Asking ourselves tough questions.

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
I think we need to ask ourselves some tough questions about Michael Jackson and his relationships with children over the years. For decades we have dismissed these relationships as Michael not having a childhood and being childlike. And I believe there is truth to that and he was childlike in many ways and did enjoy the company of children on a fun level.

Let's also be honest about one thing... if it were anybody else but Michael Jackson, we would find these relationships deeply disturbing. The sleeping in the same bed so many nights in a row, the going on tour together and staying in hotel rooms together. Like it or not... this IS the sort of behaviour that a regular adult would display with a lover of the same age. We dismiss this by saying "there was only one person that lived a life like Michael Jackson. You can't compare him to regular people." This is true. But at the end of the day... he was still HUMAN. He was still an adult male with the needs of any other adult male. How were these needs being fulfilled all those nights? We know of only one woman that he ever slept with for sure. Lisa. That's it? Where are all the other women? Was he that good at hiding them? Maybe. But they certainly weren't on the road with him all those nights. It's possible that there were some after Lisa. We know of some of those stories. We know of him continuing to see Lisa for years after their divorce. But before Lisa? Maybe Michael WAS sexually repressed. Maybe he WASN'T ready for a sexual relationship. Maybe all of these friendships with children WERE innocent. Possibly.

I'm not saying he was guilty. I'm saying we need to honestly ask ourselves these questions. For the first time in my life, I am seriously asking myself these questions and not dismissing them just because Michael had a different life to the rest of us. There is only so much of his life that we know, as much as all of us would like to think that we knew him so well. We knew parts of him. We didn't know all of him.

Yes, I know all of the facts from 93, 2003 and the Robson/Safechuck lawsuit. It is possible to be the victim of extortion and also be guilty of committing a crime. It is possible to be the victim of lies while there still being some truth to what is being said. One doesn't necessarily counteract the other unequivocally. It is also possible to truly care about the plight of children and the world and also have a sickness that you can't control.

I am still giving Michael the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying I now believe he was a pedophile. Spence defended him, Mac defends him, Brett defends him, the Cascio's defend him, Omer defends him. But Wade and James also defended him. And then they filed a lawsuit for hundreds of millions of dollars. Money is always going to be a big red flag with these accusers. But in asking myself honestly these tough questions for the first time... there are also red flags in Michael's behaviour. People here know my history. Michael has felt like a family member to me my whole life. I've loved him since I was 2 years old. I've defended him through every allegation. His death was maybe the saddest thing I have ever had to deal with in my life up to this point. I do not write this lightly. And I hope you all don't condemn me for this post... though I know most of you will. I hope the fight continues and Michael's name is cleared.
 

Scream

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
119
Points
0
Location
Manchester
I think we've all had doubts in the past, no matter how slight, we're only human.
Don't let the media sway you though. I know it's all glossy and sensationalist and in your face, but just remember the facts. The FBI tracked him for a decade and found nothing. His house was subjected to most extensive raid ever undertaken, they looked on his computer hard drives, through his files, everything and they couldn't find one tiny bit of evidence other than some heterosexual porn mags. Sneddon went all around the world trying to find kids to testify against Michael, and they got no-one. The evidence speaks for itself. He was innocent.
 

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
822
Points
28
Its 06.51 AM here in sweden and I have not slept anything yet and I am too tired to make any post that makes sense.

We had a thread called "Doubts" in the trial and tribulations sections in january and february when this all got going. That thread was ultimately deleted I believe, if I am not mistaken. If it was deleted, I am not aware that there were any statement made from the forum leaders why the exact reason was for it being deleted. We had a member banned from the forum at the same time I remember, but that member was in the main forum and encouraging other members to come to the "doubts" thread.

Perhaps the moderators can clarify what happened to the "doubts" thread.

I just dont want to engage in this thread at all in any way or form, before I am aware of if its even allowed to be a part of this thread.

I like WildStyle contributions to the forum btw - and with that I do not mean this thread especially.
 
Last edited:

Mikky Dee

Sunset Driver, Midnight Rider
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
3,018
Points
63
Michael's name was cleared long ago and that includes being cleared of these accusations made by Robson and Safechuck. They are bogus accusations, made up of lies and inconsistencies and false interpretations. It is innuendo based. NOTHING from Michael's life....his personality, his actions etc. is any different....it can't be different because it can't change and it can't be undone. What is different now, is their interpretation of his history and their re-write of their time with Michael, as part of his history. All they are doing now, in this documentary and in interviews, is looking at photos and messages and video footage and gifts and attaching a sinister undertone and a new "sexual" meaning to all of it. I don't need to ask myself any tough questions. I knew who Michael Jackson was years ago....I knew his heart and I knew his soul....both of which spoke directly to my heart and soul. This re-write of all of his interactions with people who chased HIM and begged HIM to allow them into his world, means less than nothing to me and never will mean a single damn thing.
 

Mikky Dee

Sunset Driver, Midnight Rider
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
3,018
Points
63
We had a thread called "Doubts" in the trial and tribulations sections in january and february when this all got going. That thread was ultimately deleted I believe, if I am not mistaken. If it was deleted, I am not aware that there were any statement made from the forum leaders why the exact reason was for it being deleted.

Perhaps the moderators can clarify what happened to "doubts" thread.

In our opinion, a fan club and forum dedicated to Michael Jackson is not an appropriate place to express doubts about his innocence. There are other places to do that, such as twitter, Facebook, in the comment sections of tabloid articles, Reddit, MJ Facts, LSA and so on. MJJC is for supporting Michael Jackson and his family. People are free to have doubts, but they are not free to bring them here. This entire mess is heartbreaking enough already and it's enough to have to fight against the media, trolls and haters, without putting fans into the mix, as well. If someone is being swayed by these two liars, who incidentally made their claims against Michael's companies and against the Estate six years ago....well......that confuses the hell out of us.

A statement was made for the members, by the Administration Team at the time that the thread was deleted, to explain the philosophy expressed above, although it should be an understanding on the part of most members that doubting Michael's innocence is not part of a site dedicated to the man. The Administration announcement appeared in the MJJ Community Announcements and Feedback thread.
 

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
822
Points
28
Mikky Dee : Thank you very much for that information. Well articulated post.

I will head over to that section of the forum and read after I have slept a few hours. I cant sleep at all since the past weekend. Just stressed and trying to combat everyone on facebook, twitter and youtube at the same time.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2019
Messages
1,676
Points
0
Michael Jacksons sexual interest was only into woman. The pornomagazines proves it! As far as I know some had his sperm on it.
Did you ever listen to the Glenda Tapes?
There you can find much evidence for that.

Diana Ross was the love of his life. I wish she whoud stand up for MJ and admit that they had a secret relationship in these days. I belive they had one.
He wrote the song Muscles for her.
Muscles was the name of MJs snake but a snake is also a symbol for something what is forbidden or not right in the eyes of a socity like a relationship between a much younger man and a older woman in the 80ies). Now listen to the song muscles again!

https://youtu.be/IJk5e29htxQ

He wanna marry her for years! There is a presscomference in 1986 were he won an award for "We are the world" after Ross married another man and you can see and feel his deep sadness and pain because of that!
There are many songs which seemed dedicated to her like Dirty Diana, who is it, give in to me, Remember the time.
In the orginal video of Remember the time was a love massage dedicated to her.
There were also loving notes dedicated to her in the history booklet with an very intime foto of him and her during the times they dated.
He had a shrine for her in neverland.
Someone said he dedicated the organisation "Go for your dreames" he talked about on his Neverland Birthday Party to Diana Ross and he wanted her to take care of his children when he and his mother are gone.

There are so muuuuuch examples which shows that he was interested into woman.
I don't know someone who is a long time fan and stuied him for decaded can doubt that his sexual interest was into woman!
I mean in his art alone are multible evidences alone.
You can feel his spirit there and the sexual energy when he sang songs about woman.
There is no sexual energy in any song he sings about children.
 
Last edited:

aqwsz

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
224
Points
0
I went from not wanting to watch the doc to being curious about it. If people with no affinity for MJ are convinced he is guilty then I think we must oblige ourselves to watch it and judge for ourselves.

And yes I'm (more or less) aware of the background of the accusers and I'm also aware of a couple of other ones coming froward to claim nothing ever happened.
 

ChrisC

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
3,293
Points
63
For me it's weakness. I'll admit that openly.

To maintain your position, the one you've had for decades in the face of the whole world telling you that you're wrong is so hard. Some days I'm full of spirit other days I'm beaten down and tired when you see that article after article has been published condemning him.

It feels unfair to expect anyone to keep fighting this, seemingly, losing battle.

I feel strongly that Michael is not guilty of these things, and I feel strongly that Wade, Dan and co. are guilty of greed and where Dan is concerned just blatant hatred of Michael and what he stood for. But it's becoming less and less about that now. I'm being forced into a world I really do not want to be in. My usual technique in dealing with this type of negative energy is to remove myself from it but it's nigh on impossible to do that in this scenario. A few days away from it helps but I feel like all I'm doing is sitting ignorantly in a burning house.

It's just weakness in my character that's being tested and exposed right now. And if things don't change soon it will crack beyond repair.
 

wednesday

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
550
Points
0
For me it's weakness. I'll admit that openly.

To maintain your position, the one you've had for decades in the face of the whole world telling you that you're wrong is so hard. Some days I'm full of spirit other days I'm beaten down and tired when you see that article after article has been published condemning him.

It feels unfair to expect anyone to keep fighting this, seemingly, losing battle.

I feel strongly that Michael is not guilty of these things, and I feel strongly that Wade, Dan and co. are guilty of greed and where Dan is concerned just blatant hatred of Michael and what he stood for. But it's becoming less and less about that now. I'm being forced into a world I really do not want to be in. My usual technique in dealing with this type of negative energy is to remove myself from it but it's nigh on impossible to do that in this scenario. A few days away from it helps but I feel like all I'm doing is sitting ignorantly in a burning house.

It's just weakness in my character that's being tested and exposed right now. And if things don't change soon it will crack beyond repair.

This new media barrage does feel like an Orwellian nightmare. But you know damn well that you are not alone in standing by Michael and by being principled. You should be proud of yourself for not being a brainwashed zombie, a heartless robot and an uncritical sheep. :flowers:
 

Boltzmann

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
44
Points
0
Location
US
I think it is pretty clear that Michael’s dependence on these boys and families was not healthy. He should have been in therapy instead.

But this doesn’t mean he molested anybody.

I still think that if there had been evidence to find, law enforcement would have found it. They worked too long and too hard on it. It is true that our justice system doesn’t get everything right, but this was not some rinky dink, run-of-the-mill, unimportant case. The whole world was focused on it and on top of that conventional wisdom said that Michael was guilty. Yet, he was exonerated.

I still think on balance that given all of the scrutiny, the overwhelming odds are that if he had molested one of these boys, it would have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
 

ChrisC

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
3,293
Points
63
This new media barrage does feel like an Orwellian nightmare. But you know damn well that you are not alone in standing by Michael and by being principled. You should be proud of yourself for not being a brainwashed zombie, a heartless robot and an uncritical sheep. :flowers:

Thank you :flowers:
 

aqwsz

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
224
Points
0
For me it's weakness. I'll admit that openly.

To maintain your position, the one you've had for decades in the face of the whole world telling you that you're wrong is so hard. Some days I'm full of spirit other days I'm beaten down and tired when you see that article after article has been published condemning him.

It feels unfair to expect anyone to keep fighting this, seemingly, losing battle.

I feel strongly that Michael is not guilty of these things, and I feel strongly that Wade, Dan and co. are guilty of greed and where Dan is concerned just blatant hatred of Michael and what he stood for. But it's becoming less and less about that now. I'm being forced into a world I really do not want to be in. My usual technique in dealing with this type of negative energy is to remove myself from it but it's nigh on impossible to do that in this scenario. A few days away from it helps but I feel like all I'm doing is sitting ignorantly in a burning house.

It's just weakness in my character that's being tested and exposed right now. And if things don't change soon it will crack beyond repair.

I basically just stop caring. It's a discussion nobody can win, not those against MJ nor the other side. It's nothing new , when in public there's talk about MJ there's always an unfunny joke or two coming up even after 2005 and 2009. I just don't react to it anymore.
It's not going to determine my life and my mood.
 

strangerinncl

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
116
Points
18
Thank you for writing this. I am in the UK and have been a vocal MJ supporter for 25 years, arguing his innocence with friends, family and strangers whenever I needed to. Today I downloaded Leaving Neverland and have just finished it and it’s changed my view of MJ possibly forever.

The first part was graphic but I battered it away with “there’s no proof, they are after money” etc but the second part, seeing their emotions and their family’s reactions has destroyed me. For me, the most brutal line of the whole thing was when James was asked to testify and he said to him mum back in 2005 “Michael’s Evil”.

Yes this was very one sided, yes they are after money, yes they have said different things in the past... but what they say in this interview, and importantly how they say it (especially in part 2) can not be simply dismissed as lies and not considered as potentially true. I now have doubts that I never in 25 years had before. I will never believe the scum Arvisos but this has shattered my beliefs and now I can no longer say with certainty that he was innocent.

A very very sad day. I wish and hope it’s not true because if it is, he was a monster.
 

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
822
Points
28
In our opinion, a fan club and forum dedicated to Michael Jackson is not an appropriate place to express doubts about his innocence. There are other places to do that, such as twitter, Facebook, in the comment sections of tabloid articles, Reddit, MJ Facts, LSA and so on. MJJC is for supporting Michael Jackson and his family. People are free to have doubts, but they are not free to bring them here. This entire mess is heartbreaking enough already and it's enough to have to fight against the media, trolls and haters, without putting fans into the mix, as well. If someone is being swayed by these two liars, who incidentally made their claims against Michael's companies and against the Estate six years ago....well......that confuses the hell out of us.

A statement was made for the members, by the Administration Team at the time that the thread was deleted, to explain the philosophy expressed above, although it should be an understanding on the part of most members that doubting Michael's innocence is not part of a site dedicated to the man. The Administration announcement appeared in the MJJ Community Announcements and Feedback thread.

Can you link me to that thread? I can not find it. I must be stupid, but I have searched for 15 minutes and still cant find it. I also searched MJJ Community Announcements and did not find the thread that way either. Thank you!
 

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
822
Points
28
strangerinncl;4245765 said:
The first part was graphic but I battered it away with “there’s no proof, they are after money” etc but the second part, seeing their emotions and their family’s reactions has destroyed me. For me, the most brutal line of the whole thing was when James was asked to testify and he said to him mum back in 2005 “Michael’s Evil”.

OOPS. Only one problem, Safechuck was NEVER asked to testify.

Safechuck were not allowed to testify either, because nobody had seen him be molested. The only persons who were allowed to testify were Culkin, Barnes and Robson because the neverland 5 allegedly had "seen" events that suggested that they had been molested.

Nobody had seen allegedly seen anything about Safechuck, so the judge decided Safechuck was not going to be part of the trial.

I recomend STRONGLY that you listen to this interview below:

[video=youtube;pDa27x6mTWs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDa27x6mTWs[/video]

I did a transcript on Safechucks lie.

Q. Can you explain Safechucks relation to the 2005 trial.

Scott Ross: “Pre-trial motions are in place to prevent things coming in that are irrelevant. With Safechuck there was declaration in 1993-94 somehow in connection with the Jordan Chandler matter. Safechuck had signed a declaration that nothing ever happened, Michael did not do anything. So Safechuck for purposes of the trial, was what we would call a nonentity. The judge had already ruled that nothing regarding Safechuck were going to be allowed, nothing was going to be discussed, no evidence one way or the other was going to be brought in. Safechuck for purposes of this trial, did not exist, plain and simple. So when I heard these stories that Evvy Tavasci, Michaels personal assistant for 20 years, was calling Safechuck repeatedly and begging him to testify, it’s not even absurdity, the stupidity of that comment is beyond belief. Simply based on the fact that it’s not up to Evvy Tavasci to decide who’s going to testify, it was not even up to Mesereau or Sneddon. At that point the judge had already long since ruled, well over 7-8 months before that Safechuck was a nonentity."

Q. So Safechuck was not even a part of the trial?
Scott Ross: “He had absolutely nothing to do with it at all, other than maybe if he was watching it on TV, that was as close as he got to it. He was never ever an entity.”

Scott Ross - Michael Jacksons Private Investigator for the 2005 trial, from interview 2019-03-04
 
Last edited:

strangerinncl

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
116
Points
18
Honestly, I am not a hater. Nothing would make me happier right now than exposing all of this as lies. But in LN, James says Michael (not anyone else) phoned him to ask him to stand by him and he couldn’t. He doesn’t give a timeline for if this was as the story broke, mid trial or what.

And it’s not just what they say, it’s how they say it. That’s a problem that we’ve never had to deal with as fans before and it’s not as easy to dismiss.
 

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
822
Points
28
strangerinncl;4245805 said:
Honestly, I am not a hater. Nothing would make me happier right now than exposing all of this as lies. But in LN, James says Michael (not anyone else) phoned him to ask him to stand by him and he couldn’t. He doesn’t give a timeline for if this was as the story broke, mid trial or what.

And it’s not just what they say, it’s how they say it. That’s a problem that we’ve never had to deal with as fans before and it’s not as easy to dismiss.

I have never said you were a hater or anything to that effect, so you dont have to defend yourself.

Alright. So you take the proven liar Safechucks words as proof that MJ did call him to ask him to "stand by him" even though he would not be allowed to testify in the trial?
 

Pentum

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
7,207
Points
83
Location
Norway
The media and the documentary have really gotten a hold of you, guys. Take a few days off from all social media, TV and news is my tip. This whole situation is nothing but an illusion which will pass on soon and the more you ignore it, the sooner it will pass on. Peace
 

aqwsz

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
224
Points
0
I haven't watched the doc yet. I probably will on Friday but that's no certainty.
It's not easy to stay away from news and stuff I'm an avid newspaper reader and my curiosity on the subject is way too big to ignore
 

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
I have never said you were a hater or anything to that effect, so you dont have to defend yourself.

Alright. So you take the proven liar Safechucks words as proof that MJ did call him to ask him to "stand by him" even though he would not be allowed to testify in the trial?

That's the problem with these things. Safechuck could be lying, but saying the defense lawyers didn't need him is not 100% proof that Michael himself didn't call him for whatever reason. Michael did have a falling out with Frank Cascio thinking that he didn't want to testify when the situation was actually more complex than that and it was T-Mez that didn't want him to testify. The reason for him not testifying being different to Safechuck's however.
 
Last edited:

DDam

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Messages
63
Points
0
But at the end of the day... he was still HUMAN. He was still an adult male with the needs of any other adult male. How were these needs being fulfilled all those nights? We know of only one woman that he ever slept with for sure. Lisa. That's it? Where are all the other women? Was he that good at hiding them? Maybe. But they certainly weren't on the road with him all those nights. It's possible that there were some after Lisa. We know of some of those stories. We know of him continuing to see Lisa for years after their divorce. But before Lisa? Maybe Michael WAS sexually repressed. Maybe he WASN'T ready for a sexual relationship. Maybe all of these friendships with children WERE innocent. Possibly.

We don't know Michael's personal relationships with women, we know some rumours about them here and there, you can't think you know who he slept with, or that he didn't have women (or men - some guy claimed he was gay and dating him lol!) we also don't know will.i.am of the black eyed peas personal relationships, he's never known to be in relationships. That doesn't mean anything. Also
"the needs of other adult males... How were these needs being fulfilled all those nights?"
Not all men, in fact, very very very very etc. few are out there having sex every night/all the time, and some , I assume a lot have sex very infrequently, and some men are celibate, voluntarily or not, there are those who take a vow, and some who are asexual. Even if he had a sex drive and these "needs" and wasn't having sex at the time it doesn't mean he would abuse children. Also men who are married and have sex lives with women do abuse children, so it isn't about that.
 

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
We don't know Michael's personal relationships with women, we know some rumours about them here and there, you can't think you know who he slept with, or that he didn't have women (or men - some guy claimed he was gay and dating him lol!) we also don't know will.i.am of the black eyed peas personal relationships, he's never known to be in relationships. That doesn't mean anything. Also Not all men, in fact, very very very very etc. few are out there having sex every night/all the time, and some , I assume a lot have sex very infrequently, and some men are celibate, voluntarily or not, there are those who take a vow, and some who are asexual. Even if he had a sex drive and these "needs" and wasn't having sex at the time it doesn't mean he would abuse children. Also men who are married and have sex lives with women do abuse children, so it isn't about that.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying. I'm saying we don't know. We do know for a fact that he slept with Lisa, but that is all we know.

What I'm saying is that I'm open to questioning some things now that I wasn't open to before.
 

fraroc04

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2016
Messages
156
Points
28
I think we should make it emphatically clear that our defense of Michael Jackson is based on evidence and facts, not solely our love for MJs music or a "blind adoration" of Michael.
 

etoile 37

Proud Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
769
Points
18
WildStyle;4245460 said:
He was still an adult male with the needs of any other adult male. How were these needs being fulfilled all those nights? We know of only one woman that he ever slept with for sure. Lisa. That's it? Where are all the other women? Was he that good at hiding them? Maybe. But they certainly weren't on the road with him all those nights. It's possible that there were some after Lisa. We know of some of those stories. We know of him continuing to see Lisa for years after their divorce. But before Lisa? Maybe Michael WAS sexually repressed. Maybe he WASN'T ready for a sexual relationship. Maybe all of these friendships with children WERE innocent. Possibly.

Not talking about Michael, but I think I need to point out here that there are tons of people who don’t have an active sex life. They are not asexual, they are just not dependent on sex. They just haven’t found someone they want to be in a relationship with, and they are not into having one-night stands. So the argument that if Michael wasn’t having sex with women then he MUST have been having sex with someone is just... Frankly, I don’t understand that argument. There’s nothing abnormal or wrong with people who don’t have an active sex life. Just because some people feel they can’t go for long without sex doesn’t mean that everybody feels the same way. And whether or not Michael was having sex with women outside of his wives is completely irrelevant when it comes to the allegations. What proves the allegations to be false is this:
-Evan Chandler being on tape detailing his extortion plan before “knowing” that his son had been molested.
-Arvizo, Robson and Safechuck not being able to keep their story straight. There’s only one version of the truth, but Robson and Safechuck's version of the truth keeps changing all the time. That is not the truth. And we have clear proof that some of the things they are alleging are false (like Arvizo claiming that Michael had shown him a certain magazine, but the date on the magazine indicated that the magazine hadn’t even been published yet at the time, etc.)

I also think I need to point out something else: Michael wasn’t sleeping with children, he was sleeping with people, including grown men and women he had no sexual interest in. Stephanie Mills said she used to sleep with him in his bed when he was filming the Wiz, but they never had sex. Robson said in 2005 that he was still sleeping in Michael’s bed when he was 19 years old and the only reason he stopped doing it is because he felt maybe he should give Michael his privacy. But if it wasn’t for him stopping on his own, Michael probably never would have kicked him out of his bed, despite the fact that he was now a grown man. I think it would be interesting to make a list of all the people who slept in Michael’s bed, I think that list would be pretty long…

Now why did he sleep with so many people?

Well, for one, that’s what he was used to. That’s what he had been doing since he was a little child. He said on the Glenda tapes that as a child and as an adult, his bodyguard Bill Bray used to sleep in his hotel room. He said on the Shmuley tapes that as a child, he used to share his hotel room with two jewish men who were working for them. This was normal for him. That’s what he had known all his life. Of course, we can’t relate to that.

Another interesting thing, this is a quote from Diana Ross in 1984: “He has so many people around him but he’s still afraid, especially to be alone at night.”

I’m wondering if maybe Michael didn’t feel comfortable sleeping alone and that’s why he was happy to let (I say ‘let’, because Michael said himself that he never invited people in his bed, he simply allowed them when they wanted to) people sleep in his bedroom. Maybe it comes from his childhood, his father scaring him in the middle of the night with the monster masks, his father bringing fans in the room so they could watch him sleep, crazy fans breaking in his house and hiding in his closet… All of this could explain why he liked having people he trusted in his bedroom with him.

strangerinncl;4245765 said:
seeing their emotions and their family’s reactions has destroyed me.

Good actors... Doesn't mean what they are saying is true. People cry when they watch sad fictive movies. Just look at how Safechuck's timeline is all wrong and you will know that the things he's saying just didn't happen. That's what you need to look at to know whether they are telling the truth or not, not at their emotions. Check how their stories kept changing in the court documents from their lawsuit against the Estate.
 

etoile 37

Proud Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
769
Points
18
Before people start relying on their emotions to determine whether they are being truthful or not, I think it’s important to take into account that both of them happen to be actors. Safechuck was a child actor, that’s even how he met Michael. Robson’s own mother said he was such a good liar he should get an Oscar. When it comes to actors, you can’t rely on their emotions, because they are good at faking them. Therefore you can only rely on facts and whether or not their story is consistent (and we know by all the different versions they gave that it is NOT.)
 

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
Thanks for those posts etoile 37. I do agree with most of what you say.
 

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
One thing that seems to be popping up a lot is Safechuck's mother saying she was happy when Michael died. The defense I have seen about that that is supposed to prove he is lying is Safechuck only realised he was abused after Wade came out so how could his mother know about it in 2009? But reading his initial complaint, that is not what he says. He says he mentioned to his mother in 2005 that he was "abused". He says that he compartmentalised his feelings about the abuse for years, not that he didn't realise it was abuse. I need to re-read the later documents to see what he claims later, but I think fans maybe should stop going to that argument as it's not really accurate.

Possibly James was bitter about Michael in 2005. Possibly the phone calls never happened in the first place and his mother is in on this with him. There are hundreds of millions of reasons to go along with it after all. The claims of the defense team calling him to testify are very dubious after all.
 
Last edited:

SoCav

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
1,945
Points
63
WildStyle;4246135 said:
One thing that seems to be popping up a lot is Safechuck's mother saying she was happy when Michael died. The defense I have seen about that that is supposed to prove he is lying is Safechuck only realised he was abused after Wade came out so how could his mother know about it in 2009? But reading his initial complaint, that is not what he says. He says he mentioned to his mother in 2005 that he was "abused". He says that he compartmentalised his feelings about the abuse for years, not that he didn't realise it was abuse. I need to re-read the later documents to see what he claims later, but I think fans maybe should stop going to that argument as it's not really accurate.
Yes, he says he told his mom MJ was "an evil man" in 2005 because he did not want them to defend MJ during the trial (not that they could have anyway, as they could not have been called as witnesses for the reasons Scott Ross described).

He does actually say he did not realize it was abuse until Wade came forward in 2013. See this clip:

[FONT=&amp]https://twitter.com/SoCav_/status/1102966764172951552
[/FONT]

Oprah: "When did you first realize it was abuse? You use the word freely now as adult men, but when did you start to think of it as abuse?"
Safechuck: "It wasn't until Wade came out."

WildStyle;4245972 said:
That's the problem with these things. Safechuck could be lying, but saying the defense lawyers didn't need him is not 100% proof that Michael himself didn't call him for whatever reason. Michael did have a falling out with Frank Cascio thinking that he didn't want to testify when the situation was actually more complex than that and it was T-Mez that didn't want him to testify. The reason for him not testifying being different to Safechuck's however.
I do think that's a different matter, because Frank was actually named as an unindicted co-conspirator, and he was Michael's assistant while the Arvizos were around. Safechuck had not been around MJ for many years and was, as Scott Ross explained, legally a non-entity. There simply was no reason to call him, as he simply could not testify. Ross also was pretty adamant that he was the one reaching out to witnesses.

By the way, if I am not mistaken, Safechuck argued during his case that MJ's attorneys and Evvy Tavascy contacted him about testifying. I believe the film is the first time he says MJ was the one to call him.

strangerinncl;4245805 said:
But in LN, James says Michael (not anyone else) phoned him to ask him to stand by him and he couldn’t. He doesn’t give a timeline for if this was as the story broke, mid trial or what.
He does actually. He says Michael called him twice, and he says the second time was "towards the end of the trial." He again says Michael tried to get him to testify. Now, not only does this not make sense because, again, Safechuck was a non-entity. It also does not make sense because the court needs to be informed of witnesses at a much earlier stage. Even if he had not been a non-entity, it makes no sense that MJ would have called him towards the end of the trial.
 
Last edited:
Top