Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
I agree T. Mez needs to talk more about the legitimate reasons for settling and also to talk in more detail about how CA law favors the prosecution in child abuse cases. I read that one CA law related to child abuse cases was actually overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstituional--that's how far CA bent over backwards to help the child accuser. IMO this all can be traced back to the McMartin case and the hysteria at the time re satanic rituals and child abuse. In McMartin, the prosecutors interviewed 400 preschoolers and these kids talked about animal sacrifices, tunnels underground, human sacrifice and it was all believed despite no evidence. This was the most expensive and longest trial in USA history and took place in LA. This child abuse hysteria was all over the USA but the McMartin trial is the most infamous. No one was prosecuted after all that time and expense. The trial went on for 7 years!
If it was in any European country I'm sure Wade would be laughed out of court with his crazy allegations and impossible claims such as not knowing about Michael's Estate until March 2013. But since it's the US where things can take a pretty irrational turn when it comes to child abuse allegations and yeah people bend backwards to give credit to accusers even if they don't make any sense that's what makes me nervous about it. There's nothing people can't justify about an accuser's behavior, no matter how inconsistent and crazy it is and that's just scary. Child abuse allegations really are the new witch hunt. Yes, there are many real cases, but there are also so many people taking advangate of the fact that in such cases the public automatically tends to take the side of the accuser and the accused gets stigmatized immediately and how difficult it is to wash off that stigma.
BTW, in the McMartin case, despite of its questionable claims, the main accused, Ray Bucky was never even properly acquitted. Both trials ended with a hung jury. And the accusers talked about witches flying, being flushed down in a toilet, all kind of crazy stuff and it was shown how the psychiatrist lead those kids make accusations and how the mother of the first accuser who started the whole madness was a crazy woman. Still it wasn't enough for a jury to fully acquit him...
But then this is the country where books like Michelle Remembers (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Remembers ) make sense to a lot of people and where such a book could start a whole nationwide moral panic in which investigators used that book as a guide in their investigations...
This kind of reminds me of how the MJ prosecution used Victor Gutierrez's book as a guide.
IMO T. Mez is not up on the 93 case--he keeps saying he was not involved--and neither is A. Jones. He is also pretty foggy even about the 2005 case as he did not seem to remember Blanca Francia's testimony about whether or not she saw a frickin' "image" in the bathroom shower. His main point that the jury was disgusted with all these witnesses who changed their stories was a good one, though. He said some really good things in the interview about how MJ was betrayed.
To be fair to Mez I think radio (or TV shows) are rarely a good platform for a discussion of such complicated cases in depth. You can only touch surface things in such interviews. I think the best form for an in-depth analysis is a written form, like articles and essays, and that's unfortunately our disadvantage because most people just don't have the patience for that and they'd rather run with catchy headlines and soundbites (as most people do unfortunately when it comes to the MJ case) without knowing what's behind them.
I agree that A. Jones and R. Sullivan both imply or even directly state that MJ was attracted to children--and that is not far from saying he had the tendencies that could lead to child molestation and this is what T Mez doesn't get and why he tends to defend them. I think he sincerely wants to clear MJ's name 1000% of the charges but he thinks A Jones and R Sullivan are doing that. However, Jones and Sullivan really need to do more IMO to clarify their position. A Jones saying MJ was 'in love' with Jordan--where did that come from? Why is she making such statements? It is NOT helpful.
Yes, Mez's support for Sullivan is annoying and I will never agree with him it's a good book for MJ in any shape or form. Mez said in this interview that it provides a good analysis of the 1993 case and Sullivan concludes that MJ was innocent. It's like we read totally different books. His analysis of the 1993 case is anything but good. He simply interviewed Ray Chandler and mostly went with what he said uncritically. Just like he did with other people he interviewed like Marc Schaffel and Howard Mann. He did not even do basic background check on certain stories of these people which could have showed him that they were lies and these people had certain agendas to make up certain stories. Sullivan also gives credit to every tabloid rumour ever said about MJ, never questions proven liars like Adrian McMannus on crazy tabloid stories. How is that a good book? It seems to me that Mez is so desperate for support by a mainstream journalist that he embraces anyone who is not totally, 100% vile to MJ, which is sad. Sullivan is only "unbiased" if the only criteria for unbiased is not being an MJ fan. But in reality just because you aren't an MJ fan that does not mean you have no biases. Maybe Sullivan meant well, I don't know, but he's not a good investigative journalist at all. He uncritically accepts tabloid crap and claims by certain people when with a little background check he could have found how many of those things are not true. Anyway, I think we will have to accept that Mez has a different opinion about this book than we do and move on. I still love Mez it's just I think on this particular book he is pretty misguided and short-sighted.
As for AJ, if her purpose with that quote was to show herself as "unbiased" and "professional" it went horribly wrong. In that case she should have just said: "I did not investigate the 93 case so I'm not going to comment on that." That would be the fair and professional thing to say for her. But to say "I didn't investigate the 93 case but I think MJ was in love with Jordan" is just very unprofessional. And it did not help that she arrogantly called the caller "honey-bunny" - very, very unprofessional. How will that help her have a professional image?
So I really hope that she does FINALLY do her investigation...really don't know why all these yrs it hasn't happen yet? lol She is a Journo after all...so what the excuse? Anyway, still appreciate her book! But, if some of us think that it messes up her message and defense of him with what she said about 93...imagine someone from the general public who don't know what we do? SMH So frustrating! :no: