Latest on MJJC
[Discussion] Sexual Abuse Claims Against MJ Estate - Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe
- Thread starter Jackson Rules
- Start date
Tygger
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,316
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Indeed. Very interested in reading the responses to this question.
Indeed. Very interested in reading the responses to this question.
TinnyandOdd
Proud Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2009
- Messages
- 948
- Points
- 28
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
The real real question is, what happened in Safechuck and Robson's lives for them to become this evil and target a deceased man who never did anything but help them? Whenever I think I miss MJ, I think of this garbage and how difficult his life must have been. I really feel for his children now that they're older and can understand, and am horrified that they'll be battling to defend their Father for the rest of their lives. It just riles me up man, it really does.
Anyways, tangent aside, thanks Respect. I don't know much about law, but as I have been following the case, even I can see gaping holes in Safechuck's case. I hope the judge can see through the fact that he can't keep his story straight ... And I really wish the Estate had been given discovery as I'm very curious about those so called therapists. You know the old saying, "where's there's smoke there's fire."
The real real question is, what happened in Safechuck and Robson's lives for them to become this evil and target a deceased man who never did anything but help them? Whenever I think I miss MJ, I think of this garbage and how difficult his life must have been. I really feel for his children now that they're older and can understand, and am horrified that they'll be battling to defend their Father for the rest of their lives. It just riles me up man, it really does.
Anyways, tangent aside, thanks Respect. I don't know much about law, but as I have been following the case, even I can see gaping holes in Safechuck's case. I hope the judge can see through the fact that he can't keep his story straight ... And I really wish the Estate had been given discovery as I'm very curious about those so called therapists. You know the old saying, "where's there's smoke there's fire."
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
simple, IMO money , greed. whatever you call it. Plus it's us that thinks these cases doesn't stand a chance. but what about Robson, Safechuck? I always thought their end game was to push for a settlement. Even TMez believes Estate wouldn't take this trial and settle if the cases don't get dismissed. So who knows perhaps Robson and Safechuck approach to this as "let's try anything and everything and if we can survive demurrer/summary judgment, Estate will give us money to not go through a public trial".
simple, IMO money , greed. whatever you call it. Plus it's us that thinks these cases doesn't stand a chance. but what about Robson, Safechuck? I always thought their end game was to push for a settlement. Even TMez believes Estate wouldn't take this trial and settle if the cases don't get dismissed. So who knows perhaps Robson and Safechuck approach to this as "let's try anything and everything and if we can survive demurrer/summary judgment, Estate will give us money to not go through a public trial".
HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
The Judge now surely will ask them to amend their complaint and try to claim a cause of action against the companies. But since they already know that requirement from Robson's case, I don't know why didn't they start immediately with a complaint where they actually try to claim something against the companies besides a general statement that they are liable under CCP 340.1. It seems like they are trying to drag it on because there was no reason for them not to try to skip some unnecessary rounds of amendments when they already know what the Judge requires.
If I was the Judge this sure would make me pissed. They are deliberately wasting the Court's time.
But then it's clear they have nothing and knowing that you can see why they are playing these games instead of wanting to hurry up the process and not go unnecessary rounds. Eventually this will not go anywhere anyway.
The Judge now surely will ask them to amend their complaint and try to claim a cause of action against the companies. But since they already know that requirement from Robson's case, I don't know why didn't they start immediately with a complaint where they actually try to claim something against the companies besides a general statement that they are liable under CCP 340.1. It seems like they are trying to drag it on because there was no reason for them not to try to skip some unnecessary rounds of amendments when they already know what the Judge requires.
If I was the Judge this sure would make me pissed. They are deliberately wasting the Court's time.
But then it's clear they have nothing and knowing that you can see why they are playing these games instead of wanting to hurry up the process and not go unnecessary rounds. Eventually this will not go anywhere anyway.
Last edited:
InvincibleMJ
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,760
- Points
- 48
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
I think this complaint is full of precautions that the Estate's lawyers will probably find interesting e.g why his former therapist knows nothing about it, why his wife didn't know about it, why he didn't tell the police anything when they asked, etc.
I think this complaint is full of precautions that the Estate's lawyers will probably find interesting e.g why his former therapist knows nothing about it, why his wife didn't know about it, why he didn't tell the police anything when they asked, etc.
Justthefacts
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,072
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
My question is if Michael is this evil person that you say he is, why do you still have anything he gave you? Did you really think a cheap trinket was really worth keeping? Especially since the who gave it to you was this horrible person.
My question is if Michael is this evil person that you say he is, why do you still have anything he gave you? Did you really think a cheap trinket was really worth keeping? Especially since the who gave it to you was this horrible person.
elusive moonwalker
Guests
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
The same reason he worked for mj in 95.
The same reason he worked for mj in 95.
HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Safechuck comes across as bitter in his lawsuit about his life not going anywhere where he apparently planned it to go as a teenager. The Spielberg prophecy strikes again, I guess. He was supposed to be this big director and he didn't. I am so amazed at the entitlement of these people. Michael was so good, so generous to them but it's like if MJ gave them his little finger they wanted his whole arm and if he didn't give it to them then they became all bitter and entitled. Just amazing how rotten humans can be. Eff you James, Michael did not owe you a thing. He did not owe you to give you a showbiz career or anything at all. If you messed up your studies, blame yourself and your parents.
Safechuck comes across as bitter in his lawsuit about his life not going anywhere where he apparently planned it to go as a teenager. The Spielberg prophecy strikes again, I guess. He was supposed to be this big director and he didn't. I am so amazed at the entitlement of these people. Michael was so good, so generous to them but it's like if MJ gave them his little finger they wanted his whole arm and if he didn't give it to them then they became all bitter and entitled. Just amazing how rotten humans can be. Eff you James, Michael did not owe you a thing. He did not owe you to give you a showbiz career or anything at all. If you messed up your studies, blame yourself and your parents.
Last edited:
SarahJ
Proud Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 2,034
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Along with most people in his life. There is a sense of entitlement with every accuser. They all wanted something and when they didn't get it, as they thought they should, along come the allegations. They all wanted it handed to them on a silver platter without the effort on their part to make it happen.
Along with most people in his life. There is a sense of entitlement with every accuser. They all wanted something and when they didn't get it, as they thought they should, along come the allegations. They all wanted it handed to them on a silver platter without the effort on their part to make it happen.
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Safechuck civil complaint document : https://www.scribd.com/doc/273431049/Safechuck-Civil-Complaint
Safechuck civil complaint document : https://www.scribd.com/doc/273431049/Safechuck-Civil-Complaint
myosotis
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 4,224
- Points
- 48
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Interesting that they write in Para 8: 'Several months after the Pepsi shoot, decedent wrote to plaintiff'. They quote the letter which begins 'Dear Jimmy, thank you for your letter. ' So in fact the decedent 'replied' to the plaintiff. Every small detail is 'spun' to give the idea of MJ pursuing Safechuck.
After MJ completed the Japan concerts, he flew back to the USA, but my copy of the 'Visual Documentary' mentions that the press were writing about him visiting David Rothenburg (Dave Dave) at that time. I understand that Dave Dave also spent time with MJ at Hayvenhurst, so Safechuck is certainly not the only young person that MJ was spending time with...although JS gives that impression.
Interesting that they write in Para 8: 'Several months after the Pepsi shoot, decedent wrote to plaintiff'. They quote the letter which begins 'Dear Jimmy, thank you for your letter. ' So in fact the decedent 'replied' to the plaintiff. Every small detail is 'spun' to give the idea of MJ pursuing Safechuck.
After MJ completed the Japan concerts, he flew back to the USA, but my copy of the 'Visual Documentary' mentions that the press were writing about him visiting David Rothenburg (Dave Dave) at that time. I understand that Dave Dave also spent time with MJ at Hayvenhurst, so Safechuck is certainly not the only young person that MJ was spending time with...although JS gives that impression.
HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Good catch!
Good catch!
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
by the way
Chuck D ?@MrChuckD 21 h ago
The media went out of their way to destroy Michael Jackson, they attacked him night and day for two years-The Jury found Michael not guilty
https://twitter.com/MrChuckD
by the way
Chuck D ?@MrChuckD 21 h ago
The media went out of their way to destroy Michael Jackson, they attacked him night and day for two years-The Jury found Michael not guilty
https://twitter.com/MrChuckD
la_cienega
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,175
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
So Jimmy sent the letter but it's MJ pursuing, of course.
It's pretty sad that despite their marriage and all the abuse and pursuit it's letters like this they're being forced to include in their claims.
I think they were hoping more people would sign up with them, a la Bill Cosby. Make the whole thing so overwhelming the estate would settle.
And they tried to launch a huge smear tactic in the press to try and scare the estate, again I'm thinking because they were hoping so much would suddenly be "revealed" from somewhere that the estate would get scared and settle.
So far they claim they were abused for years (a first in a case against MJ) and still have no new witnesses or any more proof than they had back in 2005.
So Jimmy sent the letter but it's MJ pursuing, of course.
It's pretty sad that despite their marriage and all the abuse and pursuit it's letters like this they're being forced to include in their claims.
I think they were hoping more people would sign up with them, a la Bill Cosby. Make the whole thing so overwhelming the estate would settle.
And they tried to launch a huge smear tactic in the press to try and scare the estate, again I'm thinking because they were hoping so much would suddenly be "revealed" from somewhere that the estate would get scared and settle.
So far they claim they were abused for years (a first in a case against MJ) and still have no new witnesses or any more proof than they had back in 2005.
barbee0715
Proud Member
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
One thing all of these allegations have in common-all of the mothers are drop dead gorgeous. I've always been suspicious of that, rather than anything at all with the kids.
TWO YEARS?? More like TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.
I think this is Safechuck's mother. These pics were taken at Hawaii in 1988.
.jpg)
One thing all of these allegations have in common-all of the mothers are drop dead gorgeous. I've always been suspicious of that, rather than anything at all with the kids.
Justthefacts
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,072
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Not all of them were cute
Not all of them were cute
InvincibleMJ
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,760
- Points
- 48
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Hrm... Janet Arvizo and Joy Robson :bugeyed
Hrm... Janet Arvizo and Joy Robson :bugeyed
barbee0715
Proud Member
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
LOL. I started to leave the 2 of them out-but I only saw Joy on that news thing she did with Wade (on YouTube-not at the time) and figured she probably could look better. And Janet Arvizo looked great during the rebuttal thing-all those beauty treatments she charged to Michael made her look terrific.
MJresearcher
Proud Member
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
I can't believe he's claiming he testified in the "Chandler trial." It seems like a pretty desperate move to make MJ look bad when you have to pretend he threatened that you would end up getting in trouble for "perjury" for testifying in a trial that didn't exist. Wow. I couldn't help but laugh at that one. What's mind boggling is the fact that he would make a claim that's so easy to disprove. I wonder what the judge thinks about that?
I can't believe he's claiming he testified in the "Chandler trial." It seems like a pretty desperate move to make MJ look bad when you have to pretend he threatened that you would end up getting in trouble for "perjury" for testifying in a trial that didn't exist. Wow. I couldn't help but laugh at that one. What's mind boggling is the fact that he would make a claim that's so easy to disprove. I wonder what the judge thinks about that?
Last edited:
MJresearcher
Proud Member
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Page 13 33. "Decedent eventually installed chimes in the hallway to his bedroom so that he could hear and be warned when people approached."
When these chimes were installed? Of course they're trying to make it sound like they were put there for sinister reasons. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me though, weren't there locks on the bedroom door?
On page 16 53. It says that the "abuse" stopped when Safechuck reached puberty, earlier they mention he was 12. If they want to paint MJ as a pedophile they'll have trouble explaining why he supposedly stopped abusing Safechuck when he reached puberty but supposedly started abusing Arvizo when he was 13 and pubescent.
Page 13 33. "Decedent eventually installed chimes in the hallway to his bedroom so that he could hear and be warned when people approached."
When these chimes were installed? Of course they're trying to make it sound like they were put there for sinister reasons. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me though, weren't there locks on the bedroom door?
On page 16 53. It says that the "abuse" stopped when Safechuck reached puberty, earlier they mention he was 12. If they want to paint MJ as a pedophile they'll have trouble explaining why he supposedly stopped abusing Safechuck when he reached puberty but supposedly started abusing Arvizo when he was 13 and pubescent.
Last edited:
barbee0715
Proud Member
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
But around 2007-2008, when I had my own computer and started reading information about the motions that they were denied and how blatantly all of Michael's civil rights were violated, I both cried hysterically and threw up. The whole thing flashes through my mind at least once a day-and it makes me sick every time. I do think that's what they're banking on-guilting the judge into also not following obvious law-and thereby forcing a settlement.
(and I hate to say it, but I never trust anybody anymore-I hope I am dead wrong, but if Brett was having money problems, he just might do it too-you never know about people when it comes to money-I have been betrayed and deceived in my own family over money-and we're not talking about millions of dollars. I hope I am wrong.)
I think you've captured their whole strategy right here in a nutshell and that's really the horror of these cases. Both in 93 and 2005, I really tried to avoid media concerning the cases and read just a summary in the paper because I knew he hadn't done it and that's all I needed to know. Of course, you couldn't help but hear stuff because it was on TV 24/7 and what I was hearing was really atrocious and just hideous.
But around 2007-2008, when I had my own computer and started reading information about the motions that they were denied and how blatantly all of Michael's civil rights were violated, I both cried hysterically and threw up. The whole thing flashes through my mind at least once a day-and it makes me sick every time. I do think that's what they're banking on-guilting the judge into also not following obvious law-and thereby forcing a settlement.
(and I hate to say it, but I never trust anybody anymore-I hope I am dead wrong, but if Brett was having money problems, he just might do it too-you never know about people when it comes to money-I have been betrayed and deceived in my own family over money-and we're not talking about millions of dollars. I hope I am wrong.)
SarahJ
Proud Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 2,034
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Well theres always exceptions. But she is attractive and its only a couple of photos but she seems to be mostly physically close to Michael.
Well theres always exceptions. But she is attractive and its only a couple of photos but she seems to be mostly physically close to Michael.
Last edited:
HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
la_cienega;4102630 said:
They always do this. Try to make it look like MJ pursued them when in each and every case it was the other way around!
Jordan: Michael's car broke down and Michael went into the car rental agency of Jordan's step-father. The step-father called June and Jordan to meet Michael and they pursued him and offered him to give him a car for free if he took Jordan's number and called him.
Let's not forget that before this June already wrote a wishing-well letter to Michael in 1984 attaching Jordan's photo.
Jason Francia was just the kid of an employee that the employee brought around Michael when she cleaned his flat.
In case of the Arvizos it was the funniest how the prosecution tried to make it look like MJ pursued them, not the other way around, when in reality Michael avoided them for three years and they bombarded him with letters to beg for his attention and beg for a concact. Gavin ended up complaining on the stand about how Michael avoided him. LOL. Some pursuing!
And also I realized in the Robson's papers how they tried to make it look like it was somehow Michael doing the pursuing through his companies, but it's a struggle for them to twist it into that narrative because their story is out there for decades. When it comes down to details they are forced to admit that it was Joy who contacted him when they came to the US, not the other way around. It was also Joy who begged for the green cards and visas and kept calling MJ's office for them. Yet, somehow the companies are to blame for them coming to the US?
And now Safechuck - Michael is the one who supposedly pursues him and supposedly he is the one who makes contact and that in a letter which starts by "thank you for your letter". Hilarious.
MJresearcher;4102638 said:
I think he probably gave some deposition or police interview in 1993 and that's what he means but it's still sloppy from his lawyers to call it a trial. But maybe it's a deliberate, tactical mistake, who knows.
The claim about MJ threatening him by getting him in trouble for "perjury" doesn't make any sense to me. In what interest Michael would have in revealing that Safechuck allegedly "lied" in 1993? That would harm him more than Safechuck. LOL. And why would MJ want a guy on the stand so bad who is so reluctant to testify? Especially when he does not even need that guy on the stand since testimony was not even allowed about him.
MJresearcher;4102640 said:
The whole focus on the chimes is just a leaf out of the Arvizo playbook. Just like the wine and the porn is. But Safechuck seems like a vile little piece because heterosexual porn just wasn't good enough for him, he had to involve child porn - which was never found in MJ's possession.
I know, right? The so called "pattern" of this alleged "child abuser" is all over the place.
HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
While they have about 25 pages of filth being thrown at Michael in the form of unproven allegations, their actual legal argument is only this:
So basically all they have to say about how the companies are responsible for what they allege is Paragraph 91. Which is simply a general statement saying: "the companies are liable under CCP 340.1". But the complaint does not elaborate on how they are responsible under 340.1 and what would make them responsible under that law, what the companies supposedly did to make them responsible etc. They say nothing about that. There is no cause of action at all.
Of course this is not enough. It will probably be a leave to amend first, but I cannot see how they will be able to make any allegation that would really bring the companies under 340.1. Any ruling in favour of Safechuck here would be detrimental to all companies arranging trips and accomodations for people. Then they could be sued for anything that people claim happened to them on those trips. And BTW, his mother (and sometimes also his father) was with him basically on all of those trips as I see from his complaint. So why isn't SHE responsible?
So he worries about pedophilic urges, goes to a therapist but does not tell him about the alleged abuse. Does the therapist never ask him why - of all things - he has worries exactly about pedophilic urges? I suspect if we had access to his medical docs we would find he "forgot" to tell this therapist at the time about worries about pedophilic urges and it's just a hindsight invention. And he worries about pedophilic urges but does not equate his anxiety with the alleged abuse? So what did he equate anxiety over pedophilic urges with then? Is it me or it does not make sense AT ALL?
Also
So if it did not seem that bad and he did not realize how sick it was until he began therapy in 2013, why was he worried about pedophilic urges in 2010 to the point of anxiety over it? Moreover why did he supposedly tell his mother in 2005 that he was abused and/or that MJ was a bad man?
The whole "I didn't realize it was wrong until I had children of my own" thing is just such a BS and both Robson and Safechuck just use this crap to explain how something as big as the 2005 trial which was all over in the media complete with condemnations of MJ (so obviously it was plastered all over the news how wrong and how sick something like that is) would not make them realize.
While they have about 25 pages of filth being thrown at Michael in the form of unproven allegations, their actual legal argument is only this:
So basically all they have to say about how the companies are responsible for what they allege is Paragraph 91. Which is simply a general statement saying: "the companies are liable under CCP 340.1". But the complaint does not elaborate on how they are responsible under 340.1 and what would make them responsible under that law, what the companies supposedly did to make them responsible etc. They say nothing about that. There is no cause of action at all.
Of course this is not enough. It will probably be a leave to amend first, but I cannot see how they will be able to make any allegation that would really bring the companies under 340.1. Any ruling in favour of Safechuck here would be detrimental to all companies arranging trips and accomodations for people. Then they could be sued for anything that people claim happened to them on those trips. And BTW, his mother (and sometimes also his father) was with him basically on all of those trips as I see from his complaint. So why isn't SHE responsible?
So he worries about pedophilic urges, goes to a therapist but does not tell him about the alleged abuse. Does the therapist never ask him why - of all things - he has worries exactly about pedophilic urges? I suspect if we had access to his medical docs we would find he "forgot" to tell this therapist at the time about worries about pedophilic urges and it's just a hindsight invention. And he worries about pedophilic urges but does not equate his anxiety with the alleged abuse? So what did he equate anxiety over pedophilic urges with then? Is it me or it does not make sense AT ALL?
Also
So if it did not seem that bad and he did not realize how sick it was until he began therapy in 2013, why was he worried about pedophilic urges in 2010 to the point of anxiety over it? Moreover why did he supposedly tell his mother in 2005 that he was abused and/or that MJ was a bad man?
The whole "I didn't realize it was wrong until I had children of my own" thing is just such a BS and both Robson and Safechuck just use this crap to explain how something as big as the 2005 trial which was all over in the media complete with condemnations of MJ (so obviously it was plastered all over the news how wrong and how sick something like that is) would not make them realize.
Last edited:
myosotis
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 4,224
- Points
- 48
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Also, whilst JS goes to some length to 'incriminate' the MJJ companies (eg MJ letter written on company-headed paper), it is JS's MOTHER who he says first allowed MJ to stay in his room overnight...if that is even true. (I guess his parents also have some financial interest in this case, and will support his allegations).
JS does seem very upset that the 'Thriller' jacket he was given was taken away again to put in a museum (even though he was given another jacket to replace it) The jacket is mentioned twice, in paras 13 and 23.
Also, as regards meeting MJ's family, we are told in para 23 that MJ did not introduce his family to JS, except for Jermaine and Janet. However, they have forgotten that in para 12 JS mentions meeting 'three of the brothers' in the Hayvenhurst recording studio...so not 'Just Jermaine and Janet' then!
If there are little lies in the deposition, I am sure there will be big ones!
Also, whilst JS goes to some length to 'incriminate' the MJJ companies (eg MJ letter written on company-headed paper), it is JS's MOTHER who he says first allowed MJ to stay in his room overnight...if that is even true. (I guess his parents also have some financial interest in this case, and will support his allegations).
JS does seem very upset that the 'Thriller' jacket he was given was taken away again to put in a museum (even though he was given another jacket to replace it) The jacket is mentioned twice, in paras 13 and 23.
Also, as regards meeting MJ's family, we are told in para 23 that MJ did not introduce his family to JS, except for Jermaine and Janet. However, they have forgotten that in para 12 JS mentions meeting 'three of the brothers' in the Hayvenhurst recording studio...so not 'Just Jermaine and Janet' then!
If there are little lies in the deposition, I am sure there will be big ones!