A few clarifications on this piece, since many people (not MJ Realists, of course) find contextualizing mentally taxing and, thus, choose not to do it. It's a measure of a writer's skill and finesse to make things simple and override the desire for verbosity... consider it a handy summary.
First, let's go back to Jack Gordon's 1991 interview and that Gordon called Michael Jackson a 'pederast' before he was ever accused of child molestation. So, what's the point of mentioning Gordon? It's twofold:
- La Toya Jackson claims now that Jack Gordon was just "jumping on the bandwagon" when the 1993 allegations surfaced. But how did Gordon jump on the bandwagon in 1991, when no one was calling Jackson a pedophile? And, in the event that some perceptive journalist had brought up the idea of Jackson's behavior with children as being 'odd' during that time, is it not interesting that Jackson was then accused of molesting a boy, that charge resulting in a staggering multimillion dollar settlement?
- La Toya Jackson claims now that all of what she'd said was fabricated by Jack, but he'd called Jackson a pederast when no one was calling him a pederast (maybe just calling him a 'kooky kid obsessive'); just two years later, when Jackson was accused of the conduct of pederasts, La Toya had stories of her mother showing her a massive check to a person verified as the father of a 'special friend' and admissions that she'd seen her brother's comings-and-goings with various boys at Hayvenhurst, although she admits to have witnessed no incidents of molestation; all of what La Toya Jackson stated in 1993 added to and corroborated the reasonable suspicion that Michael Jackson was guilty of abusing Jordie Chandler, hence why it was said.
In a nutshell, what has been illuminated above is the fact that people called Jackson a pedophile before the title seemed interchangeable with that of the 'King of Pop'; he was subsequently accused of pedophilia just a short time later. The same goes with the fact of the Lemarques' 1991 claim of Jackson fondling a distracted Macaulay Culkin and his watching of pornography in the Neverland theater with his boy guests, a claim that was then corroborated by two other pieces of evidence: the Arvizo boys' claim that Jackson showed them pornography and the claim by Santa Barbara County police investigator Jeffery Ellis that when Omer Bhatti had been asked about pornography at Neverland he seemed visibly nervous and loss his use of eloquent speech.
Let's move to La Toya Jackson's seeing a large check made out to James Safechuck, Sr. The extended entry details Mr. Safechuck's prolific history in the garbage business, dating back, according to public records, to at least 1983. And what is important to glean from this?
Well, if La Toya Jackson claims now that she was a pawn in Jack Gordon's plan to go after her family, Michael Jackson in particular, and that all of what she'd said was a big lie, it's been 'myth-busted'. Evidence exists to prove that the recipient of that check--a father of a 'special friend'--who'd she claimed then was a 'garbage collector', was, in fact, in the garbage collection business!
Why is this important? As noted in the extended entry, La Toya says she was made to lie then and is telling the truth now; verifying one of her alleged lies (her big story had been seeing those 'checks payable') as actually being true disproves that current claim that she had been lying about her brother the whole time back then.
Not a difficult concept, everyone.
Let's move ahead to the questionable factuality of Tom Mesereau's 2005 assertion that former 'special friend' Jimmy Safechuck had been married at Neverland Ranch. In reality, Jimmy Safechuck was married in 2008 to a woman he's still married to and with whom he has a child. There are no records available out of the state of California suggesting that Jimmy had ever been married before; according to laws regarding the publicity of marriage records in the state of California, had a spouse been available, the name of the spouse would have been listed; only 11 of the 50 states comprising the American union allow for marriage records to be searched for on the web or available to parties unrelated to the couple.
For example, Jimmy's father's first and second (current) marriages are available to find.
Jimmy's current marriage was logged in the state of Illinois, where the marriage ceremony had taken place. Thus, a record of that marriage is not searchable online, although his wife helpfully provided pictures of the ceremony. And what if a marriage had taken place at Neverland Ranch, located in California, the same state where Jimmy currently lives and has lived his entire life? Well, it would be searchable online. No records were able to be located.
So what does this mean with regard to Tom Mesereau? Well, if the suggestion was that Jimmy Safechuck had been wed at Neverland, and this is not the case, it means that Mesereau knowingly lied in open court in order to defend his client. The significance of a Neverland wedding having never occurred means that this purported event can no longer be used as a reason or 'proof' that Jimmy Safechuck was not abused by Michael Jackson.
And how is this relevant to our beloved Jacko, you ask?
Quite simply, it means that a few arguments in defense of his dubious innocence have been shaved off, invalidated. One can't say, "Oh, La Toya is a liar," if she'd been proven to tell the truth about her most significant revelation, those 'checks payable' to the parents of 'special friends'. And one cannot say that Jimmy Safechuck was not a molestation victim because of that 'wedding bash' thrown at Jackson's Neverland since it's obviously false and most likely did not occur--what occurred was the joining of spirits of his current wife and himself in Chicago, 2008. And one cannot assert that Mesereau is some sanctified Jackson defender if he is also a liar.
Although the extended entry was quite simple to understand, I've been a lamb to explain it once more in easier language and at shorter length.
Happy turkey time.
~ Desiree, Jacko P.I.
According to Jolie Levine, Michael Jackson was a "chicken hawk", a colloquial term for pedophile.
She did not come to this conclusion overnight, of course; it was founded upon her tenure as his personal assistant. Unique requirements for that job included running errands for Jackson, as well as picking up gifts for those individuals he believed to be 'special'. More often than not, Levine was called to purchase playthings for young boys.
She revealed to police investigators Jackson's penchant for seductively high-priced 'gift-giving' to special families, to which she almost became susceptible (Michael Jackson liked her ten-year-old son, Yoshi). Levine, however, was quite firm in her stance that Jackson giving her presents was totally inappropriate.
She also shed light on her employer's knack for sleepovers with young boys, as well. As per her interview with the police, Levine claimed that, while on the Bad Tour, Michael Jackson repeatedly shared a bed with that moment's chosen young boy 'special friend', even when other beds were available.
At that time, the chosen boy was Jimmy Safechuck.
Most of us are familiar with Jimmy Safechuck, a then-fledgling child actor/dancer from the Los Angeles area who'd first met Michael Jackson in 1987. Perhaps enchanted by the boy's big blue eyes and flaxen good looks, Jackson cast Jimmy as the lead in a Pepsi commercial cum Bad Tour promotional ad where Jimmy plays a “young male fan” who absorbs Jackson's essence in the singer's dressing room.
Sparks must have flew between Jackson and this Jonathan Spence successor right there on the set of the commercial because it was not too long before Jimmy became one of Jackson's 'special friends'--a "Boy of the Year"--joining him on tour and receiving all of the perks attendant to that role.
No doubt young Jimmy Safechuck got whatever he desired from Michael Jackson and someone like his assistant, Jolie Levine, had the job of making sure everything was just right for such a special young boy*. From J. Randy Taraborrelli's Michael Jackson: the Magic and the Madness (1991 edition), page 476:
(Recall: Jackson also caught a communicable disease--the flu--from Jordie Chandler.)
No doubt young Jimmy Safechuck got whatever he desired from Michael Jackson and someone like his assistant, Jolie Levine, had the job of making sure everything was just right for such a special young boy*. From J. Randy Taraborrelli's Michael Jackson: the Magic and the Madness (1991 edition), page 476:
On one leg of the tour [Bad Tour], Michael brought along Jimmy Safechuck, a ten-year-old Californian boy. Michael had a copy of one of his stage uniforms made for Safechuck so they could dress alike. Most people found the relationship strange, especially when Michael would take him on shopping sprees in toy stores. He spent thousands of dollars on toys for Safechuck in London. At one point, Michael had to cancel two shows because he caught a cold from Jimmy.
It's important to note, however, that these material perks bestowed upon Jackson's 'special friends' are often not exclusive to the boys themselves. These boys' parents also become the recipients of a similar conspicuous favoritism.
We can only speculate why Michael Jackson gives gifts to the parents of his young male 'special friends' but there is no denying the extravagance of such presents. There does, of course, exist reasonable suspicion that the gifts are payoffs, something akin to the slipping of a wad of c-notes beneath a table into the palm of someone ready to 'supply a favor'.
The 'favor', in this case, would be allowing Jackson unrestricted access to the parents' minor sons.
In December 1993, at the height of the Jordie Chandler sexual abuse allegations, Jackson's estranged sister, La Toya, gave a press conference out of Tel Aviv, Israel, claiming, beyond the more general accusations of her brother being a pedophile, that she'd seen "checks payable" to the families of little boys with whom Jackson had befriended.
The pertinent part of La Toya Jackson's statement:
"I have seen checks payable to the parents of these children, and I don't know if these children were apparently bought from the parents by Michael or not but I have seen these checks... and I have seen these checks through my mother--she has shown me these checks that Michael has written to these children and it is for a great amount, and I am not speaking pennies. The sums are a very, very large amount..."Much of this La Toya Jackson business is review: we all know that La Toya spoke against her brother for several years while she was with her late ex-husband, Jack Gordon, who she claims abused her; then, according to her, when she managed to free herself from that relationship, she re-joined the Jackson family and recanted her statements against Jackson.
According to La Toya, all of those supposedly ugly statements she had made against Michael Jackson were made under the direction of Jack Gordon; in fact, all of her words--as she so claims--were manufactured by Jack Gordon. La Toya, as she herself maintains, had no part in the synthesis of those statements that had implicated her brother as a pedophile.
From her June 21, 2011 interview with Piers Morgan:
MORGAN: But the worst thing for me -- I remember this as a journalist, when it happened -- was when he made you do that press conference about Michael, when you basically went along with all of the allegations against your own brother at a time when Michael most needed probably support of his family.Again, all of this is just getting us back up to speed.
MORGAN: That was a despicable thing for him to do.
JACKSON: It was just the lowest of all. It was the lowest. And that's one of the things that --
MORGAN: Do you absolve yourself completely? There will be people watching and reading the book -- you know. You've had this before. They say you can blame somebody to a point.
MORGAN: But when you denounce your own brother in public --
MORGAN: Part of you has to take responsibility yourself for that.
JACKSON: You have to. You have to take responsibility. And I do take responsibility for it, I must tell you. But at the same time, I have to tell you that if I didn't do what he asked me to do, he blatantly told me -- not just me, but others -- my other loved ones -- that he would kill Michael. And I believed him because I believed the actions.
So when he says you get up there, you read this and you say this -- prior to this allegation about Michael, there I was on television saying oh, my brother is wonderful; he would never, ever, ever do a thing like this. This is despicable, the whole bit.
Then Gordon gets this idea, OK, is that what you're saying? No, you're going to change that story. It was like no, no.
But let's focus once more on La Toya Jackson. Since she now claims Jack Gordon forced, coerced, and/or convinced her to speak ill of her brother, there is the obvious suggestion that anything previously professed to ought to be looked upon with suspicion. In other words, La Toya Jackson wants the public to now consider all of what she'd said about Michael Jackson in the 1990s--that he was an abuser of "small, innocent children"--to be a complete fabrication, something that was simply fiction or 'made up' for money.
Not to mention, the abuse suffered by La Toya should also dampen the believability of her revelations.
However, this is nothing more than a historical rewrite. Regardless of Jack Gordon's conduct, it is completely false that he was the creator of La Toya's claims, simply because he would not have been privy to that sort of information. Unless, of course, he was told by someone in the know.
As an example, let's consider an interview La Toya and Gordon gave to a New York Daily News reporter in 1991 during the press junket for her autobiography. In his write-up of the chat, the incredulous reporter stated that Gordon suggested Michael Jackson was a "pederast". Pederast, for the record, is more specific than "pedophile" and has a finesse "chicken hawk" lacks; it refers to a man who has sex with boys.
Now, note that date: 1991--a full two years before Jordie Chandler would allege he'd been sexually abused by Michael Jackson. In 1991, we can assume there were no rumors of pedophilia or allegations--at least present in the media--of Jackson being a molester of young boys**. If that was the case, how, then, did Jack Gordon come to such a conclusion?
It certainly could not have been founded upon just watching Jackson on television, seeing him travel the world with boys who seemed, even to the media, to be "cousins" or something like 'kid brothers'. After all, even throughout the Chandler scandal and in spite of the fact tabloids made an effort to air the most tawdry of Jackson 'scoop', most of the public and the mainstream media respected Jackson's self-proclamations of innocence and perhaps even believed his claim of being an extortion victim.
The most reasonable explanation, given Jackson had yet to be accused of molesting boys nor was Gordon personally around him, is that Gordon had to be told some kind of information that would act as the cause for that aforementioned conclusion to be made at a time when Jackson's knack for being in the company of pubescent boys was not yet looked upon with suspicion; this information would likely come from someone 'in the know'.
Perhaps someone spilling secrets about her family; someone like La Toya Jackson herself.
As proof of why this is apparently true, let's return to La Toya's claims about those checks her brother paid to the parents of his young male 'special friends'. In an interview with the Today Show's Katie Couric, which directly followed that Tel Aviv press conference, La Toya went into more detail about her explosive statements.
According to La Toya:
- she never saw Michael Jackson in the bed with young boys but she did see boys coming in and out of his room, and he'd never stay with more than one boy at a time;
- she'd seen only two checks written by Jackson to the parents of boys;
- she acknowledges that she did not know what they were for but the amounts were substantial;
- these checks were shown to her by her mother and these checks date back to at least 1984;
- Katherine Jackson was outraged by these checks and these payments--and perhaps the entire situation with her son and young boys--led to her calling Jackson a "faggot"
La Toya Jackson also stated that her mother knew of the boys Michael Jackson would bring to Hayvenhurst and that it was her mother who had explained to her--even when she was trying to tell her mother that the checks could have been completely innocuous--all that had been going on with Jackson. La Toya said she understood none of the situation and her mother helpfully clarified.
Later on in February 1994, a month following the Chandler settlement, La Toya did an interview with Geraldo Rivera where she revealed the identity of one of the check recipients; as the interview transcript appears on pages 36-37 in Diane Dimond's Be Careful Who You Love:
[Geraldo Rivera:] "Why are you so convinced in your head that he is guilty?"
[La Toya Jackson:] "Because of what I've seen, because of what I know, because of what my mother has done,"... "Because of what she showed me. Because of the things that she says to me about Michael, that I refused to believe at the time. My mother actually was screaming for me one day, and I ran into the room. I--frantically--I thought something was wrong, something had happened. And she was showing me this check and I said, 'Yeah, so. What about it?' And she says, 'Well, look at it.' And the check, of course, was one and a lot of zeros behind it. And she says, 'Latoya, this is one million dollars!' I said, 'So?' And she goes, 'But look who it's written to.' And, of course, at that particular time it was... Written to the last name of the little boy that he was with all that time. But it was written to the father, and not to the little boy. It was in the father's name. And [Mother] called [Michael] a very bad name. There was another check behind that, and I said, 'Mother, please, let's leave.' I said, 'We shouldn't be in here I don't want this.'"Dimond claimed in her book that the father to whom La Toya referred was that of Jimmy Safechuck's, evidenced by the fact Jimmy's father worked in the sanitation business.
"And you recognize the name?"
"All right. Don't tell us the name, but describe the person to whom it was written--the father."
"I don't know the father."
"Was he a show business person?"
"No. The father, supposedly, is a garbage collector--or, was a garbage collector, I should say, at that particular time."
Even though La Toya now claims that Jack Gordon had been the man who'd manufactured all of those claims she'd said about her brother, how is that even possible if she knew the identity of one of these parents receiving money from Jackson?
It is verifiable that Jimmy Safechuck's father did, indeed, work for the very business La Toya said he did. In 1983, James Safechuck, Sr. was a part of Santa Rosa Disposal Service. Currently, he is the Vice President of a garbage disposal firm out in Simi Valley called Anderson Rubbish Disposal, Anderson being his wife's maiden-name.
Here is Mr. Safechuck in his company polo next to Jimmy's mother***, and with the rest of the Safechuck clan (Jimmy at center; his father at right).
In other words, La Toya told the truth, a point that needs to made very clear.
La Toya currently chalks every 'betrayal' against her family to a man who knew very little and had very little access to Michael Jackson secrets, unlike herself; Jackson fans have run away with La Toya's scapegoating as well, believing it feasible that someone out of the loop would know anything about Jackson being a probable boy-lover in 1991 or giving extravagant monetary gifts to parents.
La Toya Jackson continues blaming Gordon for having done nothing but place her in front of cameras, microphones, and eager reporters and talk show hosts as she 'revealed all'.
The question that remains is, "What were the monies for?" La Toya herself speculated that perhaps, owing to the large sums written in the 'amount' field of these checks, her brother had bought these boys from their parents. It's certainly possible, but, in truth, just as La Toya had acknowledged, we do not know why James Safechuck received such a generous check from Jackson, not to mention, according to Taraborrelli's biography, the family was gifted a $100,000 Rolls Royce (it has been noted that Jimmy himself verified this gift given during a grand jury hearing in November 1993). We also do not know why Jackson bought the Safechucks a home, according to page 50 of Bob Jones and Stacy Brown's Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask:
Steve Chabre, a former President of MJJ Enterprises, later told me that Michael did purchase a luxury automobile for this family, as well as a house in the San Fernanado Valley in California--all without informing his lawyer or accountants.Public records indicate that James Safechuck, Sr. and his wife were granted a deed in mid-1992 to a home in Simi Valley, California, which is connected to the San Fernando Valley.
Nevertheless, there is no evidence to suggest that the check itself was a payoff to quiet claims of Jackson having molested the boy.
However, it is not hard to conclude that, given the gifts he'd also showered upon June Chandler (whose son would go on to accuse him of molestation) and the ones he'd attempted to give to Jolie Levine (whose son was of the right age), the check--and the other gifts given--could reasonably be seen as something of a bribe, a distraction tool, a quid pro quo.
With parents flattered that a superstar was spending his own money on them, it could easily have the effect of lowering their guards and allowing access to the child. In fact, it is certainly possible that after having received fancy cars and a check in an amount characterized by a one with a string of zeros trailing behind it, the gift-giver could feel a sense of entitlement to as much as the recipient's soul. And if not that sinister, the recipient's favor has been bought and the superstar is now seen as a 'great guy', part of the family****.
Whatever the check was for--and it seemed to be given in the beginning of the his friendship with Jimmy*****--it managed to become something of an 'All Access Pass' to the boy.
Despite all of the fun he may have had with Jackson, Jimmy Safechuck became known as the boy Michael Jackson abandoned, a poster child for the singer's seeming propensity of tossing boys to the side when they grow too old and replacing them with newer, younger 'special friends'. A sixteen-year-old Jimmy did, however, spend time with Jackson and then-bride Lisa Marie Presley during the couple's honeymoon and he and Jackson displayed some sort of closeness, evidenced by the wearing each other's sunglasses.
Now, one of the go-to arguments Jackson fans cling to--one which is used as a 'trump card' to invalidate the idea that, in spite of the above, as well as the overall weirdness incurred by being the 'special friend' of an adult male in the first place, Jimmy Safechuck was never a molestation victim--is that, some time before Jackson's molestation trial, Jimmy Safechuck had gotten married at Neverland.
This is not a totally difficult concept to accept, of course; it can be reasonable to assume that the likelihood of sexual abuse having occurred is relatively dubious when the alleged victim of such abuse takes his bride under the eyes of his family and God at the house of his alleged abuser.
So, it is lucid to believe (disregarding the reality, of course, that some abuse victims can have affection for their abusers, especially if the abuser was never violent and filled some kind of emotional role for them) that a marriage event taking place at the Ranch would nullify, or at least bring into suspicion, the claims of Jordie Chandler, Jolie Levine, and other assorted Neverland employees that Jimmy was, at the very least, subject to bizarre and pedophiliac-tinged affections by Jackson.
Thomas Mesereau, Jr., Michael Jackson's defense attorney who managed to get him acquitted in 2005, a man who has been all but crowned a prince--a demigod--in the minds of Jackson's fans, was the first to mention this significant detail about Jimmy Safechuck.
During the March 17, 2005 cross-examination of reluctant Prosecution witness Kiki Fournier, an erstwhile housekeeper at the Ranch, when the topic moved to Jackson's 'special friends' and Jimmy Safechuck was among them, Mesereau brought up the detail about Jimmy's purported Neverland wedding:
According to Fournier, her employment at Neverland, which spanned approximately twelve years, was 'on and off'.2 Q. Okay. Now, the prosecutor for the3 government asked you some questions about other4 young boys, as he put it, that Mr. Jackson knew5 through the years, right.6 A. Yes.7 Q. And would you agree that, like most people,8 Mr. Jackson sometimes became a closer friend of some9 families rather than others, correct.10 A. Yes.11 Q. And the so-called “young boys” the12 prosecutor referred to would come with their13 families, correct.14 A. Yes.15 Q. In fact, Jimmy Safechuck was married at16 Neverland, wasn’t he. Do you remember that.17 A. I didn’t even know he was married.
24 Q. Can you tell me the time frame that you25 worked for Mr. Jackson.26 A. I started in September of ‘91, and worked27 off and on till September 28th, 2003.28 Q. Okay. When you say -- yeah, you have to1 speak directly into that microphone so we can hear2 you.3 A. Okay.4 Q. When you say “off and on,” can you give me a5 little more specific description of what that means.6 A. Well, I worked a couple years, and then I7 would take some time off. I had a child back in8 1993 also, so -- and then I would take a couple of9 years off, and then I would go back for a couple of10 years.11 Q. And you said you left ultimately in12 September of 2003.13 A. Yes.
In later testimony, she stated she'd returned from one of her sabbaticals in December 2002 and worked until her final day in September 2003, although it is never clarified when that sabbatical was taken. Given the nature of her employment at the ranch, it becomes entirely possible that Kiki Fournier's lack of knowledge of a "Jimmy Safechuck Neverland wedding" is due to the fact that it may have occurred while she was on leave.
And perhaps she'd been away for so long that the potential chatter about such an event had dissipated before it could migrate through the grapevine, alerting her.
Or maybe Jimmy Safechuck was never married at Neverland.
Good evidence does exist to reasonably suggest that Tom Mesereau fabricated the aforementioned claim (for which he failed to provide at least an approximate date), namely the fact that Jimmy Safechuck--who now refers to himself as "James"--is currently married to and has fathered a child with the same woman he'd wedded back on October 18, 2008 in Chicago, Illinois.
Jimmy's wife gave herself a congratulation last month on her Facebook; it was their third year anniversary.
To be sure, though, the fact that Jimmy has been married to the same woman for three years and has started a family does not necessarily indicate that he had never been married before; nevertheless, however, it does bring into suspicion the feasibility of that Neverland wedding Mesereau spoke about.
Let's consider a few points.
Noteworthy was his back-and-forth with Kiki Fournier, who'd been more familiar with Jimmy Safechuck the 'special friend' but not Jimmy Safechuck the married man. During the discussion of Jackson's propensity of befriending certain boys and their families over others, Mesereau brings up the piece of evidence as a non sequitur. Fournier then clarifies her lack of familiarity and Mesereau quickly abandons the topic without confirming his claim to Fournier, assuring her, as well as the judge and the jury, that, in fact, Jimmy Safechuck had been married at his friend's home.
The significance of this may seem small. However, it rings odd that, while defending a client accused of sexually abusing both past and present (at that time, Gavin Arvizo) 'special friends', Tom Mesereau would buck the opportunity to illuminate how the 'fact' of a marriage of one of these allegedly abused 'special friends' thwarts the notion of alleged abuse. Not only that, the evidence of a "Jimmy Safechuck Neverland wedding" would reasonably indicate that this alleged victim was both incredibly comfortable around and had maintained a friendship with his purported abuser.
Simply, it would have went a substantial distance in disproving the supposed molestation of Jimmy Safechuck.
Mesereau, however, promptly left the subject, choosing not to elaborate any further. It also seems reasonable to suggest that he'd been relieved this longtime Neverland employee had no clue about the validity (or lack thereof) of any such event, allowing him to safely throw a piece of unsubstantiated information before the jury without anyone calling his bluff.
Kiki Fournier had been the perfect witness to question; she'd had lots of gaps in her tenure as housekeeper and any wedding could have easily been unfamiliar even if it never occurred.
In addition to Kiki Fournier's being unfamiliar with this alleged "Jimmy Safechuck Neverland wedding", it is a testament to the sneakiness of Tom Mesereau's insertion of this piece of evidence among such disparate questioning that, when verification about this claim was sought from two prolific Jackson journalists, both Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth, who'd sat in the Jackson trial courtroom every day, had not even realized Mesereau mentioned anything about Jimmy Safechuck.
Also worth considering is when would a wedding have taken place.
Today, Jimmy Safechuck is thirty-three years old. It had been in 2005 that Tom Mesereau claimed Jimmy was married at Neverland; Jimmy was around twenty-seven that same year. We know that between the time of Mesereau's claim in court and early 2003, Neverland Ranch was in a commotion egged on by Martin Bashir's Living with Michael Jackson, which was probably inhospitable to a marriage ceremony. We can also eliminate back to December 2002, when Kiki Fournier was re-employed--she had no knowledge of a wedding. Earlier still, Jackson was traveling, dangling his infant son, receiving awards, doing concerts, and making and promoting Invincible; all of this dates back to the year 2000******.
Is it possible that Jimmy's alleged wedding could have been squeezed in during all of this? It is, but we must also consider Jimmy's age. From 2000 to 2002, he would have been between twenty-two and twenty-four years old, respectively (and if we go back even earlier, Jimmy would be younger still). Certainly, both ages are old enough to get married but, if the wedding had occurred at Neverland, wouldn't that be an indication of it being 'special enough' to deserve such a gaudy and festive setting? However, if this marriage had taken place, the union must have ended quite abruptly; both Jimmy and the wife he'd wedded in 2008 work for the same company, a company he'd began at a year following the consummation of Jackson's child abuse trial, and they'd married only two years after his being with the firm.
It should be noted that Jimmy Safechuck's current marriage is not necessarily an indication that he'd never been married before but it is reasonable to assume that because he has been married since 2008 and has a child--all indications of 'wedded bliss' and stability--he was never married beforehand, a marriage that would have been undergone when he was a very young man and was obviously a failure. And while it is true that divorces can be had and that the United States divorce rate is close to 50 percent, it seems reasonable to conclude that one apparently successful marriage (and successful courtship in the months or years before the wedding itself) entered into at the age of thirty resulting in a child is more likely than two marriages, the first entered into while Jimmy Safechuck was in his very early twenties.
At the writing of this piece, contact had been made to Jackson's defense lawyers Tom Mesereau and Susan Yu, Jimmy Safechuck and his wife, and three of their relatives to confirm or deny a Neverland wedding. All requests for comment were not returned.
Is it an absolute fact that Jimmy Safechuck was never married at Neverland? Without a confirmation either way, all that exists is that initial non sequitur from Mesereau, a claim, not a fact. Sure, we cannot rule out a Neverland wedding but we also cannot confirm it.
Of course, there is the question of whether Tom Mesereau, a highly skilled and intelligent defense attorney, lied in defense of his client. Had he made it up, taking advantage of Kiki Fournier's sporadic history at Neverland Ranch? Had Jackson told Mesereau to make up the story because he knew that Jimmy Safechuck was not going to testify?
None of this is known for certain but it is definitely possible. Jimmy Safechuck has been married for three years and has a child; while divorce is a reality, it is not enough to refute the evidence of his current marriage, which tends to suggest, prima facie, that Jimmy had never been married before. Probability--based upon the seeming stability of his current union; the fact that Jimmy witnessed marital stability between his parents; and that there is really no evidence to suggest that he was married before--seems to be on the side of a "Jimmy Safechuck Neverland wedding" being dubious.
On the other hand, what is not ambiguous is the fact that La Toya Jackson, despite her claims to the contrary, had seen a large check payable to Jimmy's father, James Safechuck. Because it has been verified as factual (Safechuck had been in the garbage collection business since the early 1980s), we must also look upon the rest of La Toya's claims against her brother as having more credibility, not as the fruits of being 'brainwashed' by an abusive husband.
The Jimmy Safechuck findings mentioned herein tend to add to the reasonable suspicion that Michael Jackson was a pedophile and that Jimmy Safechuck, despite his alleged protestations otherwise, was one of Jackson's victims.
** In the Author's Note to Christopher Andersen's Michael Jackson Unauthorized, Anderson remarks on how, in 1991, he'd received information that a couple who'd worked for Jackson at his Neverland Ranch had alleged to have seen Jackson fondle a boy; from page vii:
In early 1991, while I was still hard at work on my biography of Madonna, a fellow journalist called in the middle of the night with an amazing story. Two former employees at Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch claimed to have seen Michael fondling a little boy. It was not just any boy, but one of the biggest child stars in the world. My initial reaction of shock and disbelief led me to begin an investigation of my own into the life of the world's most famous human being.Andersen apparently is referring to Phillippe and Stella Lemarque, who had tried to sell this exact story to the National Enquirer that same year about Jackson molesting Macaulay Culkin (he denied the abuse, although Phillippe Lemarque claimed the boy was hypnotized by the video game he'd been playing at the time while Michael Jackson was allegedly groping him). According to Maureen Orth's January 1994 Vanity Fair article, "Nightmare in Neverland", the Lemarques were rebuffed by the paper; the Enquirer felt, at the time of the story tip, that investigating it would be time-consuming and legally risky.
In addition to the Lemarques' claim, a newspaper (the October 3, 1993 issue of London's now defunct Today) reported that back in May 1992, another employee allegedly told the Santa Barbara county Department of Children's Services that he'd seen Jackson behave inappropriately with young boys at Neverland. The gardener was fired and later told that an incident to which he claims he'd seen--and deemed inappropriate--was not as it appeared to be. As it is related in Carl Toms' Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons, page 122:
His complaint to social workers that Michael was molesting youngsters was lodged back in May 1992, over a year before the Chandler allegations, according to a press report sourced to one Mary Comstock, programme manager with Santa Barbara county department of children's services. It led to the singer being put under surveillance. The gardener reportedly told authorities that Michael was engaged in "unwholesome activities with children". He said he'd seen Jackson hugging, fondling, and videotaping a number of youngsters who had stayed as guests. He told how some of these activities had taken place in special hidden places, such as the hot tub, which could not be overlooked--except, presumably, by the gardener himself, perhaps peering through the bushes.
On one occasion a young boy from Los Angeles who was a frequent visitor at the Ranch had been invited to Michael's private theater to watch films. The gardener told the social workers he happened to walk in because he wanted to ask Jackson something. He saw Michael fondling the boy. "As I entered the room, they jumped apart and Jackson was furious with me for entering the room at all," he said. There was a showdown. He was "threatened and ordered to leave". Later he was told that what he had witnessed was "not at all what it appeared to be". The child had been upset and afraid and Michael was "just trying to comfort him".Note that, like other Jackson employees (notably the "Neverland Five" and the Havyenhurst Five), this gardener claimed he, too, was threatened when it was found out that he'd knew too much about Jackson's behaviors with his young 'special friends'. That he was also told that what he'd witnessed between Jackson and a boy was 'innocuous' lends credence to the explanation other employees gave about not going to the police: they wouldn't be believed.
While there was no media knowledge of any allegations of abuse against Jackson that could be the reason Jack Gordon, in 1991, called his brother-in-law a 'pederast', it is quite peculiar--and telling--that there was, from more than one source, a corroboration to his claim.
*** It has been claimed on a fan blog that a woman appearing with Michael Jackson and Jimmy Safechuck during a 1988 trip to Hawaii in this set of photographs is 'unidentified' and, therefore, could have 'possibly' been someone with whom Jackson could have been involved. However, the woman who appears in the pictures with Jackson and Jimmy was his mother.
**** We can recall June Chandler's April 11, 2005 testimony where she described Michael Jackson's apparent expectations with regard to herself, Jordie, and Jackson being a family, and how a gift was received after she allowed Jordie to sleep in the bed with Jackson. Jackson had previously had a tantrum when June merely wanted to know where Jackson and Jordie had been when neither of them showed up at a show:
12 Q. Now, could you describe for the jury Mr.
13 Jackson’s demeanor at the time that they came back
14 to the room?
15 A. He was sobbing. He was crying, shaking,
17 Q. Michael Jackson was?
18 A. He was.
19 Q. And what about your son’s demeanor?
20 A. He was quiet.
21 Q. Now, at that point in time, did Mr. Jackson
22 tell you why he was upset or crying?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. All right. Tell the jury what he said.
25 A. He said, “You don’t trust me? We’re a
26 family. Why are you doing this? Why are you not
27 allowing Jordie to be with me?” And I said, “He is
28 with you.”
1 He said, “But my bedroom. Why not in my
2 bedroom? We fall asleep, the kids have fun.
3 Boys” --
4 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive;
6 THE COURT: Narrative; sustained.
7 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. Tell us what -
8 Mr. Jackson said that he wanted your son to sleep
9 with him in his bed - what you said to Mr. Jackson.
10 A. What I said to Michael was, “This is not” --
11 “This is not anything that I want. This is not
12 right. Jordie should be able to do what he wants to
13 do. He should be able to fall asleep where he wants
14 to sleep.”
15 Q. Is this you talking or Mr. Jackson speaking?
16 A. I was saying this. And Michael was
17 trembling and saying, “We’re a family. Jordie is
18 having fun. Why can’t he sleep in my bed? There’s
19 nothing wrong. There’s nothing going on. Don’t you
20 trust me?”
21 Q. All right. How long do you think this
22 conversation lasted between you and Mr. Jackson over
23 where Jordan was going to sleep that night?
24 A. I would say 20 to 30, 40 minutes.
25 Q. So it was a back-and-forth conversation; is
26 that right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Do you recall how many times during that
1 conversation that Mr. Jackson emphasized the fact
2 that you didn’t trust him?
3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.
4 THE WITNESS: No, I don’t recall how many
5 times --
6 THE COURT: Just a moment.
7 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.
8 THE COURT: Overruled.
9 Go ahead. You may answer.
10 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Go ahead.
11 A. I don’t recall how many times.
12 Q. Was it on more than one occasion?
13 A. Absolutely, yes.
14 Q. Was it on many occasions?
15 A. Quite a few.
16 Q. Do you remember how many times during the
17 conversation that Mr. Jackson emphasized to you that
18 you were family?
19 A. Many times.
20 Q. Did you at some point in time relent and
21 allow your son to sleep with Michael Jackson in his
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. And was it after that discussion on that
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. Is that the first occasion?
28 A. Correct.
1 Q. When you were in Las Vegas, do you rememberNotice that, following June Chandler's receipt of this expensive piece of jewelry (which retails today for around $5600), there was never any fuss over the fact Jordie was sleeping with Jackson.
2 how many of the nights in Las Vegas that your son
3 Jordan slept with the defendant, Michael Jackson, in
4 Michael Jackson’s room?
5 A. I would say two occasions.
6 Q. Now, at some point in time after you had
7 agreed to let your son Jordan sleep with Mr.
8 Jackson, were you the recipient of a gift from Mr.
10 A. Yes, I was.
11 Q. Would you describe that to the jury?
12 A. It was a gold bracelet, and it was given to
13 me by Michael.
14 Q. And you say “a gold bracelet.” Had you seen
15 that gold bracelet in a shop of some kind before?
16 A. I had seen it before, yes.
17 Q. And the brand name on that bracelet?
18 A. Cartier.
19 Q. Was it expensive, to your knowledge?
20 A. Oh, I -- yes, it was.
21 Q. When was it you received this gift in
22 relationship to having agreed to allow your son to
23 sleep in bed with Mr. Jackson?
24 A. I think it was the next evening when we were
25 attending a show, a magic show, by David
****** On this Michael Jackson fan blog, it had haphazardly been claimed that Jimmy Safechuck was married at Neverland "circa 2000". However, there was no further information given, such as how this date was came to. This is the same blog that calls Jimmy's mother an 'unidentified woman' who Jackson could have been canoodling with and also claimed that Jimmy was an orphan, which would have made the large check Jimmy's father received impossible. Apparently the quality of info on this website leaves much to be desired.