James couldn’t testify at the 2005 trial

Fans suggest that because testimony from prosecution witnesses related to any alleged abuse of James was barred from the trial, then that means James could not have testified at the trial at all. They use this as proof that James lied about being contacted to testify.

Let’s look at what James said in his claim:

In 2005, DECEDENT contacted Plaintiff, and asked him to testify on his behalf in the criminal trial against DECEDENT in Santa Barbara for criminal sexual abuse. Plaintiff was approximately 27 years old at the time. DECEDENT started out the telephone call by saying that he wanted to help Plaintiff with his music and directing. He then asked Plaintiff to testify at trial on his behalf. When Plaintiff said no to the request, DECEDENT got angry and threatened him.

Note that this is in 2005. Details of prior sexual abuse of boys was known to Jackson’s legal team in December 2004 and the trial commenced on February 28, 2005, so this claim is easily verifiable. Further adding credibility to James’ story, he does not appear on the pretrial witness list.  James went on to claim:

DECEDENT’s lawyers, together with Evvy Tavasci, DECEDENT’s executive personal secretary and an employee of MJJ PRODUCTIONS, contacted Plaintiff and told him that he needed to testify and deny anything that the cooks at Neverland said that they saw happen between Plaintiff and DECEDENT. Plaintiff told them that he did not want any further involvement with DECEDENT.

This is also verifiable and would have occurred before the following event took place, when evidence was planned to be presented about the alleged abuse of James.

On March 28, 2005 the court discussed 1108 evidence which would be admitted (1108 evidence is prior bad acts evidence which could establish a pattern of behaviour of the accused). The discussion starts around page 61 but here are the pertinent parts related to James (Jimmy):

THE COURT: The arguments presented by both sides here were very good arguments, and they’re arguments bringing up the law and the factors that I’ve been working with trying to reach a decision in this matter, which is of such great importance in this case for both sides.
The arguments didn’t really bring up new material, but they definitely emphasized the concerns that I’ve had. You know, the weighing of the case as I’ve heard it, the remoteness of the alleged charges that would come under 1108. But ultimately the decision I’ve reached, and which I’ll now announce, is that I am going to permit the testimony with regard to the sexual offenses, and the alleged pattern of grooming activities, which is 1101 material, leading up to the sexual offenses against Jason Francia, Wade Robeson, Macaulay Culkin, Jordan Chandler, and Brett Barnes.
The witnesses that would be permitted to testify under this order would be Jason Francia, Blanca Francia, Charlie Michaels, Phillip LeMarque, Adrienne McManus, Ralph Chacon, June Chandler, Bob Jones, and Charmayne Sternberg. The evidence of alleged grooming of the other children will not be permitted. Evidence as to Jimmy Safechuck and Jonathan Spence will not be permitted. The witnesses that would be precluded under this ruling would be Jolie Levine and Mary Coller. And there was only one part of Bob Jones’ testimony that I would consider admissible, that relating to the one physical act that he observed. And some of the testimony of Blanca Francia and June Chandler and Charmayne Sternberg would not be admissible. But I think if you can see the way I’ve divided that up, the grooming testimony is limited to those cases where there’s actual physical sexual conduct that’s been observed by somebody. That really is where I’ve drawn the line. And just to give you an example, Mr. Jones’ observations over a long period of time were conclusionary and opinions that I wouldn’t allow based on what he didn’t see.

The judge rules on two important matters here. He tells us what evidence will not be permitted about James Safechuck by the prosecution witnesses. He names the two witnesses who are barred (Jolie Levine and Mary Coller). 

This ruling does not preclude James Safechuck from testifying for the defence about other matters, such as Jackson’s character or to rebut evidence about abuse of Wade or Brett – remember James spent time with both of them and would be able to confirm “nothing happened”.

James continues:

After the call with DECEDENT’s lawyers and Ms. Tavasci, DECEDENT called Plaintiff again. This call was towards the end of the criminal trial. DECEDENT told Plaintiff that that he “was sorry for not being there for [the Plaintiff].” The words that DECEDENT used and the tone of his voice appeared to Plaintiff to be rehearsed, as if the call were being tape recorded. Plaintiff feared that this was a possibility, as he knew from the past that DECEDENT often taped telephone calls on a regular basis. Plaintiff wanted to get off the telephone call as quickly as possible, as the very sound of DECEDENT’s voice made him very uncomfortable and put him into a panic mode. DECEDENT continued to pressure Plaintiff to testify and told him that Gavin Arviso (the victim in the criminal prosecution) was just trying to get money. Plaintiff told DECEDENT not to call or try to talk to him ever again, and then ended the call.

Some fans believe that James said that Jackson’s lawyers called him towards the end of the criminal trial. As you can see that is untrue, he claims Jackson acted alone. Why Jackson would make this call is uncertain, but it’s possible he was using the request to testify as a ruse to call James to gauge his loyalty. Even if Jackson was calling James to probe his willingness to testify as a character witness there would have been no impediment. James was not barred from testifying.

Wade changed his website

Fans claim Wade changed his Hawaii Community Foundation website because Amanda said in Leaving Neverland that she had very little knowledge of child sexual abuse but the website said otherwise.

This is false.

The old version of the website stated:

The Robson Family Fund at the Hawaii Community Foundation was established in 2019 by Wade and Amanda Robson. Wade Robson, a survivor of child sexual abuse, along with Amanda Robson, his wife, mother of their child and also a survivor of child abuse, wanted to create a powerful way to contribute towards the healing from and prevention of child abuse.

Note the difference between child sexual abuse and child abuse.

The new version is:

The Robson Child Abuse Healing And Prevention Fund is a Donor Advised Fund at the Hawaii Community Foundation dedicated to supporting the healing and prevention of child abuse, nationwide. It was established in 2019 by Wade and Amanda Robson with a personal donation.

Whatever reason the website was changed it wasn’t because of any discrepancy between what was said in the documentary and what appeared on their charity website.

The FBI investigated Michael Jackson for ten years and found nothing

This is totally false.

The FBI:

  • DID NOT follow MJ, ever;

  • DID NOT tap his phone;

  • DID NOT put surveillance on MJ;

  • DID NOT search his residence (neither Hayvenhurst, Century City, the Hideout nor Neverland);

  • DID NOT open an investigation into molestation against him; and

  • DID NOT do anything that they would normally do in a federal case.

The FBI never, ever investigated Michael Jackson for child molestation.

The FBI was not involved in investigating MJ. The FBI merely assisted local law enforcement with resources when requested. So they helped interview people outside local law enforcement’s jurisdiction, or analyze a video or computer for local law enforcement as they had proper technology available.

There was never an “FBI investigation”, it was always the FBI helping local police departments on specific tasks requested of them. Even on the FBI website they say:

The “FBI didn’t investigate Jackson, the files now available show the FBI working with other agencies.”

On the page containing the actual FBI files they say:

Between 1993 and 1994 and separately between 2004 and 2005, Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges. The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases.

Even with this disclaimer by the FBI fans still insist that somehow the files prove something. The Jacksons too are spreading misinformation about the FBI files. Taj Jackson, someone who has recently made somewhat of a crusade against “lies”, repeats this falsehood in interviews:

When asked if he found any of the child molestation accusations to be true, the vocal nephew of the pop legend spoke in Jackson’s defense as the allegations being false and went on to reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated the Thriller singer for 10 years….

When Truthers say “they inspected all of MJ’s computers and every page has NOTHING written on it,” this is also false. The relevant FBI file with a page dedicated to each computer is missing 3 pages – page 4, 5 and 6. There are another 120 pages redacted from this file. That is not to say MJ had child porn on his computers – he would have been arrested for that if there was – but it is impossible to say whether there was anything shady on his computers or not as we cannot view the complete, unredacted file.

There wasn’t much information in those files anyway

Of the 679 pages in the FBI’s Michael Jackson file, only 333 were released, and of those released 196 related to extortion threats against Michael Jackson and others in 1992; 8 pages related to a videotape which only related to Michael Jackson because the title was “Michael Jackson’s Neverland Favourites, an All Boy Video Anthology”; and 18 pages related to a request made of the FBI’s Critical Incident Response Group to provide advice and assistance to local authorities concerning the Arviso investigation in 2004.

That leaves 111 pages directly related to MJ, and most of those are heavily redacted so as to become meaningless or contain public information. If anything, the remaining pages raise more questions rather than absolving MJ. For instance, in this file is a handwritten note which reads:

“P/R called from Toronto Canada. She and her husband work in Children’s Services.
On Sat 3-7-92 they took train from Chicago to Grand canyon. Train
continued to CA. They had a compartment in car that Jackson had
four compartments.
Jackson had a male juvenile 12/13 with him along with adult staff. Boy was ID’d as Michaels “cousin”.
Jackson was very possessive of boy. At night, P/R heard questionable noises through wall.
She was concerned enough to notify the conductor of her suspicions.”

Remember this is in 1992, before allegations of pedophilia about MJ became public.

The FBI had nothing but a passing interest in Michael Jackson, and preferred to leave investigations of him to local law enforcement. To bring up the FBI files as proof that he wasn’t a pedophile or a child molester is absurd.