“Lies run sprints, but the Truth runs marathons.”
A thorough analysis of James Safechuck’s sworn testimony and how it just DOES NOT add up to reality — All informatoin listed below Compiled and explained by @Keb_187
A look at James Safechuck’s declaration:
Just days after the release of Michael Jackson’s posthumous album Xscape, James Safechuck’s lawsuit became public knowledge.
Safechuck would claim one of his fears was public exposure. Yet he leaked his document to seasoned Jackson reporter Diane Dimond.
Safechuck would also file his lawsuit with the same law firm as Wade Robson. He too would claim he didn’t realise he’d been sexually abused. He says Jackson threatened him to keep quiet otherwise James’s life would be over. James never elaborates on what he means by his life being over.
At the beginning of the document we see his claim of not realising. .
As we’ll see later there are numerous instances of Safechuck contradicting this.
Safechuck says he both believed Jackson when he told him the abuse was loving, but also found it confusing that he had to keep it secret. Whilst this could work on a child, James was also an adult when he held this thinking. Given Jackson was very publicly accused of child molestation would he still be confused?
With that said, he contradicts this anyway by later saying he told his Mother in 2005 that Jackson had abused him.
Speaking of contradictions, his declaration contradicts his complaint file when it comes to the length of time he spent with Jackson. In his declaration he claims he spent a lot of time with the star even as he became a preteen and then a teenager. He says he saw and spoke to Jackson all the time. In the years after 1995 contact began to taper off.
However, in his complaint a different claim is put forward. It says that when he reached puberty he’d speak less frequently to Jackson.
Safechuck began to have panic attacks. He says that until seeking therapy in 2013 he didn’t realise that at the core of his being was the constant fear he lived in of the truth coming out and what Jackson would do.
Given throughout his declaration he reiterates these points, surely the link between the two would be made. Note also how fearing the ‘truth’ coming out contradicts not realising he’d been sexually abused.
Jackson would call him once or twice a year to, as James describes, ‘check in’. James was 25 years of age at the time and says how he felt the calls from Jackson were a way of keeping him quiet.
When he first heard about the criminal investigation into Jackson in 2003 he became extremely panicked and scared at the prospect of the truth coming out and his life being over.
Safechuck was a 23-24 year old adult at the time of hearing about the investigation. He had seen nothing happen to Jordan Chandler (the 1993 accuser) and would see Gavin Arvizo (2005 accuser) also have nothing done to him, yet still feared his life would be over should the truth come out. As previously stated, James never elaborates on what it is Jackson could do to him.
Possibly the most ridiculous claim in the entire declaration is that when Jackson phoned him to ask if he’d testify, and he refused, Jackson became angry and threatened to report him for perjury in the 1993/94 case.
This makes absolutely no sense. If Jackson were to report James to the police he’d be incriminating himself! He would be telling the police that when James denied he’d been abused in the 1993/94 case that actually James was lying and he had in fact abused him! Why would Jackson do such a thing?
After Safechuck refused to testify he says Jackson said he was going to ring his parents. He says he was terrified that Jackson would perceive him to be a threat and that he’d speak to his parents. Quite what he thought Jackson could say that would be so terrifying is a mystery.
Safechuck says that after Jackson spoke to his parents his Mother called him to ask if something had happened between him and Jackson. He said he was ‘okay’. His Mother kept ringing and he says he decided to go over to his parents’ home.
In an encounter that lasted just a few minutes, James told his Mother Jackson was a ‘bad man’ and ‘something had happened’. He says he then begged her not say anything or his life ‘would be over’. He then left having not told his Father.
There are many questions here. If a son told their Mother they’d been sexually abused, how could such a conversation last just a few minutes? Surely a parent would want answers? Add to this if we go along with James, as an adult, believing his life would be over should the truth come out, why didn’t his Mother reassure him that nothing would happen to him? Jackson was on trial. He was hardly in a position to hurt James in any way.
The biggest question of all however is James says he didn’t realise he’d been sexually abused until 2013, but yet told his Mother he had been eight years earlier.
We see this contradiction in his Opposition to Demurrer. It’s alleged he couldn’t file a lawsuit any earlier than he did as he didn’t realise he’d been abused. This is clearly a lie.
A day or so after he had told his Mother he’d been abused he says Jackson rung his Mother to ask her to testify. He told his Mother to please not say anything. His Mother refused to testify. Could a parent really avoid not exploding at her son’s abuser, though? Especially when he is ringing to ask you to defend him.
Another bizarre aspect to the story is the fact his Father said he’d testify but later decided not to. While some may see it as harder to tell a Father they’ve been abused, surely you have to say something when the man is willing to defend your abuser whilst also unaware of what you say the man did to you.
Safechuck says that after this event Jackson’s attorneys and assistant (Evvy Tavasci) phoned him to ask him to testify to refute testimony given by cooks that worked at Neverland. Safechuck says he refused.
This makes little sense. Testimony regarding Safechuck had been excluded by the judge as nobody had seen him be sexually abused. Therefore, there was nothing for him to refute.
To confirm this thinking, I emailed Tom Mesereau’s private investigator in the 2005 case, Scott Ross, to ask about this. He told me it wasn’t true that the attorneys had rung to ask him to testify. Ross said had they wanted Safechuck to testify it would be his job to ring him. He said he never rung James. Add to this that they would never have Tavasci ring somebody to ask them to testify. Ross said that would make her a witness.
Below are the responses Ross sent me.
Safechuck alleges Jackson called him towards the end of the trial and launched into what he believed to be a rehearsed speech. He feared Jackson may be recording the phone call. Why would Jackson do such a thing? There is a high chance the subject of the abuse may come up so why would Jackson record a call that could incriminate him. Another factor is what purpose would Jackson have for recording the call anyway?
Jackson told him he was sorry for not having been there for him and asked if they could meet to discuss him testifying.
The very sound of Jackson’s voice led him to feel uncomfortable. He told Jackson to never call or talk to him again and that he was hanging up.
Safechuck reiterates that Jackson’s threats left him in constant fear. He also says ‘if anything came out about what he/we had done – his sexual abuse of me – my life would be over’. This again contradicts not knowing he was abused.
He then claims Jackson’s ‘iconic stature, popularity, wealth, fame and power’ left him in fear of the truth coming out.
During and after the 2005 trial Jackson’s stature was not iconic in the eyes of many. The media and the trial itself had left Jackson a broken man. Jackson didn’t have power after the trial.
The Arvizos ‘had become pariahs in the media’. Many well versed Jackson fans will scoff at such a claim, but this is further reason Safechuck says he kept quiet. Anybody who followed the trial, or looks back at footage and reporting
from it, will see the Arvizos were not treated like pariahs. This is a total lie. If anybody was a pariah in the media it was Jackson.
Also, again, he goes down the route of Jackson having power and influence. He had neither after the 2005 trial.
Bizarrely, Safechuck was sad upon hearing of Jackson’s death. He felt this way because he realised he’d never have the opportunity of a ‘normal relationship’ with Jackson. Where do we begin? Sad upon hearing your abuser has died is one thing, but given you say he left you in a state of fear with his threats and how you feared your life would be over should the truth come out, surely you would feel a weight has been lifted from you not saddened?
Add to this saying just the sound of his voice made him feel uncomfortable and having told Jackson to never contact him again, it makes feeling sad even harder to believe.
In late 2010 Safechuck’s son was born. He continued to live in denial and secrecy. Looking at his son he began to see how innocent children really are and feared he would have pedophilic urges.
Remember how Safechuck says he didn’t realise he was abused? Then why would he fear having pedophilic urges towards his son? Another thing to note
is that he saw a therapist but only about anxiety.
In spite of worrying about having pedophilic urges towards his son, he only sought help for his experiences with Jackson after hearing about Robson having filed a lawsuit and appeared on TV.
He says he wanted to share his experiences with Robson as he was somebody who had gone through the same trauma. This, again, goes against not knowing he’d been abused.
Whilst this piece was titled as being a look at the declaration document, there are two other claims to add. These are from his complaint file.
The aim of both Safechuck and Robson’s lawsuits has been to try and blame Jackson’s companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, for the alleged abuse.
One such way of doing this has been twisting stories. Here is an example.
Under the first law firm Safechuck (and Robson) used, Gradstein and Marzano, Safechuck had this to say about the Pepsi commercial he worked on with Jackson.
Nothing out of the ordinary is mentioned here.
When Safechuck (and Robson) changed law firms to Manly, Stewart and Finaldi the story differed. Now Jackson’s companies were implicated in this first meeting. Given this was a Pepsi commercial the likelihood is that it was Pepsi who paid for, amongst other things, Safechuck’s travel and lodging.
Another, much larger, discrepancy is, as pointed out by the Michael Jackson Estate in their letter to HBO regarding the Leaving Neverland documentary, Safechuck claims to have been abused on a New York trip to the 1989 Grammys where Jackson performed.
Jackson performed at the 1988 Grammys. Alleged abuse began in June of 1988.
Safechuck wants to claim, as part of his timeline, that he was abused at the 1989 Grammys. This is a lie. Jackson didn’t perform at the 1989 Grammys. He performed at the previous year’s awards show and alleged abuse hadn’t begun at that time.
To read the Estate’s full letter click here –
In closing, Safechuck wants to both allege he didn’t realise he was abused but also lived in fear of the abuse being discovered and what Jackson would do to him. He can’t have it both ways.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~End of Anaylsis~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`