Scott Ross Claims That James Safechuck Was a Nonentity Have Been Debunked

Ever since Dan Reed's Leaving Neverland was released back in March, Jackson truthers have been putting in more overtime than Vladimir Putin's misinformation troll factory.

After James Safechuck states in the documentary that Jackson telephoned him and asked him to testify on his behalf, only to refuse, which led to Jackson becoming angry, this was quickly questioned and allegedly debunked by a guy named Scott Ross.

Who is Scott Ross? According to Wikipedia he's a private investigator who worked for Thomas Mesereau and the defence in 2005, as well as other cases, including Bill Cosby. Scott on 3 March 2019, gave an interview on a YouTube channel called Nicole's View. The channel is run by a woman of a mature age from Austin, Texas, who, unsurprisingly, displays chronic misconceptions about sexual abuse, and proudly displays a framed photograph of Jackson in the background.

At around the 16 minute mark of the 2 hour and 10 minute video, Nicole asks Scott Ross to explain James Safechuck. Ross goes on to say: "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."

He then goes on to say that it's ridiculous that Michael Jackson's personal assistant, Evvy Tavasci, was calling James Safechuck repeatedly and begging him to testify, and the pure stupidity of James's comment when it's not up to Jackson's personal assistant to decide who gets to testify, and so on.

Here's Where Things Get Ridiculous

First and foremost, why is Scott Ross under the impression that Jackson absolutely wouldn't have reached out to James after he had been accused by Gavin Arvizo? I mean, come on, was Jackson a robot waiting for commands by his legal team? Is there some kind of bizarre and unique law within the Michael Jackson universe that prevented him from contacting anybody, including former boys? Christ almighty, this is a man who spent most of his adult life enticing unrelated little boys into his private quarters and bed, and refused to stop when things went sour.

Scott Ross uses strong and clear words when describing James Safechuck as a nonentity. He claims no evidence one way or the other was going to be brought in, and for purposes of the trial Safechuck did not exist. Plain and simple.

This is from a man who worked directly for Thomas Mesereau, and should know all the ins and outs of the 2005 trial. The truth is, James Safechuck wasn't a nonentity. His name was directly used in the trial to discredit a prosecution witness, former housekeeper, Kiki Fournier.

Thomas Mesereau doesn't just vaguely mentioned James Safechuck's name, but claims that James referred to as Jimmy at the time, got married at Jackson's Neverland ranch, creating the impression that he, Jackson and his entire family were one big happy family.

I counted James Safechuck's name being brought into the trial a grand total of 6 times.

Here's each individual Trial Transcript:

Number 1.

12 Q. Do you know an individual by the name of
13 Jimmy Safechuck.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Was he one of them.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. How about Jordie Chandler.
18 A. Yes.

Number 2.

27 Q. Can you tell me -- during the time that Mr.
28 Jackson had this special relationship with Mr. Jimmy 2540
1 Safechuck, can you tell me about what Jimmy
2 Safechuck’s age was.

Number 3.

17 Q. Jimmy Safechuck. Do you know or do you
18 believe you could characterize -- first of all, let
19 me -- do you know what his age was during the period
20 of time that he was a close friend of Mr. Jackson.
21 A. No.
22 Q. Could you characterize -- approximate his
23 age based upon his appearance.
24 A. Ten to 13, 14 years old.

Number 4.

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.
18 Q. Okay. McCaulay Culkin’s family would come,
19 right.
20 A. Yes.

Number 5. 

24 A. I remember Gavin always having his mom.
25 Q. Okay. How about the Los Olivos boys that
26 you’ve talked about.
27 A. They would be there without their parents.
28 Q. Jimmy Safechuck. 2639
1 A. I think he did come a couple times without
2 his parents.

Read the full transcript here:

James (Jimmy) Safechuck is actively being discussed in the trial, along with other boys such as Wade Robson, McCaulay Culkin and Jordan Chandler. Scott Ross is blatantly lying when he claims James is a nonentity, and evidence and no discussion of James was permitted. It's there in black and white. James was being discussed. It's a fact.

I'm no expert on how trials work, and know a lot more than I do. In their article titled: "Wade and James Fan Myths – Busted" they give a detailed view on whether James would have been allowed to testify or not. Unsurprisingly, it's pretty conclusive that James would have been allowed to testify for the defence about other matters, such as Jackson's overall character and to rebut evidence about alleged abuse of boys that James had contact with at the time.

Of course, all this is nothing more than a dirty tactic to create doubt and confusion by Scott Ross and Jackson truthers in general, as any ruling that James could or couldn't testify has no bearing on whether Jackson had telephoned James and begged him to testify.

For the record, James Safechuck was never married at Neverland. James was married for the first and only time in 2008 to his current wife. Exactly why Thomas Mesereau was under the impression, is unknown and something he refuses to expand on. James has revealed that Jackson performed a mock wedding on him as a child. It's entirely possible that Jackson so deeply engrossed in his own paedophilia told his lawyer that James got married at Neverland, yet left out the detail it was to him.


  1. He's a liar who also said that "an insurance company paid Jordy Chandler" if I remember correctly..

  2. You are a complete knobhead. A keyboard warrior who has the audacity to think he knows more then a veteran private investigator. He was THERE throughout the trials, were you?

    1. Veteran private investigator? Yeah, that makes him reliable does it? Why did he say that the JC settlement was made by an insurance company, without Jackson's approval? That's ridiculous and stupid, especially when Jackson's signature is on the cheque.

  3. If you look at the defense witness list, you will see that none of the Safechucks are mentioned as potential witnesses..So yeah, the defense had no plans at all of calling James or his family as witnesses..This pretty much proves that James is a liar..Plain and simple.

    1. That's not true. James is listed within the legal documents as a potential victim of Jackson. If James nor his family wanted to cooperate at the time, that was their choice.

      Number 14 on the list:


This blog is about investigating Michael Jackson's questionable behaviour, and recognising the complexity of child sex abuse. You'll gain nothing from this blog if you're a Michael Jackson stan, who sees nothing wrong with a grown man having one-on-one sleepovers with unrelated children.

Therefore, ensure that all comments are civilised and on-topic. Misinformation or abuse directed at Michael Jackson's survivors will not be tolerated.