[Discussion] Sexual Abuse Claims Against MJ Estate - Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe

[Ramona122003]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Actually the Estate could have done a bit more than just issue a general statement. They could have factually shown why the article is a lie. If fans could break it down on various blogs why couldn't MJ's Estate who are paid big bucks for their job? But even issuing a general statement would have been better than silence. I did say that it would not make people automatically believe in MJ's innocence, but at least there would be an official challenge from MJ's Estate which is better than dead silence from which many people conclude that if not even MJ's Estate protests then that must mean there's not much defense for MJ and it must be true. And exactly in a case like the "FBI files" where there are hard cold FACTS that the Estate could have laid out to challenge the article, it was just wrong not to react at all and act like it's nothing when in fact it went viral and was reported as a fact in several medium. For God's sake the article claimed about Weitzman that he was drawing up hush money agreements between boys and MJ! How does it look like to the Average Joe when this Weitzman does not say anything about that and does not come out denying it? And even I can prove it's not true, you only have to examine and know the origin of that so called document to know, so why did not Weitzman even bother? And then the Estate told fans they would file a complaint and then told Taj Jackson to withdraw his complaint because the Estate would take care of it. Only to silently let it slip away. It was highly disappointing how they dealt with it.

For most, 'hardcore' facts does not mean much if the source of those facts are believed to be bias. And even fans get the facts wrong like the whole thing about the insurance paying for the settlement behind Michael's back or the fans who believed that Jordan recanted. That is not even getting started on some of the other things fan proclaim to be fact.

Silence is some times for the best since talking about something gives it legs. Fans always complain about silence even when Michael was alive so it is not something we are ever going to see eye to eye on. I personally think the estate did well since I and most of the people where I live as well as the general news outlets never really picked up on the story. Only internet and gossip sites talked about and it only lasted for weeks. I bet outside of certain forums if you mention fake FBI files most people would not know what you were talking about.

When it comes to the taint of molestation what I have seen to be the most devastating is when a big molestation case drops, Michael's name is always mentioned in some way. That is far more devastating and long reaching than some fake FBI files that never really left the fan and hater sites.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

For most, 'hardcore' facts does not mean much if the source of those facts are believed to be bias. And even fans get the facts wrong like the whole thing about the insurance paying for the settlement behind Michael's back or the fans who believed that Jordan recanted. That is not even getting started on some of the other things fan proclaim to be fact.

So you say there isn't really a factual way to refute that article? Do you know what those so called documents are and where they come from and what evidence there is for that? Just because it is presented on a fan blog it does not mean the information is "biased" or just a one-sided view. Sometimes there are just facts, period. You have to judge based on the information itself not on who presents it.

The article claimed those were FBI files. The Estate could have challenged that because they simply weren't. There is video evidence in a 1994 documentary of the fact that the documents come from taboid broker Paul Barresi. Barresi talks about it himself and also about the fact that the LeMarques were not credible! The article acted like the allegations by the LeMarques or Blanca Francia were some new bombshell allegations. It's a fact they weren't. It's not something that fans made up on their blogs. Just go and check out the 2005 court documents!

So it's really irrelevant to bring up here the insurance thing or anything else SOME fans were wrong about (I myself never believed an insurance company forced MJ to pay and I never use that argument either). Apples and oranges. It is not such a case. In this case every single allegation in that article could have been challeneged on a simply factual basis, not based on opinion. That's why it's so disappointing the Estate did not react.

Silence is some times for the best since talking about something gives it legs.

It already had legs.

Only internet and gossip sites talked about and it only lasted for weeks.

And I guess that's not worth an hour from the Estate executor's time to put together a statement. They issue statements about lot more irrelevant issues.

 

[jamba]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Actually the Estate could have done a bit more than just issue a general statement. They could have factually shown why the article is a lie. If fans could break it down on various blogs why couldn't MJ's Estate who are paid big bucks for their job? But even issuing a general statement would have been better than silence. I did say that it would not make people automatically believe in MJ's innocence, but at least there would be an official challenge from MJ's Estate which is better than dead silence from which many people conclude that if not even MJ's Estate protests then that must mean there's not much defense for MJ and it must be true. And exactly in a case like the "FBI files" where there are hard cold FACTS that the Estate could have laid out to challenge the article, it was just wrong not to react at all and act like it's nothing when in fact it went viral and was reported as a fact in several medium. For God's sake the article claimed about Weitzman that he was drawing up hush money agreements between boys and MJ! How does it look like to the Average Joe when this Weitzman does not say anything about that and does not come out denying it? And even I can prove it's not true, you only have to examine and know the origin of that so called document to know, so why did not Weitzman even bother? And then the Estate told fans they would file a complaint and then told Taj Jackson to withdraw his complaint because the Estate would take care of it. Only to silently let it slip away. It was highly disappointing how they dealt with it.

Point is, if Estate's JOB is to combat every tabloid crap, they would never do anything else. You said they should protect MJ's reputation "as much as they can"--well, it that going to be a fulltime job? No. Their main job is to administer the Estate. They are Executors of the Estate, not MJ's defense squad. My brother was the executor of my mother's estate and his job was to pay off the debts and when that was done, give the behests according to her will (this was in CA). His job was not to protect her reputation.

Estate issued a public statement re the FBI crap and they filed a complaint with the Press Commission (and I did too and others) so what else where they supposed to do? I would like to know concretely (not vaguely like they should have done more etc) what you wanted them to do more than that. What in your opinion should Branca have said to L. Logan when she said you can't get away from the fact "he slept with BOYS." I would like to see an answer that would meet your standards. Do you think th Estate should hire someone or a team to combat attacks in the press on MJ's rep, etc.? Would the Probate Judge be ok with that? Just asking.

You say they could have spent 'an hour' on a statement--well, a statement that takes an hour is not IMO going to have much impact on decades of false reporting and then we come back to the fact that legally this is NOT THEIR JOB. Look at all the lawsuits they have to handle--Thome, Wade, Michael Amir, Q. Jones, Raymone, IRS!!!!!and etc etc etc etc etc. There are so many lawsuits and that's what they have to focus on as well as the debts.

 

[marebear]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Lets just worry first what the judge will decide. I pray there will be no trial. It makes me sick to think if it goes to some kind of trial. I am sick of people lying about Michael and trashing him. The estate will do what they have to do to protect Michael. They have with other suits and they will again.

Off topic for a second... that 60 minutes interview with Branca I look it at this way. That interview was suppose to be about Michael's things and the shows and how well the estate has been doing. That interviewer wanted to bring up the allegations and wasn't interested in anything else. She was IGNORANT about Michael and his response to her shut her down and she had to focus on what the interview was suppose to be even though she could care less.

I feel with this everyone should come together. This person is lying about Michael in the worst way and that hurts his kids and that is not acceptable. I understand the concern what the estate should do but we just hope they will do their best.

 

[Kerry Hennigan]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

For most, 'hardcore' facts does not mean much if the source of those facts are believed to be bias. And even fans get the facts wrong like the whole thing about the insurance paying for the settlement behind Michael's back or the fans who believed that Jordan recanted. That is not even getting started on some of the other things fan proclaim to be fact.

Silence is some times for the best since talking about something gives it legs. Fans always complain about silence even when Michael was alive so it is not something we are ever going to see eye to eye on. I personally think the estate did well since I and most of the people where I live as well as the general news outlets never really picked up on the story. Only internet and gossip sites talked about and it only lasted for weeks. I bet outside of certain forums if you mention fake FBI files most people would not know what you were talking about.

When it comes to the taint of molestation what I have seen to be the most devastating is when a big molestation case drops, Michael's name is always mentioned in some way. That is far more devastating and long reaching than some fake FBI files that never really left the fan and hater sites.

My experience with this situation is the same as Ramona122003's. And I certainly agree that in some instances the worst thing you can do is add fuel to a fire someone else has started by making a bigger issue of the matter. We want those fires to be put out, but there is a time and a place for that - and I just have to rely on the legal expertise and business experience of the Estate, and their knowledge of Michael, to know when and how to do that.

 

[Kerry Hennigan]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Re that Lara Logan interview--she was dangling the bait and Branca didn't bite. He completely deflected the question rather get into a discussion what what MJ said and did. The minute you open that 'can of worms' with someone like that horrible media hack you are setting yourself up for follow-up questions. I have seen people get up and walk out of interviews b/c the media hack pushed and pushed and would not drop a salacious, scandal-oriented (usually involving SEX) question, hoping to stir up the mud at the bottom, even though the person said clearly--I don't want to talk about that. L. Logan was not that pushy and dropped the question b/c Branca did not give her an opening. Anything he said by way of a defense, she would have taken and run with. Sometimes it's best not to 'go there.'

I agree T Mez would be the better person for a full rebuttal of the legal situation, but then again an adult sleeping with boys/children is not illegal, although it is not commonly done in USA. The crime is the sexual abuse, not the sleeping in the same bed--which even Sneddon made clear in 2003.

IMO Branca handled the situation well. He is an entertainment lawyer, not a criminal or civil lawyer. He ducked her question and yet made the point that MJ was an 'honorable' person, i.e. not a criminal, and that turns a negative question into a positive answer, putting MJ in a good light. And he was an honorable person, not a liar and scumball bottom-feeder like the media hacks.

I agree - initially I wish he's shoved the facts in her face, pointed out the non-criminal nature of what Michael said (in the interview) and did, but that certainly would have derailed the whole discussion, putting it on a negative track. We want to avoid going there, surely! Besides, the media can always cut and edit things to suit themselves if you give them too much grief. Better to do as John Branca did and respond positively about Michael from his own and MJ's other associates' experiences.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Point is, if Estate's JOB is to combat every tabloid crap, they would never do anything else. You said they should protect MJ's reputation "as much as they can"--well, it that going to be a fulltime job? No. Their main job is to administer the Estate. They are Executors of the Estate, not MJ's defense squad. My brother was the executor of my mother's estate and his job was to pay off the debts and when that was done, give the behests according to her will (this was in CA). His job was not to protect her reputation.

You cannot compare MJ's Estate to some regular Joe's Estate. Michael is a public figure. His Estate makes money of his likeness, so they need to protect it if for nothing else then for maximalizing the profit they can make of it.

Estate issued a public statement re the FBI crap and they filed a complaint with the Press Commission (and I did too and others) so what else where they supposed to do? I would like to know concretely (not vaguely like they should have done more etc) what you wanted them to do more than that. What in your opinion should Branca have said to L. Logan when she said you can't get away from the fact "he slept with BOYS." I would like to see an answer that would meet your standards. Do you think th Estate should hire someone or a team to combat attacks in the press on MJ's rep, etc.? Would the Probate Judge be ok with that? Just asking.

The Estate filed a complaint only to silently not going through with it. You forgot the second part. I already told what they should have done and I don't think it was vauge. They should have at least gone through with the complaint, listing all the facts about those allegations of the article. That these are not FBI files, that LeMarques and Blanca Francia's allegations are not some brand new allegations. They were heard in court in 2005 and discredited. That the documents provably come from a tabloid borker called Paul Barresi, not the FBI. They should have also told that no, Howard Weitzman did not draw up agreements of hush money between boys and MJ. I already told that these are the things they should have told, I'm not sure how it was "vague". As for the interview, he should have at the very least corrected her that Michael did not say he sleeps with boys. That's a misrepresentation of what he said. That's the very least he could have done. I agree that he should not have let the conversation derail in that direction, but at least he should have made it clear that the woman misrepresented what MJ said. Then finish his answer by saying: "But this is not the time and place for that discussion." And with that last sentence he would have shut down further questions in that direction. But my main issue is with how they handled the whole "FBI files" thing.

And actually yes, if the Estate cannot handle MJ's PR then I don't know what's wrong with hiring a team for it. I don't know what problem the Probate Judge could have with that. It's not like it's against the law to correct false allegations.

Again, before someone twists my words, I'm not saying that the Wade crap should be fought in the media. That one is better to keep low key as of now, but something like the "FBI files" thing could have and should have been handled better. Especially this thing about acting like they file a complaint and then they silently let it slip, left a bitter taste in my mouth. Why tell everyone you will take care of it when you don't?

You say they could have spent 'an hour' on a statement--well, a statement that takes an hour is not IMO going to have much impact on decades of false reporting and then we come back to the fact that legally this is NOT THEIR JOB. Look at all the lawsuits they have to handle--Thome, Wade, Michael Amir, Q. Jones, Raymone, IRS!!!!!and etc etc etc etc etc. There are so many lawsuits and that's what they have to focus on as well as the debts.

Again, no one said that a statement by the Estate would have made go away decades long of false reporting but it at least would have signaled that the Estate denies those allegations. Like I said one of the allegations even included Weitzman which he could have personally denied! Nor did I say they should answer to each and every tabloid allegation. But this whole "FBI files" crap went viral enough and was reported by several media as if it was a fact. The Estate should have at least pointed out that no, it wasn't a fact. And they release statements in lot less relevant issues, so I can't see how it would have taken away so much from apparently "more important" issues.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

To go back to Wade. I just realized this:

Penal Code 286 b is:

286. (a) Sodomy is sexual conduct consisting of contact between the
penis of one person and the anus of another person. Any sexual
penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime of
sodomy.
(b) (1) Except as provided in Section 288, any person who
participates in an act of sodomy with another person who is under 18
years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison,
or in a county jail for not more than one year.

Wow! So unlike any other accuser before he claims anal sex. The Chandlers, Arvizos and Francias did not claim anal sex because that could have been medically checked. Obviously as an adult and 20 years after the alleged abuse this isn't a problem for Wade any more.

Still I did not think he would be foolish enough to go there. I thought he would try to make his allegations consistent with the previous ones to "establish a pattern" but it seems to me they just threw in everything that they thought could maximize his chances for a bigger puntitive sum. They throw in some superficial things they probably read about the Arvizo case in papers (porn magazines, that he called MJ "daddy" etc. - I wonder if they will also claim he gave him alcohol) but it does not seem to me like they metaculously studied those previous allegations when they put together their complaint.
.
Another reason why it's foolish from him to claim this IMO, because anal sex would obviously be even more traumatic for a child than masturbation or even oral sex. So it will only make it more difficult for him to explain why he thought it was "love" for so long, why he thought he was "OK with it", why he didn't think it was wrong or why he didn't believe he was sexually abused when he testified in 2005. And why he did not show signs of trauma as a child?

 

[VeraR]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

"Doe 1, together with his co-conspirators, alter egos, aiders and abetters and agents Doe 2 and Doe 3"

Who exactly does this refer to?

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

"Doe 1, together with his co-conspirators, alter egos, aiders and abetters and agents Doe 2 and Doe 3"

Who exactly does this refer to?

Presumably Doe 2 and Doe 3 are Michael's companies MJJ Ventures and MJJ Productions. Wade claims that people at those companies knew about and enabled his abuse. This would personally involve the current executors of the Estate - conveniently. They say this so that even if the Court throws out his creditors claim based on statues of limitation he could still go on with his lawsuit against MJ's companies.

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

To go back to Wade. I just realized this:

Penal Code 286 b is:



Wow! So unlike any other accuser before he claims anal sex. The Chandlers, Arvizos and Francias did not claim anal sex because that could have been medically checked. Obviously as an adult and 20 years after the alleged abuse this isn't a probthatlem forthat Wade any more.

Still I did not think he would be foolish enough to go there. I thought he would try to make his allegations consistent with the previous ones to "establish a pattern" but it seems to me they just threw in everything that they thought could maximize his chances for a bigger puntitive sum. They throw in some superficial things they probably read about the Arvizo case in papers (porn magazines, that he called MJ "daddy" etc. - I wonder if they will also claim he gave him alcohol) but it does not seem to me like they metaculously studied those previous allegations when they put together their complaint.
.
Another reason why it's foolish from him to claim this IMO, because anal sex would obviously be even more traumatic for a child than masturbation or even oral sex. So it will only make it more difficult for him to explain why he thought it was "love" for so long, why he thought he was "OK with it", why he didn't think it was wrong or why he didn't believe he was sexually abused when he testified in 2005. And why he did not show signs of trauma as a child?

And also no one noticed him bleeding the next day? His sister who was there did not hear him screaming in pain? And his mother did not notice him change in anyway? And never took him to the doctor for seven years? And since he thought it was normal that would mean he has been with other men before. I wonder if his ego will allow him to say that

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

And also no one noticed him bleeding the next day? His sister who was there did not hear him screaming in pain? And his mother did not notice him change in anyway? And never took him to the doctor for seven years? And since he thought it was normal that would mean he has been with other men before. I wonder if his ego will allow him to say that

Exactly. The claim is he was molested for 7 years between the age of 7 and 14. There is no way there would not be medical consequences of repeated anal sex for a boy at that age. There is no way a mother would not have noticed anything both in behaviour and medically. Or if she will now make up stories about seeing blood on Wade's underwear just to support Wade's claims now, what kind of mother would that make her to have ignored that at the time? Esp. with the 1993 allegations against MJ? Not to mention this would mean that not only Wade is liar but Joy is too - either they lied in 2005 or they are lying now. Same for Chantal if she will now claim she heard screams or anything. Wade really is a fool to claim this, he makes it only more difficult for himself to make sense of his story.

 

[Dilan]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Completely unrelated but people say Tom Mesereau was passionate about MJ which he was evident in interviews. But i'm curious as a lawyer and wanting to reap financial benefits if he were to be called to the 04 trial as an attorney against MJ would he have found anything to persuade the jury if he tried, or is it possible that he may just turn down the offer after reviewing the case because of a lack of evidence?

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Completely unrelated but people say Tom Mesereau was passionate about MJ which he was evident in interviews. But i'm curious as a lawyer and wanting to reap financial benefits if he were to be called to the 04 trial as an attorney against MJ would he have found anything to persuade the jury if he tried, or is it possible that he may just turn down the offer after reviewing the case because of a lack of evidence?

Michael was innocent, so how he could have found anything to persude the jury of MJ's guilt? Besides Mesereau is a Defense lawyer not a prosecutor. He represents defendants. And in a criminal case the charges are represented by the authorities (DA) not by some random lawyer.

 

[Justthefacts]

<o></o>

He is clamming he was raped not just touched but raped. And no one around you noticed? The question then becomes what kind of house hold was he bought up in? I can&#8217;t stand Cory Feldman but he made a good point about Cory Haim. Even though IMO he had no business putting Cory&#8217;s business in the street like this he said Haim came onto him in sexuality because he was told by his abuser that it was alright for two men to engage in sexual acts. (I am not saying that it is wrong for two consenting men to engage in sexually activity BTW.) But what I am saying is that Haim&#8217;s abuser manipulated him into believing that it was totally normal and all men and boys did this. That is what i smissing with Wade, and IMO again his huge ego won&#8217;t allow him to go there.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

He is clamming he was raped not just touched but raped.

Yes. He does accuse Michael of rape, not "just" inappropriate touching.

I did not pay attention to the fact so far that despite of his concrete allegations are blocked out in his complaint there are certain sections of the Penal Code quoted which actually show what he alleges. And most of it is anal sex, some appear to me about downright rape.

These are the Penal Codes they cite (I bolded those which to me seem like it's rape):

266j

266j. Any person who intentionally gives, transports, provides, or
makes available, or who offers to give, transport, provide, or make
available to another person, a child under the age of 16 for the
purpose of any lewd or lascivious act as defined in Section 288, or
who causes, induces, or persuades a child under the age of 16 to
engage in such an act with another person, is guilty of a felony and
shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a term of three, six, or
eight years, and by a fine not to exceed fifteen thousand dollars
($15,000).

286(b)(1)

(b) (1) Except as provided in Section 288, any person who
participates in an act of sodomy with another person who is under 18
years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison,
or in a county jail for not more than one year.

286(b)(2)

(2) Except as provided in Section 288, any person over 21 years of
age who participates in an act of sodomy with another person who is
under 16 years of age shall be guilty of a felony.

286(c)(2)(A)

(2) (A) Any person who commits an act of sodomy when the act is
accomplished against the victim's will by means of force, violence,
duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on
the victim or another person shall be punished by imprisonment in the
state prison for three, six, or eight years.

286(c)(2)(C)

(C) Any person who commits an act of sodomy with another person
who is a minor 14 years of age or older when the act is accomplished
against the victim's will by means of force, violence, duress,
menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim
or another person shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
prison for 7, 9, or 11 years.

288(a)

288. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (i), any person who
willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or lascivious act, including
any of the acts constituting other crimes provided for in Part 1,
upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who
is under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing
to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that
person or the child, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.

288(b)(1)

(b) (1) Any person who commits an act described in subdivision (a)
by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and
unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, is guilty of
a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison
for 5, 8, or 10 years.

288a(b)(1)

(b) (1) Except as provided in Section 288, any person who
participates in an act of oral copulation with another person who is
under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
prison, or in a county jail for a period of not more than one year.

288a(b)(2)

(2) Except as provided in Section 288, any person over 21 years of
age who participates in an act of oral copulation with another
person who is under 16 years of age is guilty of a felony.

288a(c)(1)

(c) (1) Any person who participates in an act of oral copulation
with another person who is under 14 years of age and more than 10
years younger than he or she shall be punished by imprisonment in the
state prison for three, six, or eight years.

288a(c)(2)(A)-288a(c)(2)(C)

(2) (A) Any person who commits an act of oral copulation when the
act is accomplished against the victim's will by means of force,
violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily
injury on the victim or another person shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
(B) Any person who commits an act of oral copulation upon a person
who is under 14 years of age, when the act is accomplished against
the victim's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or
fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another
person, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 8,
10, or 12 years.
(C) Any person who commits an act of oral copulation upon a minor
who is 14 years of age or older, when the act is accomplished against
the victim's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or
fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another
person, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 6,
8, or 10 years.

289(h)

(h) Except as provided in Section 288, any person who participates
in an act of sexual penetration with another person who is under 18
years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison or
in a county jail for a period of not more than one year.

289(i)

(i) Except as provided in Section 288, any person over 21 years of
age who participates in an act of sexual penetration with another
person who is under 16 years of age shall be guilty of a felony.

289(j)

(j) Any person who participates in an act of sexual penetration
with another person who is under 14 years of age and who is more than
10 years younger than he or she shall be punished by imprisonment in
the state prison for three, six, or eight years.

647.6(a)(1)

647.6. (a) (1) Every person who annoys or molests any child under
18 years of age shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five
thousand dollars ($5,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment.

 

[jaydom7]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Hopefully Wade will rot in hell for this mess he's trying to pull.. How does one go from MJ was my friend for over 20 years. He taught me compassion and about humanity and the goodness in others, to this mess?:mat:

 

[Ramona122003]

<o> </o>

He is clamming he was raped not just touched but raped. And no one around you noticed? The question then becomes what kind ofhousehold was he bought up in? I can’t stand Cory Feldman but he made a good point aboutCory Haim. Even though IMO he had nobusiness putting Cory’s business in the street like this he said Haim came onto him in sexuality because he was told by his abuser that it was alright fortwo men to engage in sexually. (I am notsaying that it is wrong for two consenting men to engage in sexually activityBTW.) But what I am saying is that Haim’sabuser manipulated him into believing that it was totally normal and all menand boys did this. That is what ismissing with Wade, and IMO again his huge ego won’t allow him to go there.

I think this is another big reason why no one believes Wade. How is it possible for him to be physically raped and show no signs of it to his family. There should have been some visible change of behavior like being more sexually active, being in a relationship with another male, or physical trauma from being anal rape when he was only seven years old.

To be honest, I am not even sure why he went this far, especially since it further shows that Michael had no pattern. At least the Arvizos attempted to make their story match up with the Chandlers. It is like Wade is not even trying and just throwing everything out there.

 

[Dilan]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Michael was innocent, so how he could have found anything to persude the jury of MJ's guilt? Besides Mesereau is a Defense lawyer not a prosecutor. He represents defendants. And in a criminal case the charges are represented by the authorities (DA) not by some random lawyer.

Yes he was innocent but wasn't Michael neither guilty or innocent in the eyes of the law until the end of the trial precisely the reason they took the trial to court? Ok hypothetically Tom is also a prosecutor to provide evidence against Michaels innocence he gets called up by the kid(s)parent(s) that make the claim would he of refused the money and not taken part in the trial?

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yes he was innocent but wasn't Michael neither guilty or innocent in the eyes of the law until the end of the trial precisely the reason they took the trial to court? Ok hypothetically Tom is also a prosecutor to provide evidence against Michaels innocence he gets called up by the kid(s)parent(s) that make the claim would he of refused the money and not taken part in the trial?

It does not work like that. The kid's parents do not call up any lawyer to represent them in a criminal trial. It's a criminal charge, meaning it's the People of the State (not the kid or his parents) vs. the Defendant. And the People of the State are represented by the authorities, not by any random lawyer that the kids parents pay for. Prosecutors get their wage from the State, not from the kid's parents.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

To be honest, I am not even sure why he went this far, especially since it further shows that Michael had no pattern. At least the Arvizos attempted to make their story match up with the Chandlers. It is like Wade is not even trying and just throwing everything out there.

Yes, I agree he went too far with the charges. Both in the amount of the alleged molestations (when you read his lawsuit it looks like he claims MJ molested him basically on every occasion they were together alone for 7 years since day one) and the nature of the alleged abuse. He's overdoing it. I wonder if the more accounts of abuse and the worst type of abuse he claims the more money he can hope for?

I agree that they did not pay attention to a supposed "pattern". It seems like they did take some superficial elements from the Arvizos (porn magazines, the whole "daddy" thing being connected to the alleged abuse, silly nicknames that MJ used being connected to the abuse etc.) but those are typically the elements which were often brought up in media soundbites. I wonder if he will also incorporate Jesus Juice...
But other than these soundbites they did not seem to have dug deep in either the Chandler and Arvizo case.

Reading this now that he basically claims anal rape I wonder if he was inspired by the Sandusky case to make up these allegations. Sandusky's trial was in June 2012 but already in the previous months the allegations against him were discussed in the media. And Wade claims he first ever mentioned his alleged abuse to his therapist in May 2012. He might have forgot to check it out that MJ was never even accused to be this rapist type of molester.

 

[Pimboli]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

so... he's accusing MJ of.... anal rape... yet he got on the stand in 2005 and defended MJ? And now he's saying that he defended MJ back in 05, because he (as a grown up) did not know that anal rape was wrong? :ciao:

 

[Justthefacts]

And whatmade Wade Roberson so different from Jordan Chandler? We know that Michael did plenty for June,Jordan and Lily. Took them on trips gavethem gifts (I have my own theory has to why he did he things for them.) But we have interviews of Joy saying Michaelreally never helped Wade career wise and how they struggled when they came overhere. But Jordan never said Michaelraped him so why is Wade? Wade, IMOthought the estate would see that and settle with him and so did Wade&#8217;slawyers. In fact I will bet you anythingthat Wade told his attorneys that he did not know there was an estate ofMichael Jackson they believed him. Howelse do you let him be deposed knowing he was lying?<o></o>

 

[Ramona122003]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yes he was innocent but wasn't Michael neither guilty or innocent in the eyes of the law until the end of the trial precisely the reason they took the trial to court? Ok hypothetically Tom is also a prosecutor to provide evidence against Michaels innocence he gets called up by the kid(s)parent(s) that make the claim would he of refused the money and not taken part in the trial?

I just want to say, in the US you are presume innocent until found guilty in the eyes of the law. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not the defense. Although, you would not guess that because the media make people guilty most of the time.

I honestly would not be surprise if Wade did takes some bits from the Sandusky's case. It is one of the biggest molestation cases since the Catholic case and there were some in the news who were quick and happy to link Michael to Sandusky. In fact, Wade's allegations sounds much closer to what Sandusky did than what Arvizos or Chandlers ever accuse Michael of. Wade mayo of tried to take advance of the atmosphere and blackmail the estate. With the Sandusky's case fresh in people's minds, he may have assume that people would be quick to believe him since it took Sandusky's victims years to come out.

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It took them a year to look into Jerry Sandusky's case. Michael was constaly under attack. And unlike Sundusky's victims, Wade praised Michael for 20 years only after Michael died and his career was in the dump did he come out

 

[Ramona122003]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It took them a year to look into Jerry Sandusky's case. Michael was constaly under attack. And unlike Sundusky's victims, Wade praised Michael for 20 years only after Michael died and his career was in the dump did he come out

And I agree. I am simply theorizing that Wade is hoping that people link Michael with Sandusky to gain public support and blackmail the estate. What Wade is saying and how he explain his actions sounds like he is trying to mimic the Sandusky's victims. Otherwise, why even go as far to say that Michael raped him and it took him over twenty years to come out with the truth.

Then again, I could be given him too much credit.

 

[jamba]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Hypothetical conversation :

L. Logan: What about the fact that he admitted he slept with BOYS. You can't get away from that. You can't hide from that.

J. Branca: Well, let me correct you. In the interview he said he slept with CHILDREN, not BOYS. But let's not talk about that. Let's focus on what an honorable man he was, which is how I always knew him to be.

L. Logan: Wait, wait, wait. So you think it's all right fpr A GROWN MAN to sleep with CHILDREN who are NOT FAMILY MEMBERS? How can you explain that to people? I mean. . . . etc.

Interview totally derailed.

Is this what you want? Not me.

Wade R. sickens me and I hope he gets what he deserves for this low-down back-stabbing coming at this late date and after all his public tributes to MJ. I hope his claim is rejected and we will never hear about it in court b/c he was outside the deadline for filing. Obviously, his excuses that he didn't know are pathetic. This is another money grab and that's all it is.

 

[la_cienega]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Presumably Doe 2 and Doe 3 are Michael's companies MJJ Ventures and MJJ Productions. Wade claims that people at those companies knew about and enabled his abuse. This would personally involve the current executors of the Estate - conveniently. They say this so that even if the Court throws out his creditors claim based on statues of limitation he could still go on with his lawsuit against MJ's companies.

It's just so funny to me he claims MJ's companies are the co-conspirators.

Not any named people. Not any real people in MJ's life who should presumably have known, I mean that's what he's claiming, that people had to have known and assisted with it, yet he doesn't name anyone in MJ's life who he claims was a witness and knew and let it happen.

I'm shocked he's taken it to the anal sex thing. I can't tell if this will be something that will help MJ's side in showing how extreme his claims are and how they don't make any sense when he claims he had no idea he was abused for years, how no doctor or family member ever noticed a huge health change in a child involving anal fissures/tears/hemorrhoids etc, or if they'll help his side because the media will feast on the drama of such extreme claims.

I'm beyond disgusted by him.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Hypothetical conversation :

L. Logan: What about the fact that he admitted he slept with BOYS. You can't get away from that. You can't hide from that.

J. Branca: Well, let me correct you. In the interview he said he slept with CHILDREN, not BOYS. But let's not talk about that. Let's focus on what an honorable man he was, which is how I always knew him to be.

L. Logan: Wait, wait, wait. So you think it's all right fpr A GROWN MAN to sleep with CHILDREN who are NOT FAMILY MEMBERS? How can you explain that to people? I mean. . . . etc.

You are actually misquoting MJ too. In the Bashir interview he did not say he slept with boys or children. He said he was sharing his bed and sharing bed meant that he gave his bed to Gavin and he slept on the floor. As Gavin himself testified too. But you keep going on about this interview (the interview wasn't even brought up by me) when I said I have bigger issues with the whole "FBI files" thing and I even laid out concretely what kind of answer would have been appropriate there from the Estate IMO. You think the Estate did everything perfect. I don't. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I'm shocked he's taken it to the anal sex thing. I can't tell if this will be something that will help MJ's side in showing how extreme his claims are and how they don't make any sense when he claims he had no idea he was abused for years, how no doctor or family member ever noticed a huge health change in a child involving anal fissures/tears/hemorrhoids etc, or if they'll help his side because the media will feast on the drama of such extreme claims.

I'm beyond disgusted by him.

I really can't see it helping him. Yes, the salaciousness of it may rile up some people but I think those would typically be the people who would also believe him even if he "just" claimed masturbation. But I think in the context of his allegations it weakens his case. He claims violent anal rape and at the same breath he claims he did not know it was wrong and sexual abuse at the age of 23 in 2005, or until 2012, for that matter. He would immediately know even at the age of 7 that it was wrong as it would be obviously painful! How on Earth could he have mistaken violent, forceful sodomy for "love" and still think at the age of 23 and age of 30 that it was "love"? There is no way. Moreover, how would a mother not realize something like that? Blood stains on his underwear, strange behaviour etc?

I really think he went too far and it just weakens his case.