,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I see haters are trying to twist the argument about Safechuck not being called to testify in 2005. Basically they use a strawman by misrepresenting what fans actually say, claiming that our argument is that James COULD not testify. No, that's not the argument.
The argument is that the defense and MJ did not need him to testify and had no plans to call him to testify, let alone kept bugging him to testify, like he claims.
This argument that they could have used him as a character witness is lame. They could have but they did not plan to as Scott Ross confirmed.
They solely focused on putting those boys on the stand whom the prosecution named as alleged victims and claimed someone witnessed something about them. Safechuck wasn't among those, so the defense didn't intend to call him.
They claim that the fact Safechuck doesn't appear on pretrial witness lists somehow adds to the credibility of James's story, which is a bizarre claim. It actually adds to the credibility of Scott Ross's story that they had no plans to call Safechuck as a witness.
Safechuck does not appear on a 2004 list by the defense that listed people whom they intended to call to testify. How does this add to the credibility of Safechuck's story is a mystery to me. It does the contrary.
It shows that there was no intention to call him on the defense's part.
And MJ keep bugging Safechuck to testify for him at the end of the trial doesn't make any sense just the same as it wouldn't make sense if it had been Evvy or the lawyers.
Just like it doesn't make any sense for MJ to threaten him to get him for perjury for his 1993 testimony where he said MJ never molested him.
It esp. does not make sense if you claim MJ molested him. Why then would he insist on putting him on the stand? How does it make any sense to force someone on the stand who you supposedly molested and that while he is so reluctant? And while you don't even need his testimony?
