because it puts us all in a position of disinformation.

On the other hand, James does not say in his lawsuit that he realized "suddenly" that he was abused when Wade went on TV. he tells how inside him he had been processing it for years, with panic attacks and anxiety included, he says he was not prepared to speak and tell what he lived, And He had not processed the abuse as such, although he knew that something was wrong, He knew that something It was bad but he was not processed like an abuse, he was not accepted It . He had several crises and the last was when he saw wade on television, he suffered a panic attack because of this . He went to the psychiatrist for his panic attacks and for the first time told the psychiatrist what he had experienced. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress due yo abuse, disorder, depression, anxiety, etc. He went to therapy and there he understood the magnitude of what he had lived as a child and then he accept the abuse.
One year later he decided to talk and sue.

that is what he puts in his demand and therefore the same thing that counts in interviews and in the documentary.

guys you have to read the demands because some things are not being counted well by misinformation.
Finally it is not true that James was in economic problems when he demand. He has had a good job for 14 years.
the correct data on james are these.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate Taj's support of Michael, but a lot of people will dismiss what he's saying because they'll think he's being biased because he's part of Michael's family. Charles Thompson is the person who should be doing the interview rounds because he actually has court documents and facts to backup his arguments
 
Should we organize something together? chose a spokesperson to be the 'face' and reach out to media sources with our team helping with factual information?I mean we really could be reaching out to TMZ's tip hotlines/emails and various other 'entertainment news' entities. What do you guys think of organizing something like this? Of course it would take someone fairly well spoken, in case it would ever come to speaking live.. Honest opinion on this?
 
Lovepeace1 said:
by parts some things are wrong here. I do not know where this information comes from but there are some things that have not been read well in the lawsuits or directly who wrote them copied from somewhere without contrasting.

Point one is incorrect. the two men did not defend michael for years, only wade did. James made an affidavit in 1993 when he was still a child. in 97 it was the last time he was close to michael and he never returned to defend him or publish or privately ever. in 2005 he was not called to testify.

Following with the thread He was not called to testify as a witness in 2005, so he did not defend michael in 2005 or in court nor did he ever do so in later years.

james in his lawsuit tells that michael personally called him in 2003-2005 to make sure he remained loyal and asked him if he would declare if he needed it, james tells that he said he would not defend him and michael got angry. He called him back for the same thing and James had the same answer because he felt that he did not do well to support him since he felt that his relationship with Michael when he was a child was not good but he was not prepared at that moment to accept it or count it so he simply refused to support him.

James told his mother at that time without being able to explain that he had been abused because he was not prepared, he just told him that michael was not good with the boy when he was a child and could not give more detail, he was 26 years old and asked his mother do not say anything so his mother accepted his request because he was already an adult man.

his mother did not know he had been abused the way he was because he did not tell her anything else but she knew that something bad happened because of his son's reaction, but she respect his son's decision not to talk about it .
this was in 2005 so James does not lie in the interviews or in the documentary does not change the version. It is always the same but some people do not read the demands or document well which is an error because it puts us all in a position of disinformation.

On the other hand, James does not say in his lawsuit that he realized "suddenly" that he was abused when Wade went on TV. he tells how he spent years doubting what had happened between Michael and him, in his interior he had been processing it for years, with panic attacks and anxiety included, he says he was not prepared to speak and tell what he lived, And He had not processed the abuse as such, although he knew that something was wrong. He knew that something It was bad but he was not prepared. He had several crises and the last was when he saw wade on television, he suffered a panic attack because of this . He went to the psychiatrist for his panic attacks and for the first time told the psychiatrist what he had experienced. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress due yo abuse, disorder, depression, anxiety, etc. He went to therapy and there I understood the magnitude of what he had lived as a child and then he accept the abuse.
One year later he decided to tell and sue.

that is what he puts in his demand and therefore the same thing that counts in interviews and in the documentary.

guys you have to read the demands because some things are not being counted well by misinformation.
Finally it is not true that James was in economic problems when he demand. He has had a good job for 14 years.
the correct data on james are these.
Click to expand...

In the film, Safechuck says that Michael called him the second time "towards the end of the trial" and claims MJ again asked him to testify. It simply cannot be true that MJ asked him to testify at that time. Firstly, he was, as Scott Ross has explained a non-entity and legally simply could not testify. Secondly, Scott Ross said he was in charge of calling all witnesses. Thirdly, this was towards the end of the trial, a stage at which no new witnesses could even have been introduced. So this just does not make sense.

Also, I disagree with you that his claims about when he realized he was abused are consistent. He literally tells Oprah that he did not realize he was abused until Wade came forward in 2013. At the same time, he also claims he told his mom in 2005 that MJ was evil and that MJ abused him. How can you see that as anything but contradictory?
 
It's really freaking annoying when someone is presented with all the court documents and all the facts, and then after that person is presented with all that stuff they turn around and say ''But do you think it's appropriate for a grown man to share his bed with young boys?'' - It really makes me want to bang my head against a wall
 
analogue said:
It's really freaking annoying when someone is presented with all the court documents and all the facts, and then after that person is presented with all that stuff they turn around and say ''But do you think it's appropriate for a grown man to share his bed with young boys?'' - It really makes me want to bang my head against a wall
Click to expand...
Even if you think that not appropriate that does not make them a pedophile. I do not think it is apporiate to walk down the street with your pants hanging below your waist with loud music going and wearing a hoody, does that mean that person is a criminal? NO.
 
Can someone send me the 1994 motion to exclude the strip search photos? Can't find it anywhere.
 
analogue said:
I appreciate Taj's support of Michael, but a lot of people will dismiss what he's saying because they'll think he's being biased because he's part of Michael's family. Charles Thompson is the person who should be doing the interview rounds because he actually has court documents and facts to backup his arguments
Click to expand...

taj is still doing good because he know Wade very well but it is good and greater to have an "outsider".
 
terrell said:
Well UK, you survived. Who is next?
Click to expand...

We, The Netherlands tomorrow from what I heard. And they will have a panel too.

Seriously it frustrates me so much, the actual truth is out there. So much proof pointing to Wade and how it's all about money. Again, that diary alone... it discredits anything these guys say in that mockumentary. Proven liars and yet their shit is fully airing all over the world.

This ****ing world I tell you... so much wrong.
 
analogue said:
It's really freaking annoying when someone is presented with all the court documents and all the facts, and then after that person is presented with all that stuff they turn around and say ''But do you think it's appropriate for a grown man to share his bed with young boys?'' - It really makes me want to bang my head against a wall
Click to expand...

I feel the same exact way...I mean, look at the livestream that Razorfist was on. It just goes to show you that some people only hear what they want to hear.
 
analogue said:
It's really freaking annoying when someone is presented with all the court documents and all the facts, and then after that person is presented with all that stuff they turn around and say ''But do you think it's appropriate for a grown man to share his bed with young boys?'' - It really makes me want to bang my head against a wall
Click to expand...

It means that the journalist doesn't care about judicial work. Not only journalists ;)
 
analogue;4246746 said:
It's really freaking annoying when someone is presented with all the court documents and all the facts, and then after that person is presented with all that stuff they turn around and say ''But do you think it's appropriate for a grown man to share his bed with young boys?'' - It really makes me want to bang my head against a wall
Click to expand...

I just reply and say that I do not condone that, it’s a bad idea all round. But it’s not criminal and there’s no evidence anything criminal happened but plenty of evidence that accusers are lying
 
Whatsupwitu said:
Bill Whitfield, MJ's former bodyguard says that a picture in LN is photoshopped!
https://twitter.com/MJBODYGUARDS/status/1103537844851638272?s=19
Click to expand...

It does seem to be.

Someone on the Tw thread said this:

Wow! It was a few days after the Grammys 88 in NYC (March,3rd). So it was THE trip in NYC during which MJ is supposed to have molested Safechuck...3 months before the alleged first sexual abuse in June 1988
Click to expand...

and another confirmed the date / occasion
MJ attended the 44th anual United Negro College Fund Awards, NY, March 10 1988. He was wearing the same clothes from the pic that was photoshopped.
Click to expand...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone was asking about UK ratings - they seem to be higher than USA for part 1:

The film which was directed by The Paedophile Hunter director Dan Reed, peaked with 2.4M viewers and won the slot for 16-34 viewers with a 20.5% share. This was above the numbers posted by HBO earlier this week; the Amos Pictures-produced two-parter drew a 0.4 rating and 1.3 million viewers for Part 1.

To give some UK context, feature doc Three Identical Strangers, which aired at the end of last month, drew 1.7M viewers. This was a solid hit for the British broadcaster.

It comes as the film, tells the story of two boys, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, now in their 30s, who say they were sexually abused by Jackson when they were ages 7 and 10, was surrounded by protests in the UK.

https://deadline.com/2019/03/channel-4-leaving-neverland-ratings-1202571206/
 
ManBehindTheMirrOr - Dona said:
Ha.... Oprah has delated all parts of her interview with Wade, James and Dan from her channel!
Click to expand...
Yeah because she rush the gun. She is probably getting all info now plus people are showing her hypocrisy in going after MJ while doing nothing about Harvey Weinstein which he stuff has been going on a whole year and he has a doc that was at Sundance. She is catching it especially from the black community and media. She is going to put two liars in front of people who are suppose to be abused as if she knows these guys were abused for a fact. That is where she messed up.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
We, The Netherlands tomorrow from what I heard. And they will have a panel too.

Seriously it frustrates me so much, the actual truth is out there. So much proof pointing to Wade and how it's all about money. Again, that diary alone... it discredits anything these guys say in that mockumentary. Proven liars and yet their shit is fully airing all over the world.

This ****ing world I tell you... so much wrong.
Click to expand...

You all will be in my prayers.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Statues being removed now?

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/03/0...museum-after-sex-abuse-claims-news.73847.html

Sure hope the big statue in Eindhoven, Holland remains intact.
Click to expand...

Already posted. It was a poor representation of Mj anyway, and was in a football museum (because it came from an Al-Fayed-owned football ground, which was then sold).
It's gone into storage. I'm not sorry to see it go. It was pretty much a laughing stock (as a poor likeness), unlike the official History statues.
 
terrell said:
Yeah because she rush the gun. She is probably getting all info now plus people are showing her hypocrisy in going after MJ while doing nothing about Harvey Weinstein which he stuff has been going on a whole year and he has a doc that was at Sundance. She is catching it especially from the black community and media. She is going to put two liars in front of people who are suppose to be abused as if she knows these guys were abused for a fact. That is where she messed up.
Click to expand...

I don't believe for a second she regrets it though, she was too determined for that. She probably hates that a good amount of people look further, look for facts and don't take it all at face value. Has she truly never said a thing about Weinstein? Because... wow.

She should have done research, that's for sure. Had she known about all the things Thomson revealed today, do you think she would still have pressed on?
 
Just thinking back to Sundance and how laughable it was that they had paramedics and counsellors in the isles. What a ridiculous publicity stunt
 
Lovepeace1 said:
by parts some things are wrong here. I do not know where this information comes from but there are some things that have not been read well in the lawsuits or directly who wrote them copied from somewhere without contrasting.

james in his lawsuit tells that michael personally called him in 2003-2005 to make sure he remained loyal to him and asked him if he would declare if he needed it, james tells that he said he would not defend him and michael got angry. He called him back for the same thing and James had the same answer because he felt that he did not do well to support him since he felt that his relationship with Michael when he was a child was not good but he was not prepared at that moment to accept it or count it so he simply refused to support him.

James told his mother at that time without being able to explain that he had been abused because he was not prepared, he just told him that michael was not good with the boy when he was a child and could not give more detail, he was 26 years old and asked his mother do not say anything so his mother accepted his request because he was already an adult man.

his mother did not know he had been abused the way he was because he did not tell her anything else but she knew that something bad happened because of his son's reaction, but she respect his son's decision not to talk about it .
this was in 2005 so James does not lie in the interviews or in the documentary does not change the version. It is always the same but some people do not read the demands or document well which is an error because it puts us all in a position of disinformation.

On the other hand, James does not say in his lawsuit that he realized "suddenly" that he was abused when Wade went on TV. he tells how he spent years doubting what had happened between Michael and him, inside him he had been processing it for years, with panic attacks and anxiety included, he says he was not prepared to speak and tell what he lived, And He had not processed the abuse as such, although he knew that something was wrong. He knew that something It was bad but he was not prepared. He had several crises and the last was when he saw wade on television, he suffered a panic attack because of this . He went to the psychiatrist for his panic attacks and for the first time told the psychiatrist what he had experienced. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress due yo abuse, disorder, depression, anxiety, etc. He went to therapy and there he understood the magnitude of what he had lived as a child and then he accept the abuse.
One year later he decided to tell and sue.

that is what he puts in his demand and therefore the same thing that counts in interviews and in the documentary.

guys you have to read the demands because some things are not being counted well by misinformation.
Finally it is not true that James was in economic problems when he demand. He has had a good job for 14 years.
the correct data on james are these.
Click to expand...


Why do you accuse people spreading misinformation when yourself are spreading misinformation?

If you bother to read properly, Safechucks lawsuit says:

"Plaintiff talked to her about the call, but was unable to tell her any details or say anything but the very briefest statement that he had been ABUSED."

Its all there in black and white.

Safechuck is lying either way btw. His mother is dancing and celebrating MJs dead in 2009, but Safechuck did not know he was abused until 2013 according to the Oprah interview.

In his deposition he states that he told the mother of abuse in 2005. Which is it?

I would encourage you to not spread disinformation! It seems you are "interpreting" your own version of Safechucks deposition in a way that makes me feel uncomfortable.

 
So confirmed it only got 2.4mil. Thats good i was expecting at least 3-4. Lets see how it drops tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top