MJJ Fan4321
Proud Member
Again, attributed to Daniel Hernandez ‏@Myster_D
I just had an interesting thought about the situation with Wade Robson. Now on May 15th, TMZ reported that Wade Robson filed a civil lawsuit in which he is suing DOE 1, an individual, DOE 2, a California corporation, DOE 3, a California corporation, and DOES 4-50, inclusive (which, according to what I’ve read, is the legal term for defendants who have not yet been identified by the plaintiff). Here is a link to the article: http://www.tmz.com/2013/05/15/wade-...to-prove-molestation/?adid=cr_featured_saga_1. The article features a picture of the face page of the complaint which shows that it was filed on May 10th, three days after TMZ first broke the news of the allegations and that Wade had filed a creditor’s claim against the Michael Jackson Estate on May 1st. According to the article, the identities of DOE 1, DOE 2 and DOE 3 are as follows; the executors of the Michael Jackson Estate (John Branca and John McClain), MJJ Productions (Michael's record label which hired Wade when he was 11), and MJJ Ventures (which produced Michael's music videos). The identities of DOES 4-50, however, still remain unknown. According to the artice, Wade is suing the aforementioned parties on the grounds that they are liable for the alleged sexual abuse he says he suffered at the hands of Michael Jackson. For example, the article states that the two corporations (MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures) may have been responsible for bringing Mr. Robson to the United States from Australia and therefore it is more than likely that Mr. Robson will argue that they were responsible for protecting him.
The next part has some parts from the original post
' At this point, I feel it is important to discuss Wade Robson’s recent interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show. In this interview, Mr. Robson alleged that Michael Jackson had sexually abused him for seven years starting from the ages of seven to fourteen. Being that Wade Robson was born on September 17, 1982, the time span of this alleged abuse would have been from 1989 to 1996. Mr. Robson also said that the memories of this alleged abuse were not repressed and that he had always remembered it, despite earlier reports saying otherwise. He also claimed to have suffered two nervous breakdowns during the first 18 months of his son’s life. Being that his son was born in November 2010, the time span of these alleged breakdowns would have to have been anywhere from late 2010 to early 2012. However it is within this time span that Mr. Robson continued to speak positively about Michael Jackson, such as in the interview seen in the following link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mWtvYzsbtjc. He also spoke positively about Michael Jackson in an interview (dated July 13, 2012) months after the allotted time span of his alleged breakdowns. The interview can be seen in the following link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vWazdCJxTFI
On the Today Show interview, he claims that his reasons for coming forward with his allegations were not motivated by money (and that he would not put his family under such an ordeal just for the sake of money), despite the fact that he filed both a creditors claim and the civil lawsuit mentioned above, but rather to speak his truth and to heal. Now, if we are to believe that Mr. Robson is being completely honest thus far, then shouldn’t his motives for filing a civil lawsuit in addition to his creditor’s claim likewise be honest? If this is truly his way of healing and making those responsible for his protection answer for their failure to keep him safe, then logic would dictate that he should also be taking action against his mother, Joy Robson. Thus far, however, this does not appear to be the case.
While Joy Robson has yet to publicly address her son’s allegations, Chantal Robson is now supporting her brother’s claims (via Facebook and Twitter) despite the fact that she, like her brother and mother, testified in Michael’s defense. Now it is important to note that Joy and Chantal also became friends with Michael Jackson and, like Wade, remained friends for years up until his death in 2009. Like Wade, they also came to his defense during the child molestation scandals. For instance, on page 155 of Jermaine Jackson’s book “You Are Not Alone”, he describes how Joy was approached by a journalist by the name of Victor Gutierrez (who has a history of slandering Michael Jackson) in 1992. Gutierrez explained that he was investigating Michael Jackson for being a pedophile and after taking his card, Joy immediately called Michael’s office. On page 159 of Jermaine’s book, he also mentions that Joy was approached by the National Enquirer and offered a six figure sum to say that her son was molested by Michael. She refused to accept the offer. In addition to that, Joy defended Michael in a deposition conducted in 1993 during the first investigation. In a CNN interview from 1993 (which can be seen in the following link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLT3gncZW2k), Joy and Chantal, as well as Wade, staunchly defend Michael and deny any wrongdoing on his part. Chantal even goes so far as to say that she slept in the same bed as Michael and that she knew he wouldn’t do anything to hurt her brother. Joy, likewise, states that she had been in Michael’s bedroom with the children and that she saw nothing inappropriate happen. When asked if it seemed unusual for a 34 year old man to have children sleeping over, she stated that it would under normal circumstances, but not so in Michael’s case when taking his background into consideration. Chantal and Joy again defended Michael during the 2005 trial and, like Wade, testified in his defense. Transcripts of their testimonies can be found in the following links; http://michaeljacksonvindication2.w...hantal-robsons-testimony-from-the-2005-trial/, http://michaeljacksonvindication2.w...of-joy-robsons-testimony-from-the-2005-trial/.
In her testimony during the 2005 trial, Chantal Robson stated that she stayed in Michael Jackson’s room along with her brother on more than one occasion and that she had never seen anything improper occur. When directly asked if she had ever seen Michael Jackson abuse her brother in any way or if she suspected that any abuse had occurred, she answered no to both questions. She also stated that her parents were aware that she and her brother stayed with Michael in his room and that they had no reservations about it. She also testified that she had never been restricted from entering Michael’s room and when asked if she felt that Michael Jackson had an ulterior motive for helping her family relocate to the United States, her answer was no. When asked if she felt it was inappropriate for a child to sleep in the same bed as an unrelated adult, she said that it was appropriate as long the person was a friend. She was also asked that were she to have a 7 year old boy, would she then allow him to sleep in the same bed as a 35 year old man. She answered that she would so long as she trusted the person. When asked about what would happen during the times that Wade would be alone with Michael, she stated that although she was not personally there, she knew nothing inappropriate had happened based on what her brother, and others, told her. She was then asked if there would be a great deal of guilt associated with family or parents that allowed their child to associate with an adult who had molested them. Her answer was that there would be anger rather than guilt, and that they would do whatever they could to not have that person around. When asked if that would be something they’d want to avoid doing, her answer was no and that it would be something they would want to deal with. When asked if she believed that her brother had a good friendship with Michael Jackson, she answered yes, and when asked if she saw a problem with that, she answered no. When asked if her brother and Michael Jackson had a special bond, her answer was that their bond was like that of any other friend. When asked if she and her mother had a special bond with Michael Jackson, she answered yes because they were friends and were there for each other. She was then asked whether or not she was comfortable with the fact that children slept in Michael Jackson’s room to which she answered yes because she trusted him. When asked to explain why, she said it was because of a feeling she had and that he was a friend and that he never made her feel like she shouldn’t trust him. When directly asked if she had ever thought her brother was a victim of child molestation, she said that she did not. When asked to explain why, she said that had something happened to her brother, he would have told her. When directly asked if she had ever thought that Michael had molested her brother, her answer was no. When asked if she felt guilty about anything involving her relationship with Michael Jackson, her answer was no because she had no reason to. During the trial, the prosecution alleged that Wade had been molested by Michael after hearing testimony from Blanca Francia, a former maid at Neverland (who was fired for theft and tardiness in 1991 and sold false stories about Michael to the media) who alleged that she had seen inappropriate behavior between Wade and Michael. In her testimony, Chantal states that she had discussed these allegations with her brother and that he had said they were not true. She was again asked if she felt that Michael Jackson would ever harm a child and again she said no. When asked again why she trusted Michael Jackson she said it was because he had been her friend for years, he had never turned his back on her family and vice versa, and that she and her family loved him.
In her testimony during the 2005 trial, Joy Robson acknowledged that she and her children were frequent guests at Neverland. She acknowledged having been in Michael’s room and that she had given her children permission to stay in Michael’s room and had no objections to it. When asked if she had ever seen anything inappropriate occur between Michael and her son during a trip to Las Vegas or at Neverland, she said she never saw any such thing. She also said she had no problems with the relationship between her children and Michael. She also refuted Blanca Francia’s claim that she had seen Wade and Michael showering together and stated that she never saw anything like that happen. She again acknowledged the fact that her children would be alone with Michael and that she didn’t have a problem with it. She also acknowledged that promoting her son’s career was not the basis of her friendship with Michael as the prosecution suggested. She also acknowledged that she was aware of the fact that Michael Jackson had been investigated for child molestation in 1993 in response to Jordan Chandler’s allegations. When asked if she had any concerns that Michael Jackson might manipulate her son, she said she had none because she knew him. When asked why she trusted Michael, she explained that she had known him for a long time, had spent hours talking to him about everything, and felt like he was a member of her own family. She also said that she knew him very well and that she trusted him, and that she trusted him with her children. She explained that Michael was a very special person with a unique personality who had a very pure love for children, and that to know him is to love him and to trust him. She also explained that one of the reasons why she let her son spend time with Michael was because her son wanted to work in the entertainment industry and that Michael would be the best person to teach him valuable information on the matter. She maintains, however, that they were friends first and foremost. She also explains that another reason why she let her son spend time with Michael was because they enjoyed spending time together and that they had similar traits. When asked if she ever lost her trust in Michael during any point that her son was with him, her answer was no. When asked if Michael ever did anything that made her suspicious about his behavior towards her son, her answer was no. When asked if Michael ever did anything that made her suspicious about his behavior towards her daughter, again her answer was no. When asked if she felt that there was something unusual or criminal about his relationships with other children, her answer was no. When asked why she allowed her son to spend evenings with Michael, she explained that during those occasions, they’d be awake for hours having fun until they eventually fell asleep. She even said that she also did that with Michael on more than one occasion. When asked if she was ever concerned that Michael was manipulating her or her children, her answer was no. She also said that she was able to freely walk in and out of Michael’s bedroom and that she had never been restricted from going in there. When asked if she felt that Michael had an ulterior motive for wanting to help her family, her answer was no. When asked if she owed Michael anything, her answer was no. Overall, her testimony is very similar to Chantal’s. In addition, after Michael was acquitted on all counts, Joy said the following in an article (which can be found here; http://www.theage.com.au/news/Peopl...-defence-case/2005/06/14/1118645780742.html); “We just feel so vindicated right across the board. We were crying and screaming and crying and screaming.” “We all believed ultimately the truth would come out.” “I’ve never questioned Michael, that's the bottom line. I've never ever had a second of a concern” "I've always said to Michael `I wished the world could know the Michael we do'.” "He's not what the media makes him out to be”.
In conclusion, both Chantal and Joy Robson made it abundantly clear that they trusted Michael Jackson completely and that throughout the course of their friendship they never saw or suspected anything that would suggest he violated that trust as Wade is now alleging. With his allegations, not only has Wade completely contradicted his previous statements and testimony (before and after Michael’s death), but Joy’s and Chantal’s as well. Were they to recant their previous testimonies and now start claiming that they had noticed something, not only would they have perjured themselves (destroying their credibility, like Wade has, despite the fact that the statute of limitations has run out), they'd be guilty of obstructing justice. Therefore, I find it unlikely that they would put themselves in that postion. How then does one explain the huge discrepancy between what they have previously said with what Wade is now alleging? If Wade is to be believed, why did Joy and Chantal continuously deny that Michael had ever harmed Wade, and denied having ever suspected him of doing so, if they weren’t completely certain that nothing had happened? If Wade is to be believed, how did Joy or Chantal not notice any signs of abuse from Wade considering the fact that he was living with them during the seven year time span of the alleged abuse? If Wade is to be believed, why would his mother allow him to spend time with Michael even after he was accused of and investigated for child molestation in 1993 if she thought for one second that he might be guilty or even capable of such a thing. In my opinion, any responsible parent in that situation would take a step back and reevaluate the nature of the relationship between that person and their child and would not allow him/her to continue associating with that person unless they were completely sure of their innocence. Are we to believe then that Michael brainwashed and/or manipulated Joy and Chantal, something which they denied, in the same way that Wade alleges he had been? If Wade is telling the truth, then in my opinion, there are only two possible scenarios that would explain Joy and Chantal’s continuous support and approval of Michael and his relationship with Wade. The first scenario would be that Michael somehow managed to conceal his alleged abuse of Wade from everyone (including several parties such as the FBI who investigated him for years, including most of the seven years that Wade alleged he was abused), including his mother and sister despite their close proximity and relationship to both parties. If that were the case, Joy is culpable for Wade’s alleged abuse since she allowed him to be alone with Michael and did not look out for any signs of abuse. For her to have done that even after Michael was accused of and investigated for child molestation in 1993 would show her to be an unfit parent if Wade is to be believed. Wade was also a minor at the time and she was therefore responsible for his well being. If Wade is telling the truth, then she obviously failed in that regard. The second scenario would be that Joy and Chantal were either threatened or given incentives to say the things they did depending on whether or not they knew of or suspected any abuse. Assuming that they were unaware of any alleged abuse, they may have simply been given incentives to publicly defend him and deny any wrongdoing on his part and/or allow him to spend time alone with Wade (which they denied). If that were the case, then in my opinion, any reasonable person, let alone a parent, would question the motivation behind such an action. Now assuming that they knew or suspected that Wade was being abused, they were either threatened or given incentives to keep quiet about it and deny that anything happened (which they denied). If that were the case, then, as previously mentioned, they'd be guilty of obstruction of justice (thus invalidating Chantal’s public support of her brother). In any event, Joy, as previously mentioned, would be culpable for Wade’s alleged abuse considering that he, as previously mentioned, was a minor at the time and that as his mother; she was responsible for his well being. Chantal, on the other hand, regardless of the fact that she was also a minor during these alleged events, would have been morally responsible. Therefore, if Wade is to be believed, that would mean that they completely failed to live up to those responsibilities (it is unclear then if Chantal took this into consideration when she decided to support her brother's allegations). If neither scenario is true, however, it would then be safe to assume that Joy and Chantal’s previous statements and testimony were truthful, and that Wade’s allegations are false.
Since it has been established that Joy Robson had a duty to look after her son (and that Chantal Robson had a moral obligation to look after her brother), and that if Wade’s allegations are true, she failed in that duty, I feel it is important to readdress the civil lawsuit that Wade filed on the 10th of May. As previously stated, according to TMZ, Wade filed this lawsuit against the executors of Michael Jackson’s estate, MJJ Productions, MJJ Ventures, and 47 other unnamed defendants. According to TMZ, Wade filed this lawsuit against the aforementioned parties on the grounds that they were responsible for protecting him and should therefore answer for the alleged sexual abuse he says he suffered at the hands of Michael Jackson. Now my question is this; if Wade is telling the truth about his alleged abuse and is now out to make the parties that were responsible for his protection answer for their failure to keep him safe, and not to collect money, then why does he not appear to have taken any action against his mother considering that she was more responsible for his safety than any of the other parties being sued? After all, if Wade is to be believed, that would mean that Joy’s continuous approval, trust, and defense of Michael Jackson and his relationship with her son (even after Michael was accused of and investigated for child molestation) helped make it possible for any alleged abuse to occur thus showing her to be an unfit parent and thus making her culpable, if not liable (considering that Wade is now an adult), for Wade's alleged abuse. My other question in this case would be that if Wade's mother can't be held legally accountable for his alleged abuse, why can parties like MJJ Ventures and MJJ Productions be held responsible considering that it was through Wade's decision (with his mother's approval and acceptance) to personally associate with Michael outside of the confines of his business relationship with the pre-mentioned parties that he was allowed to be made vulnerable to any alleged abuse by him? Now, as previously stated, if Wade truly wants to make those who were responsible for protecting him answer for their alleged failure to do so, would it not make sense for him to take at least some kind of action against his mother? I can only speculate at this point, but could it be that perhaps there is more money to be had for Wade by suing these other parties rather than his mother? In my opinion, if Wade is being completely truthful about not making his accusations for money, then the fact that he's willing to play the blame game and point the finger at these other parties and yet not place blame where blame is due in regards to his mother tells me just the opposite. What do you think? '
I just had an interesting thought about the situation with Wade Robson. Now on May 15th, TMZ reported that Wade Robson filed a civil lawsuit in which he is suing DOE 1, an individual, DOE 2, a California corporation, DOE 3, a California corporation, and DOES 4-50, inclusive (which, according to what I’ve read, is the legal term for defendants who have not yet been identified by the plaintiff). Here is a link to the article: http://www.tmz.com/2013/05/15/wade-...to-prove-molestation/?adid=cr_featured_saga_1. The article features a picture of the face page of the complaint which shows that it was filed on May 10th, three days after TMZ first broke the news of the allegations and that Wade had filed a creditor’s claim against the Michael Jackson Estate on May 1st. According to the article, the identities of DOE 1, DOE 2 and DOE 3 are as follows; the executors of the Michael Jackson Estate (John Branca and John McClain), MJJ Productions (Michael's record label which hired Wade when he was 11), and MJJ Ventures (which produced Michael's music videos). The identities of DOES 4-50, however, still remain unknown. According to the artice, Wade is suing the aforementioned parties on the grounds that they are liable for the alleged sexual abuse he says he suffered at the hands of Michael Jackson. For example, the article states that the two corporations (MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures) may have been responsible for bringing Mr. Robson to the United States from Australia and therefore it is more than likely that Mr. Robson will argue that they were responsible for protecting him.
The next part has some parts from the original post
' At this point, I feel it is important to discuss Wade Robson’s recent interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show. In this interview, Mr. Robson alleged that Michael Jackson had sexually abused him for seven years starting from the ages of seven to fourteen. Being that Wade Robson was born on September 17, 1982, the time span of this alleged abuse would have been from 1989 to 1996. Mr. Robson also said that the memories of this alleged abuse were not repressed and that he had always remembered it, despite earlier reports saying otherwise. He also claimed to have suffered two nervous breakdowns during the first 18 months of his son’s life. Being that his son was born in November 2010, the time span of these alleged breakdowns would have to have been anywhere from late 2010 to early 2012. However it is within this time span that Mr. Robson continued to speak positively about Michael Jackson, such as in the interview seen in the following link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mWtvYzsbtjc. He also spoke positively about Michael Jackson in an interview (dated July 13, 2012) months after the allotted time span of his alleged breakdowns. The interview can be seen in the following link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vWazdCJxTFI
On the Today Show interview, he claims that his reasons for coming forward with his allegations were not motivated by money (and that he would not put his family under such an ordeal just for the sake of money), despite the fact that he filed both a creditors claim and the civil lawsuit mentioned above, but rather to speak his truth and to heal. Now, if we are to believe that Mr. Robson is being completely honest thus far, then shouldn’t his motives for filing a civil lawsuit in addition to his creditor’s claim likewise be honest? If this is truly his way of healing and making those responsible for his protection answer for their failure to keep him safe, then logic would dictate that he should also be taking action against his mother, Joy Robson. Thus far, however, this does not appear to be the case.
While Joy Robson has yet to publicly address her son’s allegations, Chantal Robson is now supporting her brother’s claims (via Facebook and Twitter) despite the fact that she, like her brother and mother, testified in Michael’s defense. Now it is important to note that Joy and Chantal also became friends with Michael Jackson and, like Wade, remained friends for years up until his death in 2009. Like Wade, they also came to his defense during the child molestation scandals. For instance, on page 155 of Jermaine Jackson’s book “You Are Not Alone”, he describes how Joy was approached by a journalist by the name of Victor Gutierrez (who has a history of slandering Michael Jackson) in 1992. Gutierrez explained that he was investigating Michael Jackson for being a pedophile and after taking his card, Joy immediately called Michael’s office. On page 159 of Jermaine’s book, he also mentions that Joy was approached by the National Enquirer and offered a six figure sum to say that her son was molested by Michael. She refused to accept the offer. In addition to that, Joy defended Michael in a deposition conducted in 1993 during the first investigation. In a CNN interview from 1993 (which can be seen in the following link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLT3gncZW2k), Joy and Chantal, as well as Wade, staunchly defend Michael and deny any wrongdoing on his part. Chantal even goes so far as to say that she slept in the same bed as Michael and that she knew he wouldn’t do anything to hurt her brother. Joy, likewise, states that she had been in Michael’s bedroom with the children and that she saw nothing inappropriate happen. When asked if it seemed unusual for a 34 year old man to have children sleeping over, she stated that it would under normal circumstances, but not so in Michael’s case when taking his background into consideration. Chantal and Joy again defended Michael during the 2005 trial and, like Wade, testified in his defense. Transcripts of their testimonies can be found in the following links; http://michaeljacksonvindication2.w...hantal-robsons-testimony-from-the-2005-trial/, http://michaeljacksonvindication2.w...of-joy-robsons-testimony-from-the-2005-trial/.
In her testimony during the 2005 trial, Chantal Robson stated that she stayed in Michael Jackson’s room along with her brother on more than one occasion and that she had never seen anything improper occur. When directly asked if she had ever seen Michael Jackson abuse her brother in any way or if she suspected that any abuse had occurred, she answered no to both questions. She also stated that her parents were aware that she and her brother stayed with Michael in his room and that they had no reservations about it. She also testified that she had never been restricted from entering Michael’s room and when asked if she felt that Michael Jackson had an ulterior motive for helping her family relocate to the United States, her answer was no. When asked if she felt it was inappropriate for a child to sleep in the same bed as an unrelated adult, she said that it was appropriate as long the person was a friend. She was also asked that were she to have a 7 year old boy, would she then allow him to sleep in the same bed as a 35 year old man. She answered that she would so long as she trusted the person. When asked about what would happen during the times that Wade would be alone with Michael, she stated that although she was not personally there, she knew nothing inappropriate had happened based on what her brother, and others, told her. She was then asked if there would be a great deal of guilt associated with family or parents that allowed their child to associate with an adult who had molested them. Her answer was that there would be anger rather than guilt, and that they would do whatever they could to not have that person around. When asked if that would be something they’d want to avoid doing, her answer was no and that it would be something they would want to deal with. When asked if she believed that her brother had a good friendship with Michael Jackson, she answered yes, and when asked if she saw a problem with that, she answered no. When asked if her brother and Michael Jackson had a special bond, her answer was that their bond was like that of any other friend. When asked if she and her mother had a special bond with Michael Jackson, she answered yes because they were friends and were there for each other. She was then asked whether or not she was comfortable with the fact that children slept in Michael Jackson’s room to which she answered yes because she trusted him. When asked to explain why, she said it was because of a feeling she had and that he was a friend and that he never made her feel like she shouldn’t trust him. When directly asked if she had ever thought her brother was a victim of child molestation, she said that she did not. When asked to explain why, she said that had something happened to her brother, he would have told her. When directly asked if she had ever thought that Michael had molested her brother, her answer was no. When asked if she felt guilty about anything involving her relationship with Michael Jackson, her answer was no because she had no reason to. During the trial, the prosecution alleged that Wade had been molested by Michael after hearing testimony from Blanca Francia, a former maid at Neverland (who was fired for theft and tardiness in 1991 and sold false stories about Michael to the media) who alleged that she had seen inappropriate behavior between Wade and Michael. In her testimony, Chantal states that she had discussed these allegations with her brother and that he had said they were not true. She was again asked if she felt that Michael Jackson would ever harm a child and again she said no. When asked again why she trusted Michael Jackson she said it was because he had been her friend for years, he had never turned his back on her family and vice versa, and that she and her family loved him.
In her testimony during the 2005 trial, Joy Robson acknowledged that she and her children were frequent guests at Neverland. She acknowledged having been in Michael’s room and that she had given her children permission to stay in Michael’s room and had no objections to it. When asked if she had ever seen anything inappropriate occur between Michael and her son during a trip to Las Vegas or at Neverland, she said she never saw any such thing. She also said she had no problems with the relationship between her children and Michael. She also refuted Blanca Francia’s claim that she had seen Wade and Michael showering together and stated that she never saw anything like that happen. She again acknowledged the fact that her children would be alone with Michael and that she didn’t have a problem with it. She also acknowledged that promoting her son’s career was not the basis of her friendship with Michael as the prosecution suggested. She also acknowledged that she was aware of the fact that Michael Jackson had been investigated for child molestation in 1993 in response to Jordan Chandler’s allegations. When asked if she had any concerns that Michael Jackson might manipulate her son, she said she had none because she knew him. When asked why she trusted Michael, she explained that she had known him for a long time, had spent hours talking to him about everything, and felt like he was a member of her own family. She also said that she knew him very well and that she trusted him, and that she trusted him with her children. She explained that Michael was a very special person with a unique personality who had a very pure love for children, and that to know him is to love him and to trust him. She also explained that one of the reasons why she let her son spend time with Michael was because her son wanted to work in the entertainment industry and that Michael would be the best person to teach him valuable information on the matter. She maintains, however, that they were friends first and foremost. She also explains that another reason why she let her son spend time with Michael was because they enjoyed spending time together and that they had similar traits. When asked if she ever lost her trust in Michael during any point that her son was with him, her answer was no. When asked if Michael ever did anything that made her suspicious about his behavior towards her son, her answer was no. When asked if Michael ever did anything that made her suspicious about his behavior towards her daughter, again her answer was no. When asked if she felt that there was something unusual or criminal about his relationships with other children, her answer was no. When asked why she allowed her son to spend evenings with Michael, she explained that during those occasions, they’d be awake for hours having fun until they eventually fell asleep. She even said that she also did that with Michael on more than one occasion. When asked if she was ever concerned that Michael was manipulating her or her children, her answer was no. She also said that she was able to freely walk in and out of Michael’s bedroom and that she had never been restricted from going in there. When asked if she felt that Michael had an ulterior motive for wanting to help her family, her answer was no. When asked if she owed Michael anything, her answer was no. Overall, her testimony is very similar to Chantal’s. In addition, after Michael was acquitted on all counts, Joy said the following in an article (which can be found here; http://www.theage.com.au/news/Peopl...-defence-case/2005/06/14/1118645780742.html); “We just feel so vindicated right across the board. We were crying and screaming and crying and screaming.” “We all believed ultimately the truth would come out.” “I’ve never questioned Michael, that's the bottom line. I've never ever had a second of a concern” "I've always said to Michael `I wished the world could know the Michael we do'.” "He's not what the media makes him out to be”.
In conclusion, both Chantal and Joy Robson made it abundantly clear that they trusted Michael Jackson completely and that throughout the course of their friendship they never saw or suspected anything that would suggest he violated that trust as Wade is now alleging. With his allegations, not only has Wade completely contradicted his previous statements and testimony (before and after Michael’s death), but Joy’s and Chantal’s as well. Were they to recant their previous testimonies and now start claiming that they had noticed something, not only would they have perjured themselves (destroying their credibility, like Wade has, despite the fact that the statute of limitations has run out), they'd be guilty of obstructing justice. Therefore, I find it unlikely that they would put themselves in that postion. How then does one explain the huge discrepancy between what they have previously said with what Wade is now alleging? If Wade is to be believed, why did Joy and Chantal continuously deny that Michael had ever harmed Wade, and denied having ever suspected him of doing so, if they weren’t completely certain that nothing had happened? If Wade is to be believed, how did Joy or Chantal not notice any signs of abuse from Wade considering the fact that he was living with them during the seven year time span of the alleged abuse? If Wade is to be believed, why would his mother allow him to spend time with Michael even after he was accused of and investigated for child molestation in 1993 if she thought for one second that he might be guilty or even capable of such a thing. In my opinion, any responsible parent in that situation would take a step back and reevaluate the nature of the relationship between that person and their child and would not allow him/her to continue associating with that person unless they were completely sure of their innocence. Are we to believe then that Michael brainwashed and/or manipulated Joy and Chantal, something which they denied, in the same way that Wade alleges he had been? If Wade is telling the truth, then in my opinion, there are only two possible scenarios that would explain Joy and Chantal’s continuous support and approval of Michael and his relationship with Wade. The first scenario would be that Michael somehow managed to conceal his alleged abuse of Wade from everyone (including several parties such as the FBI who investigated him for years, including most of the seven years that Wade alleged he was abused), including his mother and sister despite their close proximity and relationship to both parties. If that were the case, Joy is culpable for Wade’s alleged abuse since she allowed him to be alone with Michael and did not look out for any signs of abuse. For her to have done that even after Michael was accused of and investigated for child molestation in 1993 would show her to be an unfit parent if Wade is to be believed. Wade was also a minor at the time and she was therefore responsible for his well being. If Wade is telling the truth, then she obviously failed in that regard. The second scenario would be that Joy and Chantal were either threatened or given incentives to say the things they did depending on whether or not they knew of or suspected any abuse. Assuming that they were unaware of any alleged abuse, they may have simply been given incentives to publicly defend him and deny any wrongdoing on his part and/or allow him to spend time alone with Wade (which they denied). If that were the case, then in my opinion, any reasonable person, let alone a parent, would question the motivation behind such an action. Now assuming that they knew or suspected that Wade was being abused, they were either threatened or given incentives to keep quiet about it and deny that anything happened (which they denied). If that were the case, then, as previously mentioned, they'd be guilty of obstruction of justice (thus invalidating Chantal’s public support of her brother). In any event, Joy, as previously mentioned, would be culpable for Wade’s alleged abuse considering that he, as previously mentioned, was a minor at the time and that as his mother; she was responsible for his well being. Chantal, on the other hand, regardless of the fact that she was also a minor during these alleged events, would have been morally responsible. Therefore, if Wade is to be believed, that would mean that they completely failed to live up to those responsibilities (it is unclear then if Chantal took this into consideration when she decided to support her brother's allegations). If neither scenario is true, however, it would then be safe to assume that Joy and Chantal’s previous statements and testimony were truthful, and that Wade’s allegations are false.
Since it has been established that Joy Robson had a duty to look after her son (and that Chantal Robson had a moral obligation to look after her brother), and that if Wade’s allegations are true, she failed in that duty, I feel it is important to readdress the civil lawsuit that Wade filed on the 10th of May. As previously stated, according to TMZ, Wade filed this lawsuit against the executors of Michael Jackson’s estate, MJJ Productions, MJJ Ventures, and 47 other unnamed defendants. According to TMZ, Wade filed this lawsuit against the aforementioned parties on the grounds that they were responsible for protecting him and should therefore answer for the alleged sexual abuse he says he suffered at the hands of Michael Jackson. Now my question is this; if Wade is telling the truth about his alleged abuse and is now out to make the parties that were responsible for his protection answer for their failure to keep him safe, and not to collect money, then why does he not appear to have taken any action against his mother considering that she was more responsible for his safety than any of the other parties being sued? After all, if Wade is to be believed, that would mean that Joy’s continuous approval, trust, and defense of Michael Jackson and his relationship with her son (even after Michael was accused of and investigated for child molestation) helped make it possible for any alleged abuse to occur thus showing her to be an unfit parent and thus making her culpable, if not liable (considering that Wade is now an adult), for Wade's alleged abuse. My other question in this case would be that if Wade's mother can't be held legally accountable for his alleged abuse, why can parties like MJJ Ventures and MJJ Productions be held responsible considering that it was through Wade's decision (with his mother's approval and acceptance) to personally associate with Michael outside of the confines of his business relationship with the pre-mentioned parties that he was allowed to be made vulnerable to any alleged abuse by him? Now, as previously stated, if Wade truly wants to make those who were responsible for protecting him answer for their alleged failure to do so, would it not make sense for him to take at least some kind of action against his mother? I can only speculate at this point, but could it be that perhaps there is more money to be had for Wade by suing these other parties rather than his mother? In my opinion, if Wade is being completely truthful about not making his accusations for money, then the fact that he's willing to play the blame game and point the finger at these other parties and yet not place blame where blame is due in regards to his mother tells me just the opposite. What do you think? '
And here I am like an idiot not suing my dead grandfather, because we all know that would solve the problem! :yes:
