Mike Smallcombe Claims He's Found Discrepancies in Dan Reed's Leaving Neverland, but Has He?


It appears that Michael Jackson's, hate filled loonies have a new Messiah in Mike Smallcombe. Smallcombe, a tabloid journalist from Newquay, Cornwall, released a pro–Jackson book titled: "Making Michael" back in 2016, and presumably sees nothing wrong with unrelated  grown men enticing unrelated children into their private quarters and bed.

Smallcombe claims to have discovered holes in the recent Leaving Neverland documentary directed by Dan Reed, and its subjects, Wade Robson, James Safechuck and their families.

This, unsurprisingly, has led to Jackson truthers frantically quoting his "findings" through social media, forums, and pretty much anywhere else, you'll find them.

But what exactly has Smallcombe allegedly uncovered, and is it truthful, or a one-sided misinformation campaign intended to create the usual doubt, confusion as well as hatred towards Jackson's accusers?


1. The train station

James Safechuck, in his civil complaint states that Jackson abused him from 1988 until 1992, when he was aged between 10 and roughly 14.

James states in the Leaving Neverland documentary that he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson in multiple locations, including the upstairs room of the train station.

Smallcombe, however, claims he's uncovered evidence that the train station did not exist until at least late 1993, which, unsurprisingly, was covered by tabloid newspapers such as the Mirror and the Sun, and pretty much anywhere else where sensational stories minus the full picture belong.

Smallcombe even claims via his Twitter account, after the story was published on the Mirror "Do you have a story to sell?" page, that he had obtained access to the Santa Barbara construction permits for the Neverland train station. Strange that he would sell or donate a story to the Mirror, before checking all the facts, but hey!



Smallcombe, most likely, enjoying the attention from Jackson truthers, has been super aggressive on Twitter promoting his alleged findings, and even challenged the Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed.

Dan Reed responded firstly by saying: "Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse."

This, to Smallcombe, was seen as some kind of omission by Dan Reed himself that he got it wrong. Tabloids then started posting the story with the title: "Leaving Neverland director admits James Safechuck made mistake in Michael Jackson claims", which all quoted "according to Mike Smallcombe".

Dan Reed, then posted a second tweet stating: "1. James Safechuck was at Neverland both before and after the construction of the train station there. The two still photos of the station shown in #leavingneverland were in fact taken by James, who is very clear that he was abused by Jackson in multiple places over many years."

A third: "2. #leavingneverland also makes clear that sexual contact between James and #MichaelJackson continued until James Safechuck was in his teenage years. The station at Neverland is just one of the many locations where James remembers sexual activity taking place."

He even responded to the Daily Mail by stating: "Admitted what?? Safechuck was at Neverland after the train station was completed. He even took photos of the station, we put two of these in the film. And he’s clear in the documentary that the sexual contact with Jackson continued into his teens...".

This is true, and there's no denying that James was at Neverland before and after that particular train station was built. But, as Mike Smallcombe has pointed out, James said the abuse happened between 88 and 92 in his civil complaint.

Is James Safechuck a liar?

Let's first explore the idea that James did in fact say he was molested at a location that did not exist until at least a year later after he said the abuse had stopped.

Are Jackson truthers right to call James a liar (amongst many other things), and discredit every other allegation of abuse?

The short answer is no. There is decades of research and millions of sex abuse survivors that will all validate that genuine sex abuse victims do get things wrong, including timeframes and locations.

The BBC has a great article titled: "Why sexual assault survivors forget details."

This is a direct quote from number 5:

Traumatic experiences scramble your memories: maybe you’ve misremembered what happened

"Many people who have been raped or sexually assaulted often claim to have vivid memories of certain images, sounds and smells associated with the attack – even if happened decades earlier. Yet when asked to recall exactly what time of day it was, or who and what was where at any given time – the kinds of details police and prosecutors often focus on to establish the facts of a crime – they may struggle or contradict themselves, undermining their testimony.

“There is this tragic discrepancy between what is expected within the criminal justice system and the nature of trauma memories and how people are likely to be reporting them,” says Amy Hardy, a clinical psychologist at Kings College London."

This is what Kenneth V. Lanning Former Supervisory Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)  has to say on the matter of inconsistencies when it involved multiple sexual acts over an extended period:

"Allegations involving multiple acts, on multiple occasions, over an extended period of time must be evaluated in their totality and context. Cases involving longterm sexual contact with child victims who engaged in compliant behavior should not be assessed and evaluated by comparisons to cases involving isolated, forced sexual assaults. 

Indicators suggesting a false allegation in a typical rape case have little application to the evaluation of most acquaintance, child-molestation cases, especially those involving repeated access and prolonged sexual activity. Such child molestation cases are very hard to classify as either a valid or false allegation. Victim claims may include allegations that appear to be false, but that does not mean the case can be labeled in totality as “a false allegation.” 

In my experience, many valid claims of child sexual molestation, especially those by this type of child victim, involve delayed disclosures, inconsistencies, varying accounts, exaggerations, and lies often associated with false allegations. Inconsistencies in allegations are significant but can sometimes be explained by factors other than that the allegation is false. What is consistent and logical in these circumstances must be based on experience and knowledge of cases similar to the case being evaluated.

Any indicators of a potential false claim must be applicable to the type of case in question and not based on cases involving one-time, violent sexual assaults. There is a difference between an unsubstantiated/unproven allegation and a false allegation. There may be many reasons to believe the allegations are not accurate and should not sustain a conviction in court beyond a reasonable doubt, but that does not mean the allegations of sexual victimization can be labeled as totally “false.”

Labeling an allegation as false should mean nothing of a criminal/sexual nature occurred between the child victim and the alleged adult offender at any time."

Even sex abuse survivor Oprah Winfrey is ask whether her support for Leaving Neverland has wavered, since the train station date findings.

She went on to say: "You wanna know why I've not wavered?" she said. "Because I've had girls at my school who were sexually assaulted and abused, and I have never won a case. And the reason why I have never won a case is because when you put a girl on the witness stand, and she can't remember was it Thursday or Wednesday, it's automatically discredited.

"And so, when you're in the midst of trauma, some terrible things happening to you, you may not remember the exact time. It's why, if I hear like a noise or something at my house, I'll like, look at the time, 'cause they're gonna ask what time was it, 'oh my god what time is it?'".

"If you can't remember the day and the time and the dada dada, everybody's like 'Well, okay, I guess it never happened'. I've been through that, so no."

You also have to factor in the sheer size of Neverland. This was a piece of land the size of an average housing estate, full of buildings and outbuildings, a medium-sized funfair, lakes and animals. James was clearly there after that particular train station was built, and may have simply mixed up one location where Jackson sexually abused him.

After all, not many sex abuse survivors can say they were sexually abused by a man who had a funfair and zoo in his back yard.

James, also in his civil complaint makes it quite clear that he had a close relationship with Jackson , especially after the 93 allegations by Jordan Chandler.


1995 and beyond:


It's entirely possible that James was sexually abused at least once beyond 1993, specifically at the train station, but due to the sheer complexity of child sex abuse, and James strong affection for his abuser, mixed up the dates, and thought it happened at a slightly earlier date, a date that he remembers as the most traumatic.

Did a train station exist pre-93?

We don't know for certain whether a train station with an upstairs room did not exist between James's timeframe of abuse, despite Jackson truthers desperate attempts to find documentation and photos to say otherwise.

Information from a Spanish Jackson fan website (lacortedelreydelpop.com) reveals, that there was, in fact, two miniature trains that ran at Neverland. The first one was installed by Rob Swinson on October 30, 1990. This MTV video shows the train on tracks in 1993. This smaller train ran through the heart of Neverland, including the funfair and zoo.


A second, larger train built in 1973, was originally used at Carowinds Park in Paramount, North Carolina. In April, 1993, Jackson purchase this train and had it extensively modified to his liking.


This second, larger train was installed on November 20, 1993, six months after Jackson had purchased it. A new track had to be laid and modified, due to friction in the corners. This train ran on a relatively straight piece of track right across the top of Neverland for approximately 1 mile before circling back on itself. Footage from this YouTube video shows that train even went through a artificial tunnel, before returning to the 93/94 main train station.

To my knowledge, this train couldn't run on the tracks of the smaller train, or vice versa.

So, the truth is that a train did exist from at least autumn 1990, which then got joined by a grander and larger model in late 1993. 

Smallcombe posted planning permission that was granted in September, 93, but it's pretty obvious this station was only built to accommodate the new train that had been installed that year.

Photographs show the train station was near completion by the end of December 93, including landscaping. This appears to be an awfully fast build time, considering you'd have to hire contractors, materials, and do all the ground work including foundations, plumbing, electrics, and then the structure itself.

Smallcombe posted an image from getty images, which he claims is from August 25, 1993, showing no train station, only a floral clock. However, ask yourself why a floral clock with two staircases was in that particular position? You can also clearly see the concrete foundation for the track itself, yet there is no visible sign of the track from the photo. Very odd that this all existed, before planning permission was granted.

Getty Images has a "created" date, rather than this was the precise day this photograph was taken. There were no cameras in the early nineties that had an SD card slot, that you could slot straight into your PC. The film probably wasn't processed for weeks, months, maybe even years.



After the above was posted, I found this from a reddit user. It's a map of Neverland, complete with a newspaper article from June 1993.

It actually supports my theory that a train station did exist, in some shape or form, and was later upgraded to what we now recognise as the main train station.


Here's a full picture of the map without the newspaper: https://imgur.com/a/n6VekPt

Here's a video from the guys at Neverland who won the contest in 1993: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEHWqPWgb60

Here's the bio of Randy Argue who confirms he was a guest on MTV’s special, “Weekend at Michael’s Place" in 1993: http://www.argueproductions.com/bio

And most importantly, here's the eBay listing stating its from June 1993. Though I can't 100% confirm it is from this time period, is highly likely that these maps would have been given out to special guests. http://archive.fo/iRU89 (Original listing)

The map actually lists several train stations, though most of these are probably nothing more than a platform and shelter, rather than any major building as a below picture shows. 


It does however, say that number 8 is the main train station. Number 8, just happens to be a stone throw away from the main house, and Neverland Lake.

The picture that Smallcombe posted from getty images is allegedly from 25th August 93, but it matches perfectly with the map from June 93. You can clearly see the lake, the main house, the roads and the site of the train station, is exactly where the floral clock is.


Building is a messy industry and landscaping is always traditionally done last for obvious reasons. It wouldn't make any logical sense to build a beautiful floral clock made of real plants, along with two staircases, before the local council had even approved the plans for the structure itself. The fact that you can clearly see the concrete foundation that the track is laid on, and signs that the ground has been disturbed strongly indicates that this site was used well before the new larger train came into service.

Two books mention a train station in 1990

Ironically, the Mirror, the same tabloid that Smallcombe has been selling/donating his stories to, have published a story that could validate that a train station did exist at Neverland prior to 93.

A book titled: "Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson" which has a paragraph that states: "Reporters invited to tour Neverland at the 1990 public unveiling most often began by inspecting the towering statue of Mercury (the Roman God of profit, trade and commerce) in the drive of the mansion...Then climbed a hill out back that led to a near replica of the Main Street train station at Disneyland, with a floral clock that was more magnificent than the one Walt Disney had designed for his own park."

In another book titled: "In Remembering The Time: Protecting Michael Jackson In His Final Days." Former bodyguards of Jackson's, Bill Whitfield and Javon Beard both describe a train station being there for the big unveiling.

They wrote: "In 1990, Michael Jackson opened the gates of his Neverland Valley Ranch to the public for the first time...Neverland's visitors entered the ranch at its train station, boarding a steam engine that took them up to the main house."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/michael-jackson-biographers-claim-neverland-14253571

Of course, anybody writing a book may have just used data and references of what Neverland looked like in its final days, and included the train station. Jackson truthers have pointed out that the two security guards did not allegedly work for Jackson during that time period, however, they would have done their own research, and they did have inside knowledge.

If we go back to the 1993 map the two security guards are probably describing the "electric train station" which is listed as number four. The electric train station is just a few metres away from the main gates of Neverland and the track is right next to it, and travels to within touching distance of the main house.

Exactly what the electric train station looked like between James's timeframe of abuse, is something I haven't been able to establish. It's extremely difficult to get a frame by frame picture of Neverland from the late 80s to the day it closed down. Do a Google search for the "electric train station", and you'll only get pictures of the main station built in late 93.

Google Earth, however, can from 2004 confirm the presence of a building, or at least the reminiscence of one where the electric train station is listed on a 1993 map. It's impossible to say whether there is an upstairs room from the aerial photos. Fast forward to a 2006 Google aerial image, and that building no longer appears to be present. In other words, it got demolished.


Fast forward again to a 2018 higher resolution aerial photo, and you can see there's nothing where the electric train station should be and some of roads that were present, have now been covered by soil. You can also just about make out to the left of the valet house, a very small building, once again, right next to the tracks. I wonder what that is?


If you have Google Earth installed on your PC you can visit the precise site by typing in: 34°44'20.82" N 120°05'33.71" W in the search box.

Despite the electric train station only being metres away from the main (or second) gates of Neverland, I cannot find any video or photographic footage. Even if we fast forward to 2003 when Neverland was raided by the Santa Barbara and LA police, the police filmed themselves approaching the gates, yet the footage stops abruptly. This "Michael Jackson Neverland Christmas" video shows dozens of children and adults boarding the 1990 train just inside the gates, but the camera is facing the wrong way.

Trying to find video or photographic footage, especially from James's timeframe will be difficult, if not borderline impossible.

Former Jackson Photographer Contradicts Mike Smallcombe

My initial theory that a two-storey train station existed before 1993 is looking more likely.

I came across a YouTube video that is interviewing Harrison Funk, a former photographer for Michael Jackson.

Around the 2:17 mark on the video, the interviewer asks questions about the rollercoaster that was never built at Neverland. He then says: "I don't think it was built because the council never allowed planning permission." Harrison Funk then confirms he thinks that was true.

He then goes on to say: "they gave him a really hard time about the train to, and I remember when they built the train station, I went up there to photograph the property, and umm, he wasn't there, and I was up there photographing the statues. He had animals placed on the lawn in front of the train station. I was up there for three days, just photographing statues, in situ and also the train station and I get a message to call him [Jackson] and he said, don't photograph the train station. I said why and he said, just don't photograph the train station. I said okay and then he calls me back and says I need to talk to you, but can't on this line because I don't know who's listening. And apparently he didn't want the train station photographed because he put it up without a permit, initially and was fighting with the county or whatever about it being there. Of course, they let it be there. I think you know whatever he had to do to make it stay, he made it stay. It was beautiful. It was an absolutely beautiful building. I think it's still there."

The interviewers then says yes, I think it's still there.

Watch the video here: https://youtu.be/JmMR59CoAyA?t=8160

This, after all, could explain the rapid bill time. There's no way you could go from September to mid December 93 and have a train station that was almost complete. That's just three months.

The station, may have existed a year earlier, and whatever planning permission was published by Smallcombe was simply the final approval by the council.

Though a stupid idea, it is quite common for people to build structures without planning permission. The council can, in some cases, tell you to smash it down, or tell you to make some small alterations before they approve the plans.

Here's a great story about a man who built a castle in his garden, without planning permission: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-36445848

Whatever the truth, this directly contradicts Mike Smallcombe who is adamant there was only ever one train station, as this tweet shows.


Jackson truthers do not like the fact that Harrison Funk has thrown a spanner in the works. The latest narrative is that there were multiple planning permits, and each one had to be passed individually. In other words, Jackson kept chopping and changing the plans, until he was satisfied.

Liz Taylor's 1991 Neverland Wedding Shows the Train Station Site Being Prepared

Aerial footage from Liz Taylor's wedding on October 6, 1991, at Neverland shows the train station site. Though the footage is of a poor quality, it does briefly show what appears to be preparation. You can clearly see that the ground has been flattened, and is of a different colour to the surrounding area. Though inconclusive, there also appears to be a small structure directly in front of the tree. Could this be the start of the central column of the train station?



Watch the video here: https://youtu.be/gbsq2VwnU2s?t=255

This could cooperate want Harrison Funk said, that Jackson had built a train station before the council approved the plans. If a structure existed 12 months later, whether or not it was fully completed, this is well within James's timeframe of abuse.

Conclusion on the train station

Evidence that one or more train station existed between 1990 and 1993 is 100% conclusive, but it's not conclusive whether one of those had an upstairs room.

The below photographs show the 1990 train in a enclosed building that appears to be a maintenance base, complete with a pit. It's not hard to imagine that building contained a small upstairs space. Perhaps, at the time this was referred to as the train station.


James doesn't go into any great detail about the train station, other than it had an upstairs room in the documentary. The editing team included aerial photos of the train station in question, as well as James's pictures, but that doesn't mean this is the station James is alleging Jackson abused him in.

Those who edit the film can only use what footage is available. Crime documentaries use footage to re-enact crimes, yet that footage will contain actors, studio footage and similar locations, rather than the actual crime scene.

This, in my opinion, is where people are barking up the wrong tree, especially Jackson truthers. We are so focused on that station, that we are forgetting that a train had been operational for years prior to that, and the track and any stations the 1990 train used would have been built months earlier.

Since no records have been produced, showing every single building that ever existed or got demolished at Neverland, it's entirely possible that a train station with an upstairs room did exist somewhere inside the grounds of Neverland. There's still a lot of mystery surrounding the floral clock, and the fact it's listed as the main train station on a 1993 map, before planning permission was even granted. It's entirely possible that a basic prefab two-storey structure, did exist on that site, and later got replaced.

There are so many buildings dotted around Neverland, and Google Earth even reveals that there are buildings right next to the track, that don't appear on any official Neverland map. Who's to say what building was or wasn't classed as a train station during that time period, especially when Neverland was undergoing constant changes.

Here's a prime example. The below picture is very loosely called the Neverland Castle. However, it's also called the Neverland treehouse or Castle treehouse. Do a search term for either and the same photographs come up.

There's no official train stop within the funfair section of Neverland, according to the 1993 map. The nearest is number 25, which serves the second, larger train. The smaller, 1990 train ran directly through the funfair, and right past the Castle/treehouse. Surely that train did stop within the funfair, possibly right outside that building.

James does identify this site as a place of abuse, just before mentioning the train station in Leaving Neverland. However, it's strange that this building is not listed on the 1993 map, proving that not every building had an official name, or chopped and changed through the years.

If we go back to Kenneth V. Lanning's Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis and inconsistencies in timeframes and locations made by genuine child sex abuse survivors, you could argue that James was molested in this castle, but because this building was only feet away from the train track, and did have a train stopping or going by that his memories from 25+ years lead him to believe he was molested in a castle and a train station, when in fact they may have been the same building.

There's no point questioning whether this building had an upstairs room, as you can clearly see it did.


Here's the same structure, at an earlier time period when it was surrounded by fairground rides.


According to Brad Sundberg, a engineer and technical director for nearly 18 years, this building was used by Jackson to hold meetings, and even contained equipment to run the nearby rides. He went on to say: "The castle in the amusement park was one of my favorite structures. It offered a large balcony to see all over the center of the ranch, plus a nice office where Michael often held meetings with us to discuss new ideas for attractions at the ranch. Hidden out of sight from the guests below the office was a large equipment room where we housed many of our amplifiers and power panels required to operate the rides."

http://inthestudiowithmj.com/project/the-castle/

In my opinion, I believe James is telling the truth and was molested in a building that was referred to as the train station at Neverland between 90 and 92. The confusion comes from the planning permission that was granted in September 93, but that doesn't mean a building next to the tracks with an upstairs room didn't exist somewhere within the grounds.

James, in due course, may very well clarify the train station issue. If he's made an honest mistake and misidentified the 93/94 train station as a place of abuse, then it's not a big deal. Inconsistencies are common, especially for those who have been abused over multiple years. Just as Kenneth V. Lanning said: "Allegations involving multiple acts, on multiple occasions over an extended period of time must be evaluated in their totality and context."

If you're confused by what Dan Reed has tweeted, you have to remember that he's been subjected to the propaganda and misinformation machine that is the Michael Jackson worshipper. He's made a couple of tweets that may be interpreted as him claiming James was molested when he was 15 or 16, but that's simply not true. He, just like any civilised person, is exploring all the options, and keeping an open mind.

2. Michael Jackson was on his Dangerous World Tour and lived in Trump Tower

Smallcombe:



Jackson's Dangerous World Tour ran from June 27, 1992, to November, the 11th, 93. I'm not really sure what Smallcombe is trying to imply here, presumably, that Jackson couldn't have molested James or any other boy as he wasn't at Neverland or any other location.

This appears to be a brain-dead argument, considering we know he developed a relationship with Jordan Chandler at Neverland (and other locations) in 92, and then was later accused in mid-93.

Jackson's been videoed and photographed countless times with young boys by his side, including James, touring the world, whether it was just attending an event, or a tour. After all, James was the "umbrella boy" for Jackson and Lisa Maria Presley.

Flight time from New York to LA can be done in only 5-9 hours, depending on the airline, so the idea that Jackson stayed predominantly at Trump Tower, and never returned home between February and December 94, is quite frankly laughable.

If Smallcombe believes James could have only been molested at the train station in 94 or 95, then that could support that James simply muddled up the dates, as genuine sex abuse victims do, and only remembered the sexual abuse between the ages of 10 and 14, where him and Jackson were virtually inseparable.

3. James Safechuck lied about refusing to testify for Jackson in 2005

Smallcombe:


MJfacts.com has a page debunking truthers myths.

https://www.mjfacts.com/ufaqs/james-couldnt-testify-at-the-2005-trial/

So, unsurprisingly, this is completely untrue, and James would have been allowed to testify on behalf of Jackson. Even if he wasn't allowed, this doesn't prove that Jackson never telephoned him and asked him to testify, and became angry when he refused.

What a lot of people don't know, is that Thomas Mesereau actually claimed that James Safechuck was married at Neverland to discredit a prosecution witness, as discovered by Desiree speaks...so listen in 2011.

This is a direct quote from her blog.

"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:

2 Q. Okay. Now, the prosecutor for the
3 government asked you some questions about other
4 young boys, as he put it, that Mr. Jackson knew
5 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 some
9 families rather than others, correct.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And the so-called “young boys” the
12 prosecutor referred to would come with their
13 families, correct.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In fact, Jimmy Safechuck was married at
16 Neverland, wasn’t he. Do you remember that.
17 A. I didn’t even know he was married. 
According to Fournier, her employment at Neverland, which spanned approximately twelve years, was 'on and off'. 
24 Q. Can you tell me the time frame that you
25 worked for Mr. Jackson.
26 A. I started in September of ‘91, and worked
27 off and on till September 28th, 2003.
28 Q. Okay. When you say -- yeah, you have to
1 speak directly into that microphone so we can hear
2 you.
3 A. Okay.
4 Q. When you say “off and on,” can you give me a
5 little more specific description of what that means.
6 A. Well, I worked a couple years, and then I
7 would take some time off. I had a child back in
8 1993 also, so -- and then I would take a couple of
9 years off, and then I would go back for a couple of
10 years.
11 Q. And you said you left ultimately in
12 September of 2003.
13 A. Yes. 
Court transcript: mjfacts.com/transcripts/Court_Transcript_3_17_2005.pdf 
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." 

Despite, claims that James Safechuck was a "nonentity", this is untrue as Jackson's lawyer claimed he got married, knowing very well that it couldn't be discredited there and then, in the courtroom. During Kiki Fournier time on the stand, James Safechuck's name is mentioned a grand total of six times.

If James really got married in his early 20s at Neverland, he would have been a valuable defence witness, considering he had spent countless nights behind closed doors with Jackson as a boy.

James has revealed, that Jackson performed a mock wedding on him as a child, both in his civil complaint and the Leaving Neverland documentary. This strongly suggests that Jackson told his lawyer that James was married at his Neverland home, but conveniently forgot to mention the marriage was to him, rather his current wife.

And remember, if James was "legally" married at Jackson's Neverland ranch, the Jackson estate lawyers would be all over it like a rash, and would have produced wedding documentation, as well as photos, by now. But they haven't.

4. Wade Robson couldn't have been molested at Neverland because he and his family were at the Grand Canyon


This is a prime example of Jackson truthers picking which bits they like and which bits they don't. They were more than happy to believe Joy Robson and Wade Robson back in 93, and 2005, but now they've changed their story, both of them are liars.

If we start from the beginning. Wade as a five-year-old boy was obsessed with Jackson and won a dance competition, which later led to him dancing on stage with his idol.

A couple years later, the Robson's went to the USA on a small road trip in their RV. Joy Robson hoping that Jackson still remembered his invitation that the family could visit him at his home if they ever came to the US, made many phone calls and eventually got through to Jackson's personal assistant, and eventually to Jackson, who invited them to his Neverland ranch for the weekend.

When the Robson's first arrived at Neverland, they were completely blown away by its beauty, and Wade's grandmother even made the comment that she thought she'd died and gone to heaven, in documentary.

When the Robson's were due to leave for the Grand Canyon in their RV, Wade, who had slept in Jackson's private quarters along with his sister alleges that Jackson started turning on the waterworks, and essentially begged him to stay. This, in itself, isn't an unrealistic claim from Wade, as Jackson did the same thing to June Chandler, when she became anxious about his one-on-one relationship with her son.

Joy had already previously met Jackson a couple years earlier in Australia when Wade won the dance competition, and would have been subjected Jackson's music and dancing for a couple years prior and after that through her son.

She may have only met Jackson, in his private domain for two days, but the chances that she had any negative feelings towards him would have been slim. If Wade wanted to stay behind with his idol, while she and the rest of the family visited the Grand Canyon for five days, would she have said no? Probably not.

After all, Joy makes it quite clear that she was determined to re-unite Wade with his pop idol. Why go to all the trouble of making those phone calls, only to drag your son away to a location that would have little, if any interest for a seven-year-old.

In 2005, Joy is questioned by the prosecution, and reveals some very interesting things.

13 Q. Okay. Now, you received another -- you

14 received actually a loan from Mr. Jackson for

15 $10,000 in 1992, correct?


16 A. Yes.


17 Q. You never paid that one back?


18 A. No.


19 Q. And did you receive another loan from Mr.

20 Jackson after the record contract was signed?

21 A. I don’t think so.

22 Q. Do you recall telling an investigator that

23 you had gotten a loan from Mr. Jackson for $10,000

24 and you tried to buy a car? Do you remember that?

25 A. He paid -- he paid for the balance of the

26 car.

27 Q. Mr. Jackson did?

28 A. Yes.


1 Q. That was $10,000?


2 A. Yes.


http://tinyurl.com/c7vt9ev

Joy Robson received $20,000 from Jackson, half of which was used to buy a car.

3 Q. Now, in December of 1993, after the
4 allegations with Jordan Chandler had surfaced, Mr.

5 Jackson came back to the United States, correct?

6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And on -- to your knowledge, on the very

8 first night he was back he called your son, correct?

9 A. He called me.
10 Q. He called you?

11 A. I think so. From memory.
12 Q. Do you remember testifying that you weren’t

13 at the house when the call was made, that you were

14 out with some ladies?
15 A. I do remember reading that, I’m sorry.

16 Q. So you weren’t there?

17 A. Possibly.

18 Q. You came home, and then both of you, late in

19 the night, drove to Neverland Valley Ranch, correct?
20 A. Correct.

21 Q. When you got to Neverland Valley Ranch, it
22 was about 1:30 in the morning, correct?

23 A. Correct.
24 Q. When you got there, you went to the guest

25 quarters and your son went to Mr. Jackson’s bedroom,

26 correct?


27 A. I don’t remember where I slept, but he did

28 go to Michael’s bedroom.

1 Q. But he went inside the house?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Where was your son going to school when

4 school started in September of 1993?

5 A. I think he was doing home schooling by then.


http://tinyurl.com/c7vt9ev

Even though this is a few years ahead of Wade, first meeting Jackson, its quite clear that Joy was prepared to do anything for him, even delivering her son at 1:30 AM in the morning to his bedroom.

You also have to factor in, that when Jackson was accused by Jordan Chandler, Wade and James both received visits by Jackson's lawyers where they and their families were put through their paces, and essentially told what they should and shouldn't say.

It was the same in 2005, where Wade, his sister and mother all stayed at Neverland, and would have been coached by Thomas Mesereau, as well as Jackson.

Joy Robson, herself, made some strange and heartbreaking decisions. She moved herself, her daughter and Wade to the USA, while leaving behind her eldest son, husband and parents in Australia. Joy was determined to start a new and successful life in America, and Jackson played a big part in that.

If she stated that she took the entire family, including Wade to the Grand Canyon, it's highly likely that she would have been encouraged to say this, not just the cover Jackson's back, but her own dubious parenting skills.

Joy, up until quite recently, had no reason to believe that Jackson was a child molester who molested her son over a seven-year period. Joy, was even the one who told Wade if Jackson did nothing bad to you, it's your moral duty to defend him in 2005.

Joy was clearly very fond of Jackson and was in awe of him for a long time, even though she witnessed Wade being replaced by younger boys.

But, did Joy even say she took Wade to the Grand Canyon?

This is a cropped screenshot that Mike Smallcombe posted on his own Twitter feed. There's no link to the original, so I can't tell which bits he's left out.

It mentions, her "whole family" but this could be easily interpreted as her, her husband, her daughter and parents. At the bottom of the cropped screenshot it says "Never. My son has never been to the ranch without me this year." So, all that means is that Joy always personally took Wade to Neverland, but doesn't specify whether she would then leave him unattended with Jackson, or Neverland staff that year.

If the Robson's were touring the USA (or a small part of it), why did they stay at Neverland for just two days, and then go to the Grand Canyon, only to return again on the weekend? Would Joy have really denied her son the chance to spend a whole week with his idol at a place that was specifically built for children, or did she only return to pick him back up?

The fact that they did return, also strongly indicates that Jackson was continuously there for nine or more days. So, there can't be any excuses that Jackson wasn't there, or out of the country, as the truthers like to claim.

Wade Said He Stayed about a Week in the 2005 Trial Transcripts

In the 2005 trial molestation transcripts Wade confirms he first visited Neverland with his family in 1989, and stayed roughly for one week, not two weekends. There is absolutely no mention of the Grand Canyon.

20 Q. Did you spend much time at Neverland?
21 A. Yeah. Spent a lot of time, yeah.
22 Q. When do you think you first went to
23 Neverland?
24 A. It was right after that visit. I’m pretty
25 sure it was that night that we went, my whole family 
26 went to the ranch. And, you know, we stayed for, I
27 don’t know, about a week or something like that.
28 Q. And approximately what year do you think you 9094

1 first went to Neverland, Mr. Robson?
2 A. That was 1989. 
3 Q. Okay. And who did you go to Neverland with 4 the first time? 
5 A. Went with my mother, my sister, my father, 
6 and my grandfather, grandmother. 
7 Q. And how long did you stay during that first 
8 visit?
9 A. I think it was about a week. 
10 Q. And after you spent a week at Neverland, 
11 what did you do?
12 A. Went back to Australia.

https://www.mjfacts.com/transcripts/Court_Transcript_5_05_2005.pdf

Of course, all of this is a moot point by Mike Smallcombe because the entire point of Leaving Neverland is to explain why Wade defended his abuser, how he was groomed and seduced into a sexual relationship and why he falsely denied it from a seven-year-old up until his early 30s. Wade nor his family are not denying that they falsely defended Jackson in the past, even under oath.

Whatever his mother said in the past was based on the belief that Wade was just sharing a bedroom and bed with Jackson, and absolutely nothing untoward was going on. This is something that Jackson truthers can't seem to grasp.

Conclusion

Mike Smallcombe is behaving like he has scored the winning goal in the Champions League final, and doesn't appear to be a "journalist" interested in acknowledging that dates and locations can often be mixed up by sex abuse victims, or that whatever the Robson's said in the past, may not have been the truth. Instead, he's been actively retweeting tabloid stories that Dan Reed "admitted" that he got it wrong, even though this is far from the truth. He's even retweeted, Piers Morgan, which reeks of desperation.


In fact, Smallcombe seems rather peeved that no reputable new sources are covering his story. He sent the following tweet to the Guardian: "The fabrications in the documentary have now been reported globally. Any chance of you reporting on this and balancing some of that rather partisan coverage of yours, @guardian? Get in touch, it's not too late."


Smallcombe did an ever so brief interview on 7 April on an Australian breakfast show (sunriseon7), where he appears to come across as being impartial and even sympathetic towards the complexity of sex abuse, by claiming he cannot be certain that Wade and James are lying about the whole story, even though he has his doubts.

However, Smallcombe is making no attempt to tone down his claims, nor does he appear to be interested in offering a more balanced and full picture.

He claims he's not making any money from his findings or his 2016 book, yet he's attracted thousands of new followers on Twitter, and appears more than happy that these hate filled individuals are spamming the hell out of anybody who speaks positively of Leaving Neverland and Wade and James, with his findings.



We all know that Leaving Neverland has been under the firing cosh by Jackson loonies ever since it was announced. Everything possible was done to try and prevent its release, including intimidation and legal action by the family. HBO, Channel 4, and pretty much anybody who's supported the documentary and its subjects, Wade Robson and James Safechuck have been attacked.

Sadly, Smallcombe appears to be just another Jacko loony, whose trying his best to muddy the waters, while conveniently ignoring that Jackson spent hundreds (if not thousands) of nights in bed with young boys, displayed all the characteristics of a textbook acquaintance child molester, and openly lied to millions of people when questioned about distinctive markings on his penis, and owning naked boy books recommended by NAMBLA in 1995.

If Smallcombe isn't a Jacko loony, perhaps he would like to explain why he venomously wants to defend a man who slept with unrelated boys, and still did it after being accused of molesting them.

Any civilised human being can see that Jackson's behaviour was extremely questionable, and something that wouldn't be supported if it was the average guy down the street. This whole thing, especially the train station, is a prime example that Jackson worshippers are some of the nastiest and most disgusting human beings on this planet. They'd rather find holes in James and Wade's allegations, than admit that Jackson was a deeply flawed man.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please ensure that all comments are civilised and on topic. Comments that are pure misinformation or victim shame Michael Jackson's accusers will be removed.