Together, the pair filed a $1.5 billion dollar creditor’s claim and civil lawsuit against MJ’s estate. Their case was thrown out of court due to the Statue of Limitations and possible implications of perjury. But Robson & Safechuck can still appeal, and intend to.
-
Show this thread
-
Now, it is possible that Robson’s effusive tributes to MJ, his insistence on being associated with MJ even after death, his grand showbiz aspirations, his sudden epiphany of abuse when penniless aged 30, are the encrypted cries for help of an an abuse survivor.
1 reply 26 retweets 88 likesShow this thread -
It is also possible that watching Robson detail his abuse on TV really did trigger latent memories of abuse in Safechuck, and that the two then decided to collaborate in good faith to innocently seek justice in the form of $1.5 billion by blaming MJ’s estate for MJ’s abuse.
2 replies 21 retweets 77 likesShow this thread -
But, the more I learn about this case, the more room for doubt I find, and I am just not able to explain away the inconsistencies as peremptorily as so many of you have done.
1 reply 25 retweets 133 likesShow this thread -
And even if Robson and Safechuck are telling the truth, then Leaving Neverland, with its tendentious cherry-picking, and its refusal to address suspicious holes in the testimony, from which doubts have sprouted, has utterly failed them, and they deserve better than a shock-doc.
3 replies 24 retweets 120 likesShow this thread -
Whatever the truth, one fact remains: despite all the doubts we should have about the allegations—after Jussie Smollett and Covington—the world has once again uncritically swallowed a victimhood narrative based on mere talk. And that, to me, is wrongdoing I can be certain of.
34 replies 49 retweets 328 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Which of these claims do you think are the strongest? Some of them I find pretty weak (the distinction between 'met' and 'spoke to' can be explained by a phone call) The mother's claim of celebrating his death seems the most confounding one to me.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mikedennymike
Agreed. The mother's premature celebration was what rang the first alarm bells for me when I began researching the case.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Gonna review it. It's possible it was a response to an off-screen question like: 'Did you see MJ's death in a new light after your son's confession?' Doesn't make sense otherwise. Such a lie shouldn't have got past the filmmaker, editors, subjects during screen tests.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mikedennymike @G_S_Bhogal
Checked and she's lying in some sort of capacity. Doesn't make sense to be part of a group lie. The other players would have surely identified it as being inconsistent with the timeline. It's possible she acknowledged MJ's guilt before knowing her son was one of the victims.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
During the 2003 trial, James claims he told his mother that he didn't want to testify for MJ, as MJ was evil. It's possible that this made her suspect MJ was abusing kids, but this makes no sense as she knew her son had been alone with him, yet didn't think to press him about it.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @forcrimsonjoy @G_S_Bhogal
If I was his parent I would have pushed further for sure. She then put 2 and 2 together and realised that Jackson was probably guilty. Again I would have definitely pressed further on the truth after realising that!
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.