NEW CHILD MOLESTATION CLAIM By Wade Robson

[ShyBleuEyes]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[ShyBleuEyes]

Here is some interesting expiriment:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[Starchild]

Here is some interesting expiriment:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This blog entry is a truly brilliant and enlightened piece of writing (imho). Our beliefs are manipulated on so many different levels, even on a global scale. The writer of the blog connected the dots in one situation (i.e., Ukraine political issues) and consequently found herself connecting dots regarding other situations including in respect to Michael Jackson. The rabbit hole is truly deep.

But is it possible to channel the fury of millions of people into a direction which is totally false?

Possible and very much so. All it needs is: 1) the idea 2) conductors of the orchestra 3) willing participants (media and others) to play the ‘right’ tune and beat it into people’s heads with a deafening noise. The success of the operation depends on the concerted effort of all players.

So yes, the hatred campaign against Michael Jackson was also an orchestrated effort, because only the unity of action on the part of all players can produce the desired unanimity effect on the targeted audience. Otherwise it won’t work.

Now that the same brainwashing campaign is raging in my country and it took just several months to turn the views of many people into their opposite, I can assert that the key factors to the ‘success’ of the operation is the totality and force of lies. When lies, half-truths and half-lies pour from every media outlet on a daily basis they are able to stamp out the last traces of doubt even if you were initially convinced of something different.  As a result public opinion reaches a stage when everyone relies on all others thinking that “all of them can’t be wrong”.

In fact this is one of the favorite arguments of Michael’s haters, as if the opinion of the majority can be equivalent to proof of anyone’s guilt.  So what if the majority doubted Michael’s innocence? The only thing it proves is that the majority was successfully led to believe lies about Jackson through an unprecedented campaign of slander, hate and disinformation.

Fortunately, the blog writer offers a tested solution:

The truthful position of just one person can crucially change the whole thing. And start a new chain reaction followed by many other similar chain reactions. And this is where the chances for the truth are.

Thanks for sharing, ShyBleuEyes.

[ShyBleuEyes]

Yes,  Starchild This blog is a real gem.
The facts are indeed facts, always underlined with documents (links) so that anyone can verify for themselfs.

It truly was my pleasure to add it here, and hope from the bottom of my heart that people would take the time to invest time in reading all there is about these new allegations and also the old court documents.

It's beyond cruel how they have treaten MJ and even continue with the same old story's over and over again, with everytime a new name searching for their pot of gold, without to many labour.

[ShyBleuEyes]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[ShyBleuEyes]

Robson's sec. amended, below at the page are the other documents aswell.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[MFFreedom]

I have only read a few pages into this. Can't take it seriously: Why would a boy sleep in someones' bed, get molested while his family is around the corner, and repeat sleeping in this persons' room over and over and over? One COULD eventually explain that away with some psychological dependency, however, a normal reaction of a child who knows that his mother is protecting it would go to her. Maybe not speaking about the incident but it would persue his mother to take it away from that place. But he stayed!  For Christ sake.  :WTF: In the LEAST, he would have asked his mother to make sure he'd not have to go back into such a 'situation'. Not even with Michael Jackson involved. So in the light of this question, one would first have to wonder about the mother: did she not notice a change in behaviour of her son the day AFTER the alleged first 'molestation'? And IF she did, what were her motivations to keep the situation going? Was she putting her aspirations above her own sons'? My take: maybe, but I don't think so = this whole story is a full blown lie.
Then we'd have to look at Wade himself: he stayed. Why did he stay? Or provocatively asked: did he enjoy 'it' so much it made him go back sleep in 'Decedents' room over and over again?! If he felt under pressure through the situation, was there no way he could have signaled his own mom about his unwanted situation? Could he have fooled his own mother by playing all happy? (Don't try to fool a mother). And more so: if he WAS molested: why didn't he come forward sooner?!
However I turn this thing, it doesn't add up, means, it's totaly BS. And as it seems this is really a true court document, I have to say that it's absolutely inacceptable to use public money to be wasted clearly on BS.

[Do]

We discused this before. I know I'm not taking a popular stance with this, but this behaviour by victims (victims of sexual molestation in general) is very common, especially when the molester is a nice guy and an aquaintance (and before you jump on me: NOT saying that Michael is a molester!!). Just pointing out that victims do not always run, yell and tell.

From You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis (very much worth to read)

Offender-Victim Bond
Because victims of acquaintance exploitation usually have been carefully seduced and often do not realize or believe they are victims, they repeatedly and voluntarily return to the offender. Society and the criminal-justice system have a difficult time understanding this. If a boy is molested by his neighbor, teacher, or clergy member, why does he “allow” it to continue? Most likely he may not initially realize or believe he is a victim. Some victims are simply willing to trade sex for attention, affection, and gifts and do not believe they are victims. The sex itself might even be enjoyable. The offender may be treating them better than anyone has ever treated them. They may come to realize they are victims when the offender pushes them out. Then they recognize all the attention, affection, and gifts were just part of the master plan to use and exploit them. This may be the final blow for a troubled child who has had a difficult life.
Most of these victims never disclose their victimization. As previously stated younger children may believe they did something “wrong” or “bad” and are afraid of getting into trouble. Older children may be more ashamed and embarrassed. Many victims not only do not disclose, but they strongly deny it happened when confronted. In one case several boys took the stand and testified concerning the high moral character of the accused molester. When the accused molester changed his plea to guilty, he admitted the boys who testified for him were also victims. In another case a 16-year-old victim tried to murder the man who had sexually exploited him but still denied he was sexually victimized. He pled guilty rather than use the abuse as a mitigating circumstance and publicly admit he had engaged in sexual activity with a man. He privately admitted his victimization to a prosecutor, but said he would always publicly deny it.
The most common reasons victims do not disclose are a fear of the stigma of homosexuality; lack of societal understanding; presence of positive feelings for the offender; embarrassment, shame, or fear over their victimization; or do not believe they are victims. Since most of the offenders are male, fear of the stigma of homosexuality is usually a significant issue for victims who are boys. Although being seduced by a male child molester does not necessarily make a boy a homosexual, the victims do not understand this. If a victim does disclose, he risks significant ridicule by his peers and lack of acceptance by his family.

[ShyBleuEyes]

Hi DO,

Wade himself told in a interview that  knew he was molested, he did testify under oath and was cross examed, and past it!
He wanted to testify , wich TM said also in a interview.
And lets not forget that he was at the time of the trial 20 years old, but still was not aware of the molestation that happened to him??( he knew but th love)??
If you were molested you probably would know if it was the first day or the next day you slept with your molester. Wade his sister testified under oath she was in the same bed. Wade said in the court documents he was molested the sec, night, that was the night his sister testified she was in the same bed, doesn't make sense does it, . It would be easier for a molester to not have witnesses besides him tho?
Wade thought it was love untill he reached his 40. so when he was 20 he still not did know he was molested but thought it was love because MJ told him it was LOVE, even the hype and the urge of getting MJ conficted wasent a trigger for wade to see he was molested for 7 years.

In your post you can see the victums were well aware of the molestation, i never heard of one child that said "oooh i didn't know what he did to me wasent a good thing? i thought it was love because he said that it was love", the children you talk about felt embarressed and felt shame and were angry at their abusers , that are common emotions  , like Wade recently said in a interview  he felt compasion for his molester. come on, compassion for a guy who ruiend your carreer and income because you can't work becaus of what he did to you!

1995: under oath the mother and sister testified they spend 2 weekends at neverland inbetween they did trips during the week and returned the next weekend with the whole family (granparents parents and wade and his sister, the mother as also the sister said everyone was on that trip, wade now tells he stayed for that week so MJ had molested him that week also , doesn't add up with the trial.

Even after 2009 he continued to give tributs to MJ?? Untill the AEG trial started.  and he didn't get the estate work as a choreographer and hired a nother one. and suddenly you see that you were molested! LMOA

did forget to mention Wade said it wasen't for the money, still he claims 1.62 billion.
He can't sue MJ because he is a decedent , so he holds the estate responsable for giving the opportunity. So probably they even on a distance were ought to know MJ molested Wade, but Wade himself had not a clue he was...... :icon_eek:

[ShyBleuEyes]

This post will be a further comparison of Wade Robson’s complaint with the testimonies of all Robsons at the 2005 trial – Wade Robson, his mother Joy and sister Chantal. The purpose of it is to pinpoint Robson’s lies (which are many) and restore the real events the way they really happened and not fantasized by this guy.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Safechuck and Wade: I want to add a post of  another forum member named OTW who has really good writing skills atleast much better then mine.


 

    Re: Michael Jackson Hit With New Sex Abuse Claim from a 5th accuser Part 2

        Quote Originally Posted by bosinsie View Post
        It is a shame that Safechuck's claim may get thrown out on a technicality. I actually think the statute of limitations on sexual abuse & rape should be longer or else the accrual time frame should be changed just due to the nature of the type of allegations involved. Unfortunately, the same issues are involved with Bill Cosby's victims who will never get a day in court because they blew the SOL.

        --
        and for those who want to make personal attacks, save the keystrokes, any attacks will be reported.
        For your information, California has one of the most accuser friendly law systems in child abuse allegations, but fortunately in a law system both sides have rights, not only accusers. In this case we are talking about people who had all the opportunities in the world to make these allegations when the accused was alive and could have answered to these allegations and face them under more fair circumstances. It's not like one of those cases where alleged victims come out late because they thought they were alone with their problem. These people went through two rounds of allegations against MJ (in 1993, 2005) saying nothing happened or even defending him. Now that they need money and now that the accused is not here to answer they change their story to be able to file multi-million dollar lawsuits. With that they are also trying to take away a big part of the heritage of orphaned children but I know you so not care about the rights of those children. So this is not a case with that you can make a good argument for why statutes of limitations should be abolished. On the contrary, it shows why they should exist.

Reply of OTW:      I know you do not care about "all that courtroom junk" just about what tabloids write, but it's not just a technicality that Safechuck already managed to contradict himself and be caught in a lie just to get around statutes of limitations. In his initial complaint he claimed he told his mother about the alleged abuse in 2005.

        vq0emq.jpg

        Later, when he realized that is not good for his equitable estoppel argument, he contradicted that claiming he did not know about the illicit nature of the alleged acts and that he was abused until he saw Robson and sought therapy in 2013.

        sffhug.jpg

        So if you are readily changing your story and talk BS just to get around statutes what else you are lying about? Not to mention the whole ridiculousness of the claim that an adult man would not know what sexual abuse is - especially under these circumstances where he has been asked about it several times by authorites and where the accused went through a public trial. 1993 and 2005 were no triggers to him, but seeing Robson on TV talking about a lawsuit for money was. Yeah, right....

        I know you do not care about what actualy goes on in Court about a case (unless it's something salacious) you just want to see MJ's name get dragged through the mud, I know you are a hater, but I wanted to get this out for those who may actually want to get informed.

        And some more info about the missed statutes in this case: Probate Code 9103 gave Safechuck an opportunity to file after he claims he realized he was abused. That code gives a chance for late claims within 60 days of anyone realizing the facts giving arise to their claim. In this case Safechuck claims he realized he was abused by watching Robson in May 2013. According to Probate Code 9103 he could have filed within 60 days after that alleged realization. He did not. He filed a year later. According to his lawsuit he went to Robson's lawyers in September 2013, but even then they did not hurry up to file - another 8 months passed until they did. Apparently it was more important to them for Safechuck's filing to interfere with the release of Xscape than to hurry up to file. He filed on May 9 (Friday). By Monday, May 12, Diane Dimond had and published the story. Xscape was released the next day. Actually, Dimond could only get the leak from Safechuck's camp, because the actual lawsuit was not in the court system at the time yet. The actual filing of the lawsuit took them until August! (BTW, what took them so long?) The May filing was only a notice that they would file. So you can clearly follow the game being played here. They were more focused on how to create bad publicity for the release of Xscape than anything else.

        So you see, this is not a good case for why statutes of limitations should be abolished. On the contrary, actually. Safechuck did have all the opportunities in the world to be within statutes as per Probate Code 9103 but playing the blackmail game (and trying to force a settlement with that) apparently was more important. This shows exactly why Plaintiffs should not have unlimited opportunities to file.

        Last edited by OTW_; 01-09-2015 at 03:17 AM.

 
        2,896
        Gifts Black Christmas IpodMask

    Re: Michael Jackson Hit With New Sex Abuse Claim from a 5th accuser Part 2

        Quote Originally Posted by bosinsie View Post
        It is a shame that Safechuck's claim may get thrown out on a technicality. I actually think the statute of limitations on sexual abuse & rape should be longer or else the accrual time frame should be changed just due to the nature of the type of allegations involved. Unfortunately, the same issues are involved with Bill Cosby's victims who will never get a day in court because they blew the SOL.

        --
        and for those who want to make personal attacks, save the keystrokes, any attacks will be reported.
        Shouldn't you and others be asking yourself why didn't he and Wade come out when Mj was alive. He and Wade had ample opportunity to get real justice when Mj was alive,
        afterall Sneddon was begging for other "victims" to come forward for the 2005 trial. So let's not try and pretend Jimmy and Wade have been denied justice. So if Jimmy case gets thrown out it's his own fault.

 
   

    Re: Michael Jackson Hit With New Sex Abuse Claim from a 5th accuser Part 2

        Quote Originally Posted by OTW_ View Post
        For your information, California has one of the most accuser friendly law systems in child abuse allegations, but fortunately in a law system both sides have rights, not only accusers. In this case we are talking about people who had all the opportunities in the world to make these allegations when the accused was alive and could have answered to these allegations and face them under more fair circumstances. It's not like one of those cases where alleged victims come out late because they thought they were alone with their problem. These people went through two rounds of allegations against MJ (in 1993, 2005) saying nothing happened or even defending him. Now that they need money and now that the accused is not here to answer they change their story to be able to file multi-million dollar lawsuits. With that they are also trying to take away a big part of the heritage of orphaned children but I know you so not care about the rights of those children. So this is not a case with that you can make a good argument for why statutes of limitations should be abolished. On the contrary, it shows why they should exist.

        I know you do not care about "all that courtroom junk" just about what tabloids write, but it's not just a technicality that Safechuck already managed to contradict himself and be caught in a lie just to get around statutes of limitations. In his initial complaint he claimed he told his mother about the alleged abuse in 2005.

        vq0emq.jpg

        Later, when he realized that is not good for his equitable estoppel argument, he contradicted that claiming he did not know about the illicit nature of the alleged acts and that he was abused until he saw Robson and sought therapy in 2013.

        sffhug.jpg

        So if you are readily changing your story and talk BS just to get around statutes what else you are lying about? Not to mention the whole ridiculousness of the claim that an adult man would not know what sexual abuse is - especially under these circumstances where he has been asked about it several times by authorites and where the accused went through a public trial. 1993 and 2005 were no triggers to him, but seeing Robson on TV talking about a lawsuit for money was. Yeah, right....

        I know you do not care about what actualy goes on in Court about a case (unless it's something salacious) you just want to see MJ's name get dragged through the mud, I know you are a hater, but I wanted to get this out for those who may actually want to get informed.

        And some more info about the missed statutes in this case: Probate Code 9103 gave Safechuck an opportunity to file after he claims he realized he was abused. That code gives a chance for late claims within 60 days of anyone realizing the facts giving arise to their claim. In this case Safechuck claims he realized he was abused by watching Robson in May 2013. According to Probate Code 9103 he could have filed within 60 days after that alleged realization. He did not. He filed a year later. According to his lawsuit he went to Robson's lawyers in September 2013, but even then they did not hurry up to file - another 8 months passed until they did. Apparently it was more important to them for Safechuck's filing to interfere with the release of Xscape than to hurry up to file. He filed on May 9 (Friday). By Monday, May 12, Diane Dimond had and published the story. Xscape was released the next day. Actually, Dimond could only get the leak from Safechuck's camp, because the actual lawsuit was not in the court system at the time yet. The actual filing of the lawsuit took them until August! (BTW, what took them so long?) The May filing was only a notice that they would file. So you can clearly follow the game being played here. They were more focused on how to create bad publicity for the release of Xscape than anything else.

        So you see, this is not a good case for why statutes of limitations should be abolished. On the contrary, actually. Safechuck did have all the opportunities in the world to be within statutes as per Probate Code 9103 but playing the blackmail game (and trying to force a settlement with that) apparently was more important. This shows exactly why Plaintiffs should not have unlimited opportunities to file.

Link:http://www.lipstickalley.com/showthread.php/755439-Michael-Jackson-Hit-With-New-Sex-Abuse-Claim-from-a-5th-accuser-Part-2/page47?highlight=michael+jackson+sex+abuse
       

[Do]

Hey Shy,
Thank you for your post. I truly understand that what Robson and Safechuck claim feels highly suspicious, considering their timing and the fact that they had many opportunities to come forward at a much earlier stage. This makes their stories indeed highly incredible or at least very difficult to examine. My post was merely intended to show that (in general), not all victims of molestation immediately tell someone that they were abused or that they refuse to go back to their molester (which was MFFreedom was wondering about).

However, I still do think that there could be many reasons why a victim doesn't come forward. I'm certainly not a psychologist, but Stockholm syndrome could be one of them You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

In this case, the fact that an alleged molester is of such a magnitude and not to forget, a human being with an exceptional heart and soul, doesn't make it easier (IF such a molestation has taken place) to tell the whole world about it. I CAN easily understand that victims would like to protect the person who might have done such things, but is such a nice, generous, fantastic guy, and not to mention who is helping you with your own career. Also, what about the backlash from such a huge fan base? Such victims saw what happened in 1993 and the fact that the alleged victim had to go underground under an assumed name, definitely looking over his shoulder for many years because of the threats he and his family received.
Major events later in life (marrying, having children) are then the final push to finally break down and come forward. However, the fact that they are doing this in public doesn't feel right, not to mention when they are only doing it for tons of money.

The fact that there was a trial still does not PROVE everything, unfortunately. I'm still not convinced that OJ Simpson was innocent.

What might or might not have taken place, I will never judge Michael or stop loving him. I would still feel very much compassion for him, because I understand that he was/is a product of a very difficult life, with no intentions to harm anybody, but who MIGHT have made a mistake in judgement, born out of his pure love for children.
But I also feel compassion for victims who dare to come forward. So I'm neutral in this one because I nor any of us can know for sure what really happenend, only the persons involved...

[Starchild]

Thank you for your post. I truly understand that what Robson and Safechuck claim feels highly suspicious, condering their timing and the fact that they had many opportunities to come forward at a much earlier stage. This makes their stories indeed highly incredible or at least very difficult to examine. My post was merely intended to show that (in general), not all victims of molestation immediately tell someone that they were abused or that they refuse to go back to their molester (which was MFFreedom was wondering about).

However, I still do think that there could be many reasons why a victim doesn't come forward. I'm certainly not a psychologist, but Stockholm syndrome could be one of them You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Please correct me if I'm wrong, because truly, IDK. While behavior and body-language analysis of possible victims of sexual abuse provides for interesting discussion, it does not suffice as evidence (i.e., of guilt or innocence, fact or fiction, truth or lies, and so on) regarding the alleged perpetrator in a court of law, or does it?

[Do]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, because truly, IDK. While behavior and body-language analysis of possible victims of sexual abuse provides for interesting discussion, it does not suffice as evidence (i.e., of guilt or innocence, fact or fiction, truth or lies, and so on) regarding the alleged perpetrator in a court of law, or does it?

I have no idea about this one Starchild. I also wonder what about the results of a lie detector examination, is this considered as evidence?

What I also wonder about is why we easily want to accept La Toya's explanation that she lied back then about her allegations because she was manipulated into it by Jack Gordon (and even went back to him after she was beaten up and left him), and that she was telling the truth after that. Why don't we want to accept that an alleged victims could be lying back then and is now telling the truth? Couldn't it be possible that, among many other reasons, they were manipulated as well (remember, manipulation doesn't always occur in a negative way, it can be done with love as well).

[Starchild]

What I also wonder about is why we easily want to accept La Toya's explanation that she lied back then about her allegations because she was manipulated into it by Jack Gordon (and even went back to him after she was beaten up and left him), and that she was telling the truth after that. Why don't we want to accept that an alleged victims could be lying back then and is now telling the truth?

Touché, Do. It does indeed work both ways.

Couldn't it be possible that, among many other reasons, they were manipulated as well (remember, manipulation doesn't always occur in a negative way, it can be done with love as well).

“They” presumably refers to Robson and Safechuck (as discussed in your previous post)—by whom might they have been manipulated? And how might it have been done with love?

And does anyone know the answer to the question that I posed in my previous post?

[Do]

What I also wonder about is why we easily want to accept La Toya's explanation that she lied back then about her allegations because she was manipulated into it by Jack Gordon (and even went back to him after she was beaten up and left him), and that she was telling the truth after that. Why don't we want to accept that an alleged victims could be lying back then and is now telling the truth?

Touché, Do. It does indeed work both ways.

Couldn't it be possible that, among many other reasons, they were manipulated as well (remember, manipulation doesn't always occur in a negative way, it can be done with love as well).

“They” presumably refers to Robson and Safechuck (as discussed in your previous post)—by whom might they have been manipulated? And how might it have been done with love?

And does anyone know the answer to the question that I posed in my previous post?

Hi Starchild, yes, I was referring to Robson and Safechuck but one can also apply this to victims in general.

Please note that I don't like to refer to stories about Robson nor Safechuck since we still don't know if they are credible, but below an example how one can manipulate with love according to Safechuck (since I was talking about him). For objective information, read (parts of) 'Child molesters, a behavioral analysis' (link in one of my previous posts).

From RadarOnline.com

Michael Jackson was a master “brainwash” expert who manipulated a young boy into “deviant” sex acts — according to explosive claims filed in his sex abuse case and obtained by RadarOnline.com.

James Safechuck is accusing Michael Jackson of molesting him as a child decades ago. Jackson’s attorneys have tried to block the suit, but Safechuck’s attorneys fired back in a new filing obtained by Radar, and claimed that he should be allowed to sue the late pop star’s estate because he didn’t realize he’d been psychologically damaged until recent therapy.

Jackson’s “manipulation and indoctrination” of Safechuck, who was 10 when he worked with Jackson in a 1987 Pepsi commercial, “rendered him psychologically incapable of understanding the full extent of the harm that Jackson inflicted upon him until he obtained therapy as an adult,” the new court filing contends.

The recent therapy helped Safechuck “‘connect the dots’ between Jackson’s abuse and the deep feelings of panic and anxiety he has experienced since childhood,” the filing claims. “Before entering therapy, Safechuck had always believed that these feelings were ‘just a part of who he is.’”

Safechuck used the same lawyer as Australian choreographer Wade Robson to file a creditor’s claim against Jackson’s estate for alleged damages suffered from child sex abuse.

Jackson estate lawyers argued in a court filing in September that Safechuck started therapy only after he learned about Robson’s claim last year. “Safechuck claims when he learned about Robson’s lawsuit after May 1, 2013, he thought for the first time he might need help. Safechuck started meeting with a psychiatrist on May 20, 2013, and began discussing the alleged abuse during the treatment,” the documents said.

California law allows just one year after someone dies for a claim to be made against their estate. Safechuck waited nearly five years after Jackson’s 2009 overdose from a surgical anesthetic to come forward with his claims.

But Safechuck’s lawyers argue that “the fact that Safechuck was unable to reach this realization until after the deadline for filing a claim had passed, should not be used as the sole basis for denying his petition.”

He claims that he was groomed, and sexually molested by Michael Jackson for five years, beginning when he was 10 years old.

Jackson “left him filled with guilt and shame” and convinced “their relationship was ‘consensual’ and an ‘expression of love,’” the filing contends.

“Jackson’s ‘modus operandi’ was to carefully seduce his victims and their families by exposing them to an exciting and glamorous lifestyle which they found irresistible, and manipulate them into believing that he simply wanted to be ‘friends’ with his target,” the filing says.

“In Safechuck’s case, Jackson ingratiated himself with Safechuck’s family by inviting them to dinner at his home, buying them expensive gifts, and taking them on exotic vacations,” the document says. “Having won Safechuck’s parents’ trust, Jackson began grooming Safechuck for sexual abuse by encouraging him to become a ‘miniature version’ of Jackson, and intensifying the emotional connection between them.”

“Then, once Safechuck had begun to idolize and trust him completely, Jackson initiated Safechuck into his deviant world of childhood sexual abuse by teaching him how to masturbate,” the claim says.

Ultimately, Safechuck was “brainwashed” to believe that the abusive acts were “‘his idea,’ and a normal way for two people to show their love for each other,” the filing contends. “At the same time, Jackson intimidated Safechuck into hiding their relationship from the world, and made Safechuck believe that if the truth ever came out, then their futures ‘would be over.’”

It was those “conflicting messages” that caused “horrible confusion, guilt and shame in Safechuck’s innocent, youthful mind, and this profound emotional harm has continued to plague him into adulthood,” his lawyers write.

Safechuck’s relationship with Jackson was part of the evidence introduced in the 2005 sex molestation trial against the entertainer. A Santa Barbara County, California, jury found Jackson not guilty on all counts

I still don't want to believe it really happenend, but I also don't want to rule out the possibility. When true, I strongly believe that everyone involved is a true victim one way or the other.