MYTH: JAMES SAFECHUCK LIED ABOUT BEING CONTACTED TO BE A DEFENCE WITNESS

March 20, 2020

In the aftermath of the documentary Leaving Neverland, which brought to light allegations of sexual abuse against Michael Jackson, there has been an influx of baseless claims and misinformation targeting the documentary's main subjects, Wade Robson and James Safechuck.

This time James Safechuck's assertion that he was approached to be a witness in Michael Jackson's favour during the 2005 trial has come under scrutiny. Notably, Scott Ross, a former member of Jackson's legal team, has adamantly contested Safechuck's account, asserting that Safechuck could not have been contacted due to his perceived insignificance as a "nonentity" at the time.

In short, Scott Ross stated the following:

"There was a declaration filed sometime in 93, 94, 95, somehow in connection with the Jordy Chandler matter. And Safechuck had signed a declaration saying, yeah, nothing happened. Michael never did anything, blah, blah, blah he no longer had contact with Michael."

"And Safechuck for purposes of the trial, was what we call a nonentity. Nothing the judge had already ruled, nothing regarding Safechuck was going to be allowed. Nothing was going to be discussed. No evidence one way or the other was going to be brought in. Safechuck, for purposes of this trial did not exist. Plain and simple."

Watch the full video at: YouTube.com

As well as stating that he was contacted by Jackson and members of his staff in the documentary, James also stated the following in his civil complaint in 2014:

"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.

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.

Source: scribd.com

When reviewing the motions at that time, it becomes clear that Ross's claim is inaccurate. Contrary to his assertion, the judge did not rule on that sentence months before the trial commenced. According to Ross, the ruling was made in March 2005, a month after the trial had already started (which began in February 2005). Furthermore, it is crucial to recognize that motions in limine are not confined solely to the pre-trial period. These motions are designed to be heard outside the presence of the jury but can also be presented during the course of the trial.

In December 2004, the prosecution presented witnesses, including Blanca Francia, Charlie Michaels, and Mark Quindoy, to testify about James. Their testimonies were pivotal in the motion for admission of evidence relating to "prior sex crimes".

As will be discussed in greater detail below, Plaintiff will seek the admission of the following evidence:

-- Defendant sexually molested Jason Francia, a minor child, three times in or around 1990 (testimony of Jason Francia and Blanca Francia);

Defendant sexually molested Jonathan Spence, a minor child, in or around 1990 (Blanca Francia);

-- Defendant sexually molested Wade Robeson, a minor child, in or around Mother's Day, 1990 (testimony of Charlie Michaels; Blanca Francia; Mariano "Mark" Quindoy);

-- Defendant sexually molested Brett Barnes in 1993 (testimony of Adrian McManus; Ralph Chacon);

-- Defendant sexually molested Macaulay Culkin, a minor child, in or around 1990 (Blanca Francia; Phillipe LeMarque; Adrian McManus);

-- Defendant sexually molested Jimmy Safechuck, a minor child, in or around 1991 (Blanca Francia; Charlie Michaels; Mariano "Mark" Quindoy);

-- Defendant sexually molested Jordan Chandler, a minor child, in or around 1993 (Adrian McManus; Ralph Chacon; June Chandler)'

This motion will be based on the accompanying summaries of the anticipated testimony of Jolie Levine, Orieta Murdock, Jason Francia, Mariano "Mark" Quindoy, Blanca Francia, Ralph Chacon, June Chandler, Mary Coller, Charlie Michaels, Phillipe LeMarque.

Full document: drive.google.com

In reaction to the motion dated March 25, 2005, the defence committed to summoning alleged victims (with the exclusion of Jordan and Jason) to contest the testimonies provided by the aforementioned individuals. This plan specifically encompassed calling James to refute the testimonies put forth.

D. Other alleged victims.

The defense will seek to bring each one of the other alleged "victims" to testify as, based on the information developed at this point, none of them would testify they were molested by Mr. Jackson.

Full document: drive.google.com

Finally, on March 28, 2005, the judge decided to prohibit the prosecution from presenting testimony concerning James. However, prior to this ruling, the defence was expected to summon all witnesses and refute every aspect of the prosecution's case. This action could have been taken within the three-day period, and it could have been executed even two months prior, as it had been known since December 2004 that the prosecution intended to present witnesses who would testify about James.

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.

Full document: drive.google.com

While Ross was part of the defence team during the 2005 trial, he has made several inaccurate statements about the Wade and James cases, such as misrepresenting Wade's subpoena and the statute of limitations for perjury. As a result, relying on his testimony is not advisable.

Following the court's decision to exclude testimony related to James, he was unable to serve as a "rebuttal witness" to counter the presented testimony. However, this ruling did not prevent James from testifying on other matters, such as discussing MJ's moral character or offering a rebuttal to employee testimony involving other individuals.

Advocates contend that James was not included in the defence witness list, but neither were Macaulay Culkin, Joy Robson, Chantal Robson, Brett Barnes, Lizette Barnes, or Carly Barnes, all of whom eventually testified. During an ongoing trial, witnesses and evidence can be introduced if the lawyers can persuade the judge of a valid legal basis for their introduction. Mesereau clarified this when he stated that to prevent jury deadlock, he called witnesses toward the end of the trial.

Regarding the possibility of Michael calling him afterward, only the two of them would truly know the answer. It's widely known that MJ was not particularly eloquent and could have indeed reached out to ensure loyalty, given his instability and paranoia during the trial. It's not prohibited or illegal for a defendant to contact a witness; the issue would arise if the contact is disclosed during the trial by the witness on the stand, or if the prosecution becomes aware of the contact and uses it to discredit the witness.

Why would Jackson call James if indeed he was a victim?

Abusers who employ grooming techniques often manipulate their victims to the extent that they believe in their unwavering loyalty. In some cases, abusers even manage to convince themselves and their victims that no wrongdoing ever occurred, perpetuating a distorted perception of events.

In other trial cases, abusers have called their own victims to testify on their behalf:

• Theo Fleury, who did business with his abuser Graham James, was called to testify on Graham's behalf when Sheldon Kennedy accused him. Subsequently, Theo disclosed that he was also a victim of abuse.
• Many victims of Robert Berman still grapple with the complex reasons behind their lasting attachment and loyalty to him, with one victim spending years living with Berman and providing financial support.
• Matt Sandusky, Jerry Sandusky's son, was initially presented as a witness for his father's defence, only to later admit that his father had also abused him.

In summary: The decision to disallow testimony concerning James was not made before the trial, let alone months prior, but rather a month into the trial. This ruling did not prohibit James from testifying; it solely prevented the prosecution from presenting 1101 evidence about James.