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.