Asking ourselves tough questions.

Soundmind

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,667
Points
0
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.

I have not seen the doc yet, I cannot get myself to see it but i will do soon. One question, I understand he says that mj dumped him at one point after the bad tour but called him after the 1993 allegations, bought him a house and stuff like that. Having watched it, would you please brief us on this particular time? there is an ex employee on twitter now saying that she was there at Neverland in the early 90's, saw the Safechucks many times at the ranch but mj was never there. 'He chose not to be'.
 

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
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:

https://twitter.com/SoCav_/status/1102966764172951552

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."


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.


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.

Thanks for the clip. That is indeed very odd. You could argue he didn't understand the question, but he seemed to elaborate on it like he did know what Oprah was asking. Why were you mad at him in 2005 if you didn't consider it abuse yet? How did you literal say the words to your mother "I was abused" (it's in his complaint), if you did not recognise it as abuse yet?
 

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
I have not seen the doc yet, I cannot get myself to see it but i will do soon. One question, I understand he says that mj dumped him at one point after the bad tour but called him after the 1993 allegations, bought him a house and stuff like that. Having watched it, would you please brief us on this particular time? there is an ex employee on twitter now saying that she was there at Neverland in the early 90's, saw the Safechucks many times at the ranch but mj was never there. 'He chose not to be'.

I think they do mention the house briefly but I can't say for sure. I don't remember them saying anything about visiting Neverland while Michael wasn't there.
 

SoCav

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
1,951
Points
63
Thanks for the clip. That is indeed very odd. You could argue he didn't understand the question, but he seemed to elaborate on it like he did know what Oprah was asking. Why were you mad at him in 2005 if you didn't consider it abuse yet? How did you literal say the words to your mother "I was abused" (it's in his complaint), if you did not recognise it as abuse yet?
Yes. I've tried very hard to understand what exactly Safechuck is alleging (in terms of the timeline) but I just don't get it. Further complicating it is that he says in the film that when MJ died, he felt "very sad" because "they'd never be friends anymore." This is 4 years after he called him an evil man to his mom and 4 years after he says he dismissed him when he talked to him on the phone in 2005. I guess one could argue he just had complicated feelings towards him, but it does seem odd to me.

What I also find strange is that we are to believe his mom did not ask him any questions when he told her that MJ was an evil man in 2005. She supposedly immediately knew exactly what he meant, sensed he wanted to keep it a secret, and so never bothered to ask him anything about it again. Apparently, it was not important to her to know exactly what happened to her son, nor did she figure that it would be important for the safety of other kids to inform law enforcement. Her saying that she was so happy when MJ died because he would not be able to abuse any other kids thus rings rather hollow - she didn't bother to do anything that could help these supposed victims 4 years prior.
 

SoCav

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
1,951
Points
63
I think they do mention the house briefly but I can't say for sure. I don't remember them saying anything about visiting Neverland while Michael wasn't there.
She talks about it in this clip:
streamable.com/2uhxq

She says MJ gave them the loan after her husband had already given a deposition (she's not very clear, but it seems she says also after James had defended him). So she's not saying he dangled a carrot in front of them before they were deposed. Furthermore, he did not turn it into a gift until after "all that was said and done." To me, it thus makes no sense to claim that it was hush money. It makes more sense that he was just grateful they stuck by him and wanted to do this for him. Or maybe it was totally unrelated, and just one of MJ's many acts of generosity.
 

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
SoCav;4246173 said:
Yes. I've tried very hard to understand what exactly Safechuck is alleging (in terms of the timeline) but I just don't get it. Further complicating it is that he says in the film that when MJ died, he felt "very sad" because "they'd never be friends anymore." This is 4 years after he called him an evil man to his mom and 4 years after he says he dismissed him when he talked to him on the phone in 2005. I guess one could argue he just had complicated feelings towards him, but it does seem odd to me.

What I also find strange is that we are to believe his mom did not ask him any questions when he told her that MJ was an evil man in 2005. She supposedly immediately knew exactly what he meant, sensed he wanted to keep it a secret, and so never bothered to ask him anything about it again. Apparently, it was not important to her to know exactly what happened to her son, nor did she figure that it would be important for the safety of other kids to inform law enforcement. Her saying that she was so happy when MJ died because he would not be able to abuse any other kids thus rings rather hollow - she didn't bother to do anything that could help these supposed victims 4 years prior.

In the complaint it does say that he went a bit further than just saying Michael was a "bad man".

[FONT=&quot]Plaintiff talked to her about the call and told his mother that DECEDENT was a “bad man,” but was unable to tell her any details or say anything but the very briefest statement that he had been abused.[/FONT]
 

SoCav

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
1,951
Points
63
WildStyle;4246178 said:
In the complaint it does say that he went a bit further than just saying Michael was a "bad man".

[FONT=&amp]Plaintiff talked to her about the call and told his mother that DECEDENT was a “bad man,” but was unable to tell her any details or say anything but the very briefest statement that he had been abused.[/FONT]
Thanks for that. It does not erase my questions. I just have a very hard time believing that a mother would not press her son on this (James says in the film she never did), even if he said he was unable to tell further details initially.
 

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
Thanks for that. It does not erase my questions. I just have a very hard time believing that a mother would not press her son on this (James says in the film she never did), even if he said he was unable to tell further details initially.

Not only that. She supposedly talked on the phone to Michael AFTER that and said nothing.
 

wednesday

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
550
Points
0
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

It certainly feels like an illusion... I thought I'd be above this crap, but it's been more than a distraction.
 

wednesday

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
550
Points
0
etoile 37;4246018 said:
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.



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.

In your post I recognize the real Michael Jackson. Thank you, for your plausible, simple, common sense explanation!
 

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
835
Points
28
Did she really? Does she say this in the film (if so, I do not recall it)?

Its in his civil lawsuit. Safechuck made his mother not tell Michael that he had told her about the abuse. So according to Safechuck MJ phoned the mother and she did not say that she had been made aware Michael had molested her son!

Here is it is:


 
Last edited:

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
835
Points
28
So here is James Safechucks story:

MJ called and begged Safechuck to testify in the trial even though he WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to testify in the trial. So first we need to believe that. And then we believe MJ phoned the mother to beg for her to convince Safechuck to testify in the trial he WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to testify in.

And then we believe Safechuck told his mother he had been abused, and also told her to not reveal it. So when Michael called she pretended all was fine.

And then Safechuck and his mother let the child molester get away with molesting Gavin Arvizo - and left Michael Jackson the SERIAL MOLESTER on the lose so he could go on abusing other children and possible his own children!

And then we believe Safechuck telling his mother he had been ABUSED in 2005, but AT THE SAME TIME, not realizing IT WAS ABUSE until he received his first child (1st version) or when he saw Robson on TV (2nd version).

And then he hired a lawyer that was an expert on child abuse, focused mainly on child abuse in school. And had him file a civil lawsuit claiming "MJJ Productions were a school and should be held responsible for all children within it." And the lawyer used his "regular" school abuse cases as the platform for Safechucks civil suit.

Further note: Safechuck also claims he was concerned about pedophiliac urges in 2010, I am not sure how that fits in with everything else.

Its pretty confusing, right?
 
Last edited:

aqwsz

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
224
Points
0
Confusing it is. I am ready for the truth whatever it is. Good or bad, I'd like it to end but that's wishful thinking on my part.
 

etoile 37

Proud Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
769
Points
18
Further note: Safechuck also claims he was concerned about pedophiliac urges in 2010, I am not sure how that fits in with everything else.

I remember this but I don't remember where it was from. Do you remember? Do you have a link?
 

CrazyVegasMJ

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
788
Points
18
Location
Bay Area, Cali, USA
I just finished writing some thoughts in the main discussion thread...

I’m hurting
My wife and I were fans at the trial waiting along the fence for several days and chanting and cheering whenever he’d arrive or leave..
Idk what to do
I’ll never stop appreciating the music and art but I can no longer defend his actions like I have in the past..
I don’t necessarily believe everything said by Wade and James..
But for me I always knew having other people’s kids in his room alone was wrong, regardless of anything sexual taking place..
And even listening to the trial testimony I felt like it could’ve been rehearsed and made up..
But James especially I found extremely credible..
Wade too but he seemed more polished and ready for interviews and lights and cameras because he’s done them for so long in his own career..
Even if they made up 90% of the sexual details just to embellish it for the doc, that still leaves 10% of what they say happened actually happening...
I can’t defend it..

I love Michael Jackson like he’s a family member....



I’m devastated..
 

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
835
Points
28
CrazyVegasMJ:

Did you watch this video?


I forgot one more point to consider for the Safechuck believers.

In Victor Gutierrez fiction book titled "Michael Jackson was my lover", that was based on Jordan Chandlers secret diarys - the problem was that Jordan Chandler never had a diary. (and the Chandlers said the book was rubbish) so we know the ENTIRE BOOK IS MAN & BOY LOVE FANTASY by the PRO-NAMBLA Gutierrez. Jackson sued Gutierrez for slander and won a 2.7$ in damages, and Gutierrez fled to Chile without paying a dime.

In the book Gutierrez writes about a scene where Michael Jackson marries Jordan Chandler and gives him some kind of medallion as man/boy marriage token!
---
Now consider now that Safechuck is claiming to have married Michael Jackson and been given the same kind of jewelry, pretty much copied from Gutierrez book.

Also consider Wade Robson was caught visiting MJFacts and other sites with info about MJs accusers and emailing the adresses to himself.
---
With that in mind?

Do you think Safechuck IN FACT just happened to marry Michael Jackson and receive jewelry from Jackson? And that Gutierrez in his book years later, just HAPPENED TO GUESS THAT SCENARIO?

Or do you think Safechuck/Robson copied the wedding/jewelry thing from Gutierrez made up book to create a false story?

Which scenario is more likely?
----
 
Last edited:

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
I can see where CrazyVegasMJ is coming from. The documentary is very well made and (by the time it's finished) very convincing. Part 2 was a massacre. The stories from their family members really drives it home strong. Specifically James' wife and mother and Wade's brother. That's why I'm looking at both sides with a new openness. If you were to believe their version of the story then Michael was the exact opposite of everything he presented himself as and the people around him (that didn't seek millions from him) said he was. That's just really hard to believe. How could he convince so many people that he was the kindest and most gentle soul on the planet while in actuality being a ruthless and conniving pedophile? It doesn't add up.
 

aqwsz

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
224
Points
0
The problem for me is that everyone plays along with the story. I'm 100% sure I wouldn't agree with this if someone from my family asked me to tell lies to incriminate a third person. Definitely not for money anyway and I'm a poor man believe me.
 

aqwsz

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
224
Points
0
CrazyVegasMJ;4246398 said:
I watched that video but it still doesn’t convince me that Victor G had anything to do with Wade or James and their stories

I hope that Victor fella will be discussed soon too in debates on tv so we can paint a picture of who he is and if or if he not has something to do with the case
 

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
835
Points
28
I can see where CrazyVegasMJ is coming from. The documentary is very well made and (by the time it's finished) very convincing. Part 2 was a massacre. The stories from their family members really drives it home strong. Specifically James' wife and mother and Wade's brother. That's why I'm looking at both sides with a new openness. If you were to believe their version of the story then Michael was the exact opposite of everything he presented himself as and the people around him (that didn't seek millions from him) said he was. That's just really hard to believe. How could he convince so many people that he was the kindest and most gentle soul on the planet while in actuality being a ruthless and conniving pedophile? It doesn't add up.

The problem for me is that everyone plays along with the story. I'm 100% sure I wouldn't agree with this if someone from my family asked me to tell lies to incriminate a third person. Definitely not for money anyway and I'm a poor man believe me.

Well, I am not really sure why I am doing this on a Michael Jackson forum, usually its non-fans who I have engage with.

What I find most bizarre is that you do what Dan Reed DOES NOT - you give WAY TOO MUCH credit to people who HAVE NO IDEA IF ANY ABUSE happened or not.

Wade brother or Wades wife are no better witnesses than Melanie Bagnall or Blanka Francia. Remember Melanie Bagnall that have not slept well because of guilt for the last 25 years, she is being paid on TV to look devastated, because of the HORRORS she witnessed at Neverland.

And then they show footage of Jackson driving a golf cart with 2 kids in it with him, they all bumping around like crazy. And then Melanie Bagnall drops her BOMBSHELL, she saw Michael Jacksons hand appear NEAR the crouch of a boy while driving a golf cart, and then she knew Michaels love your children were the most sinister thing in the world.

Now, Melanie Bagnall has not seen any evidence of wrongdoing but uses the Arvizo case and says: "I knew there was going to be another trial, and it confirmed I was right". Dont forget the Arvizo trial was an absolute joke, but Melanie Bagnall has no idea of that since she could be bothered to follow it in detail, she is just going by her FEELINGS, not FACTS.

And my point here: Probably Melanie Bagnall and the 2 maids have felt guilt, but not because THEY KNEW Michael was a molester, but because THE BELIEVED he was a molester and that it fit their and the medias narrative.
---
Which brings me to Wade Robson. If I were Wade Robson and wanted to make millions of dollars from The MJ Estate making bogus claims, I would DEFINITELY NOT tell my brother and mother that its a con-job. The more people that know its a scam, the bigger the chance of getting caught with it.

And then we have some honest people here saying the would never incriminate or lie on someone for money - that is lovely and its all fine, because you are a decent person obviously. But I know from personal experience watching court procedings that people lie all the time for small money, so when we are talking about the biggest target and the most sued human being in the world, and millions of dollar I would not assume that "nobody would lie to incriminate him".

So when you see mothers and sieblings testify, its PERFECTLY POSSIBLE they are DEVASTATED because the BELIEVE Wade & Safechucks storys are true. Its not like Dan Reed claims that EVERYONE has to be in on it. Wade & Jimmy can be running this solo, no doubt. Maybe Wade wife knows and nobody else. Who knows?

But to give 3rd part witnesses such an incredible important role as you are doing - I do not agree with it at all! Maybe you should ask yourself like Dan Reed:

Where these people in the room when the door closed? No, they were not!
 

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
Well, I am not really sure why I am doing this on a Michael Jackson forum, usually its non-fans who I have engage with.

You could have left this out. We are humans as well as fans and it's not surprising with how manipulative this documentary is that someone would react to it in a human way. Have you watched it yet?

Obviously you are correct about what you are saying about the families. The "convincing" testimonies from them are not from them being in that room. It's their corroboration of Wade and James' behaviour and their stories of how they "came out" to them. In Safechuck's mothers case... how Safechuck even supposedly told her of the abuse in 2005. Obviously the whole thing could be a lie especially when there are 100's of millions of dollars at stake. It would not be the first time in history something like that has happened. Far from it. But if you watch it... the way it is produced, you can see how it can be very believable and made to make sense. Even though the whole thing should be looked at with skepticism.

I have never said that I now believe Michael was guilty. I do not. I'm simply looking at everything.
 

Cinnamon234

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
3,368
Points
48
Location
U.S.A
etoile 37;4246018 said:
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.



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.

Well said. I agree with all that you said.
 

DDam

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Messages
63
Points
0
The problem for me is that everyone plays along with the story. I'm 100% sure I wouldn't agree with this if someone from my family asked me to tell lies to incriminate a third person. Definitely not for money anyway and I'm a poor man believe me.

Who said that's what they're doing? Their parents, siblings and wife, are simply believing their sons/brothers/husband.
 
Last edited:

DDam

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Messages
63
Points
0
You could have left this out. We are humans as well as fans and it's not surprising with how manipulative this documentary is that someone would react to it in a human way. Have you watched it yet?

Obviously you are correct about what you are saying about the families. The "convincing" testimonies from them are not from them being in that room. It's their corroboration of Wade and James' behaviour and their stories of how they "came out" to them. In Safechuck's mothers case... how Safechuck even supposedly told her of the abuse in 2005. Obviously the whole thing could be a lie especially when there are 100's of millions of dollars at stake. It would not be the first time in history something like that has happened. Far from it. But if you watch it... the way it is produced, you can see how it can be very believable and made to make sense. Even though the whole thing should be looked at with skepticism.

I have never said that I now believe Michael was guilty. I do not. I'm simply looking at everything.

What do you mean the corroboration of Wade and James's behaviour? As children or now? Did they change and have behaviour that abuse victims have as children? It doesn't seem they thought that from what I've seen. I haven't watched it all. As far as I know no family member is claiming to know or suspect anything until Wade or james spoke out recently. Except for James's mum, as James apparently called Michael a bad man in 2005. Even though someone posted here that James said on t.v. he didn't realise it was abuse until Wade went public. And James's mum acts very strangely in this documentary from what I've seen, smiling, laughing, telling her 'funny stories' of sneaking to listen at their door. Weird for someone who thinks/knows her son was abused by this person. In those rooms.

The stories and reactions to them "coming out" would be the same regardless of wade or James was truthful wouldn't it, because the families are simply believing their son/brother/husband and reacting to that?
 

Resa

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
785
Points
28
CrazyVegasMJ;4246398 said:
I watched that video but it still doesn’t convince me that Victor G had anything to do with Wade or James and their stories

Have you read about the similarities between Safechuck's stories and Victor Guitierrez book on the Michael Jackson Allegations website?
 

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
835
Points
28
CrazyVegasMJ;4246398 said:
I watched that video but it still doesn’t convince me that Victor G had anything to do with Wade or James and their stories

OK. To break it down.

We have Safechuck being molested by MJ 1987-1990 and no one knows anything about it. We have Robson being molested from 1990 to 1997 and no one knows anything about it.

In 1995 Victor Gutierrez is writing his fiction book, that is simply made up by his twisted mind and no relation to anything that actually took place or was alleged outside the book.

So you are saying that by a coincidence Gutierrez created the man/boy marriage with jewelry EXACTLY as Robson and Safechuck now claims - WITHOUT knowing Robson and Safechuck were abused.

You seriously think Gutierrez just happened to just out of the blue create the exact scenario Wade & James are now claiming? Do you feel Gutierrez could see into the future?

If you do, please explain how you come to that conclusion.
---
To me, the logical explanation is that Robson & Safechuck have copied portions of the narrative Gutierrez set out, Robson was well aware that Gutierrez were hooked up with the Neverland 5 to sell false stories to the media. Including the story about Robson showering with Jackson, one that later was debunked in court 1993, and then came back in 2005 at the trial and were debunked again.

That was also the sort of thing he would research on the web and email his mother about while preparing to write his book that thus far has not materialized.
---
I have to add that I have always turned the blind eye as soon people mentioned NAMBLA for example, but when I actually did reserach on it, I discovered there was actually some merit to it!
 
Last edited:

etoile 37

Proud Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
769
Points
18
OK. To break it down.

We have Safechuck being molested by MJ 1987-1990 and no one knows anything about it. We have Robson being molested from 1990 to 1997 and no one knows anything about it.

In 1995 Victor Gutierrez is writing his fiction book, that is simply made up by his twisted mind and no relation to anything that actually took place or was alleged outside the book.

So you are saying that by a coincidence Gutierrez created the man/boy marriage with jewelry EXACTLY as Robson and Safechuck now claims - WITHOUT knowing Robson and Safechuck were abused.

You seriously think Gutierrez just happened to just out of the blue create the exact scenario Wade & James are now claiming? Do you feel Gutierrez could see into the future?

If you do, please explain how you come to that conclusion.
---
To me, the logical explanation is that Robson & Safechuck have copied portions of the narrative Gutierrez set out, Robson was well aware that Gutierrez were hooked up with the Neverland 5 to sell false stories to the media. That was also the sort of thing he would research on the web and email his mother about while preparing to write his book.

And we know from his emails that Robson went on the MJFacts website, where all the Victor Gutierrez stories are available to read. What was he doing on that website anyway? Real victims with real stories don't need to "research" their abuse.
 
Top