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

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

Was it? Sorry, I may have got it wrong then. I haven't read the entire thing, only parts of it. I was actually talking about some things I read on VG's declaration documents. I presumed these were VG's quotes which he wrote for his book.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkQf7WAIEAIu4oZ.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkQfy9QIEAA8IYq.jpg

Well whoever quoted these things sure sound like they have some disgusting fantasies involving faeces, or people covered in faeces.

Yes, that's VG's fetish. But maybe he just writes such things to humiliate people as much as he can. Jordan and Evan stated in a declaration that they never told such things to VG.
 
respect77;4009940 said:
Guiterrez IS a pedophilia advocat. I mean that is a fact. Just read the article below! The question is only if he himself is a pedophile, but I cannot see why anyone who is not a pedo himself would advocate pedophilia. Unless he's a shamless opportunist who is getting paid for it by NAMBLA.

Gutierrez’s next move was to publish a book in 1996 entitled Michael Jackson Was My Lover. The book contains graphic descriptions of alleged sexual acts between Jackson and his 1993 accuser, Jordan Chandler. It also contains graphic sexual descriptions of alleged sexual acts between Jackson and other boys – boys, who have always stated, in no uncertain terms, that the singer never molested or touched them in any sexually inappropriate way. Because of its pedophiliac content, major publishers in the United States were unwilling to publish the book. The minor publisher/distributor which did has since become bankrupt.
Gutierrez claimed that he based his book on Jordan’s diary, however the Chandlers say that Jordan never kept a diary. A diary in which Jordan documented his abuse would have been very important evidence in any investigation against Jackson but no such evidence was ever produced. Again, the only person who ever claimed to have seen the diary was Gutierrez, yet his book was blindly believed, according to Maureen Orth, even by the prosecutors.

So if the Chandlers claim that Jordan never wrote a diary, no one else had ever seen this diary, then VG must himself have concocted the story. I am disturbed that anyone could even make up, let alone write any story involving graphic sexual descriptions of adults abusing children, unless of course they themselves saw no disgust in that sort of thing. I think you may just be right about VG being a pedophile advocate.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think you may just be right about VG being a pedophile advocate.

He is. I mean he IS advocating pedophilia in his book and in the interviews cited in the article. It's NAMBLA propaganda when someone says child molestation is not always harmful and can be loving and beneficial for children. The pedophile goal is to break down society's resistance against pedophilia and to try to sell it as something that should not be criminalized. That's why they write such things. That's why VG uses Jordan's clear lack of trauma as a propaganda tool for his cause. Of course, in reality Jordan's lack of trauma is because he was not molested. So people who go by the VG narrative actually support the pedophile narrative and agenda - which is very dangerous. But in their zeal to trash Michael Jackson they do not even realize it.

The only question is whether VG is a pedophile himself. That's something we cannot tell without evidence, but that he did advocate pedophilia is a fact.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

DD is just a stupid tabloid journalist, nothing more. Her only interest is to write sensationalist stories about Michael, not to uncover any truths and to do true investigative journalism.

One reason I like collecting info that she's a liar is because I've seen people fall for what she says. Some believe her because she's paraded around as an MJ "expert" and she's written so many articles and been involved with it for so long. Some conclude from this that she knows what she's talking about and should be believed. She also appeals to people's emotions about child abuse which is very manipulative but that's what works so she uses it.

We're the lucky ones who aren't naive enough to believe her, many in the general public still have a lot to learn about how things in the media really work. This is one reason why I wish critical/logic thinking was taught more in schools, the earlier on you learn how to critically examine things the less likely you are to fall for bullshit later on in life.
 
MJresearcher;4010001 said:
One reason I like collecting info that she's a liar is because I've seen people fall for what she says. Some believe her because she's paraded around as an MJ "expert" and she's written so many articles and been involved with it for so long. Some conclude from this that she knows what she's talking about and should be believed. She also appeals to people's emotions about child abuse which is very manipulative but that's what works so she uses it.

She's very manipulative. In her latest article she wrote:

An estate manager was quoted in one court submission saying that he saw Jackson standing in the Jacuzzi with his hands, “down the front of Jimmy’s underpants and was manipulating the boy’s genitalia.” In the same document filed by the prosecution, a trusted master bedroom maid said she saw the pair in bed together, nude from the waist up, both inside the main house and on a bed overlooking the Neverland theatre screen.

Now, the first story is from the Quindoys. In the Tabloid Truth documentary Dimond herself talks about how this couple asked for $900,000 for these stories and then $500,000 and other journalists express their doubt about their credibility, but now Dimond acts like these claims come from credible people.

(From about 25:00)

[video=youtube;-ASaOPZnmm8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-ASaOPZnmm8[/video]

The second story is from Blanca Francia according to the prosecution motion DD cites here, but when on the stand BF denied ever being in the theater while MJ was there with kids. But of course DD wouldn't tell that.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Two weeks today guys and we find out whether or not this bullshi* will be tossed to the trash where it belongs...

so we know for sure the june 2nd date still stands, although the case was taken off calendar last week?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Two weeks today guys and we find out whether or not this bullshi* will be tossed to the trash where it belongs...

Where do that 2 weeks come from? Last time the case was taken off calendar then Safechuck joined the lawsuit and there is no news since about when the case is going on. That June 2 date is from last year but it's been modified since.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

There should be some sort of harassment rule on Twitter. It would help get rid of people like this.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

This is an exchange I've had on another forum about the 93 allegations. I wondered if any of you could help me form a response? I know a fair bit about about the allegations, but some of you guys blow me away with your knowledge....

Anyway, here's what this jackass said:

The first accuser in the early 90s was bought off. It's why they changed the law in the state of California. Now if you want to press civil charges regarding a criminal case, the criminal case must occur first.


My response:

That is not true. The civil charges were dropped due to the settlement, but the criminal investigation in 1993 was dropped because the boy was unwilling to cooperate with authorities. If there had been sufficient evidence pointing towards MJ's guilt then they could still have taken MJ to trial in 1993 regardless of the civil settlement.As it stood they had no evidence and an alleged victim unwilling to take the stand. Basically the Chandlers took the money and ran. And fifteen years later, as an adult in his mid-twenties, Jordy Chandler STILL refused to take the stand during MJ's 2005 trial. Speaks volumes if you ask me.

Their response to me:
so you're telling me that the accusers no longer cooperated after they were paid off? As if accepting the money might produce a situation of quid pro quo? While some might believe in coincidence; others might see a little cause and effect.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I always thought the Chandlers were uncooperative with the police throughout the entire investigation, or was it only once they received the settlement??
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I've always wondered, how come Chandler didnt testify in the 05 trial? I know he didnt want to, but is there a way to make someone testify against their will? As a hostile witness?
Is the reason he didnt because he'd be a hostile one? Or is it because the judge decided to not include previous cases? Or another reason?
Would have loved to see Mesereau kill both 93 and 05 in one go :)
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

You can. But he had made it clear that he would fight any attempt to get on the stand. And it would have looked bad for the DA to even try after he made it clear he would not help them out. Saying he had done his part
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

You can. But he had made it clear that he would fight any attempt to get on the stand. And it would have looked bad for the DA to even try after he made it clear he would not help them out. Saying he had done his part

a former "victim", who refuses to help the district attorney bring down his "molester"? That speaks volumes to me
 
MattyJam;4010305 said:
This is an exchange I've had on another forum about the 93 allegations. I wondered if any of you could help me form a response? I know a fair bit about about the allegations, but some of you guys blow me away with your knowledge....

Anyway, here's what this jackass said:




My response:



Their response to me:

Here is some material that you can use:

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-settlement/


I wouldn't say the Chandlers were not co-operative with the DA before the settlement, but they sure tried to slow down the criminal process in order to get the civil process ahead of it. In the second article you will see this quote from Ray Chandler's book:

The Chandler’s motion papers accused Jackson and his attorneys of applying “delay tactics”, but they knew well that those “delay tactics” were all about getting the criminal proceedings heard ahead of the civil proceedings. Ray Chandler, in his book, All That Glitters, quotes a conversation that took place between Jordan Chandler’s father, Evan Chandler and their civil attorney, Larry Feldman and it proves that they were the ones utilizing delay tactics with regards to criminal proceedings:
“Later in the afternoon, after everyone had consumed their holiday repast, Larry Feldman called Evan with news they could all be thankful for. “Hey, Evan, you gotta hear this one. Howard Weitzman demoted Fields again. They definitely don’t want your deposition, or June’s deposition. They don’t want to preserve anything. If they’re gonna make a deal they don’t want anything on the record about Jackson.” No shit! Larry, these guys are in a real mess.” “Yeah, they ****ed this up unbelievably. What could be better? But I’m going forward. We’re going to push on. So far there ain’t a button I’ve missed. The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal behind us. I don’t want them going first.” Larry had said it before, but it hadn’t registered in Evan’s brain till now. “You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?”
“Yeah.”
“Jesus Christ!”
“Right! So we don’t want that.”[3; page 201-202]
It must be reiterated that only a criminal trial can send a perpetrator to jail; a civil trial can only result in a monetary award.

It is true that the law was changed because of this, but it wasn't because of a game that Michael played but it was because of the game the Chandlers played. The fact they got the civil proceedings ahead of the criminal created an unfair situation for Michael in which his right to a fair criminal trial might have been compromised. (The prosecution could have monitored the civil trial and adjust their strategy in kind etc.) The law actually acknowledged that unfairness even back because there were precedent cases where civil proceedings were stayed in order to get the criminal ahead so that it doesn't violate the defendant's right to a fair trial. However the Chandlers had a trump car - Jordan's age, which somehow let them get the civil proceedings ahead of the criminal nevertheless. It was an unfair situation and greatly contributed to Michael's settlement.

In the first article you will see how the Chandlers tried to get Michael pay them off from the very beginning but Michael REFUSED and that is why they went public. Had Michael wanted to pay hush money he could have because that's what the Chandlers demanded. But he refused! The first article is about those monetary demands.

It also has to be emphasized that it were the Chandlers who demanded a settlement from the very beginning, not MJ offering it. By their own admission they filed their civil lawsuit in September 1993 in the hope of a settlement!

Moreover, in his book All That Glitters the accuser’s uncle Ray Chandler reveals that what the Chandlers really wanted was a “highly profitable settlement” from the very beginning. They filed their civil lawsuit with a settlement in mind. Ray Chandler describes a meeting between the boy’s mother June Chandler, her then-husband David Schwartz and the boy’s biological father Evan Chandler in civil attorney Larry Feldman’s office on September 8, 1993 as follows:
“By the conclusion of the meeting, June and Dave, like Evan before them, had no doubts about switching from Gloria Allred to Larry Feldman. The choice came down to either waging an all-out media campaign to pressure the DA to seek a Grand Jury indictment, or conducting subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiations toward a quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement.” [3; page 168]
(Emphasis added.) Once again: this was before they even filed their civil lawsuit, which Larry Feldman did a couple of days later, now we know, with a settlement in mind. In actuality, according to Ray Chandler’s book and other sources as well (such as Mary A. Fischer’s article “Was Michael Jackson Framed?”, GQ, October 1994) during that meeting Evan Chandler and David Schwartz had a physical fight over the settlement money they planned to ask for. The Chandlers reasoning for aiming at a settlement rather than a trial was that they wanted to avoid the trauma of a high profile trial. We will address this claim later in this article. It is very important to emphasize that it was the Chandler family who demanded a settlement from the very beginning and it was not Michael Jackson who offered it! In actuality, since early August, 1993 Evan Chandler demanded money from the star which Jackson refused to comply with and that is what resulted in the Chandlers going public with their allegations. Had Jackson wanted to “hush” the accuser he could have paid them off before they turned to authorities and to the public. Details in our article about the Chandlers Monetary Demands.

Regardless of the settlement Jordan was given plenty of time and opportunities to testify against MJ. First Sneddon extended the statues of limitations for him. Then in 2005 the prosectuion tried to get him testify but he refused telling them he would legally fight any attempt at making him testify. And the fact the Francias testified in 2005 shows that a) no settlement can prohibit anyone from testifying in a criminal court, b) just because you got a settlement it doesn't mean your case was strong.

And one more thing. In 2004 it was Michael's defense who wanted to put Ray Chandler on the stand but he was running scared and fighting tooth and nail against having to testify! You can read about that here: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/ray-chandlers-subpoena-in-2004/
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Is the reason he didnt because he'd be a hostile one? Or is it because the judge decided to not include previous cases?

Previous cases WERE included. June testified. He simply didn't want to testify. Just like Ray Chandler didn't want to testify. Instead they both fought tooth and nail against having to testify.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Previous cases WERE included. June testified. He simply didn't want to testify. Just like Ray Chandler didn't want to testify. Instead they both fought tooth and nail against having to testify.

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

In any law system around the world , if a case is looked into at the same time by a civil and criminal courts, the civil process must stop until the criminal one is completed. That "Michael Jackson Law" should have been applied way before 1993 , MJ's right to a fair trial was completely ignored, his constitutional rights were abused when they wanted to try him in a civil trial before a criminal one.

Michael Jackson did not buy their silence, he bought his right to a fair trial, something guaranteed free of charge to every citizen by every constitution.

Only after that huge abuse of MJ's rights the legislative body moved to change the law. Of course the media twisted everything , claimed the law was put specifically to prevent MJ from paying off families again, Nothing further from the truth, we saw the effect of that law in 2003; the Arvizos could not press civil case without going through a criminal one first. It was in MJ's favor , it was just and fair. If this law was applied in 1993, Evan might not have even taken the risk

If MJ wanted to pay them , he would have done so in June of 1993, way before anyone heard about any molestation. If the Chandlers were interested in justice, they would have corroborated with the police. Jordan Chandler was very willing to testify in a civil trial but no interest in a criminal one. That says alot about them . Even in 2005, they refused to come forward, the father, the son and the uncle.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Jordan Chandler said that if there was one thing he was afraid of it was being cross examined. I pray to God that that day is coming soon for him
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Jordan Chandler said that if there was one thing he was afraid of it was being cross examined. I pray to God that that day is coming soon for him

I'd love to see him squirm
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I've always wondered, how come Chandler didnt testify in the 05 trial? I know he didnt want to, but is there a way to make someone testify against their will? As a hostile witness?
Is the reason he didnt because he'd be a hostile one? Or is it because the judge decided to not include previous cases? Or another reason?
Would have loved to see Mesereau kill both 93 and 05 in one go :)

He didn't testify because he's a chicken sh*t.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

This is an exchange I've had on another forum about the 93 allegations. I wondered if any of you could help me form a response? I know a fair bit about about the allegations, but some of you guys blow me away with your knowledge....

The settlement agreement states that the settlement is not an admission of guilt:

14046900277_7b9609c376_o.gif


This page states the amount paid and that the obligation to pay it was absolute:

14046882940_dbb2b5ffd9_o.gif


The claims being settled were of negligence, not sexual molestation:

14046908357_9056dc5ba4_o.gif


The gag order applied to speaking to the media or releasing media to do with any of it, nothing is said which would indicate that testimony in criminal court was not allowed:

14233260624_27b284d524_o.gif


Redacted agreement document here:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/michael-jacksons-15-million-payoff
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I'd love to see him squirm

I'd love to see him and everyone else who helped orchestrate this against Michael J Jackson die a miserable death. I'd love to see all of them on death row, and I'd go to watch each time the lethal injection is given to every single one of them.
Excuse my french, but this is how I feel. They played a major role in Michael's own death, and the fact that that, innocent man is dead and will never ever come back, while they are (Evan excluded) still alive and kicking- it just makes my f-ing blood boil, and question the concept of humanity/karma and so much more.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ Haha! I know. Also, she says in The Daily Beast article that she has learned from her source that the *abuse occurred for several years, and then a few lines down in that same article, she goes on to say she learned from her source that the *abuse happened from the ages of 10-14 or 15.

Does she not remember what she said? :lmao: must be the fact she's getting old.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Here's some screenshots from a document discussing the settlement when the prosecution wanted to use it as evidence against him in 2005:

14233186774_e9cd9360ea_o.jpg

14233186564_d2acb5c597_o.jpg

14046832110_255c3c8332_o.jpg

14231149762_bd332567f7_o.jpg


Full document here:
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf


I suggest that fans quit using this argument about the insurance company settling despite of Michael's protest though! That's a very weak argument that haters can easily tear apart. Especially since Mez said a couple of months ago in a radio interview that it's not true. But also Michael said on Diane Sawyer that he wanted to settle and there is even a letter in which Johnnie Coachran tries to get the insurance company pay which is reluctant. There is no such a thing that an insurance company would settle despite of its clients protest. That is nonsense!

So did the Defense lie in this motion? Well, if you read the signature on this motion this was written by Brian Oxman, not Mesereau. Oxman is not a very good lawyer IMO and I think he messed up here. I'm glad he was not Michael's main defense lawyer because this is just nonsense...

I have seen fans and haters bitterly fight each other over this argument about the insurance company as if this is so significant. It's not. Who paid what does not make him either guilty or innocent. The whole thing about if he paid then he's guilty, if the insurance did then he's innocent thing is a fallacy.

Michael's reasons to settle are understandable from this article: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-settlement/
No need to bring in this whole desperate sounding insurance argument which can be easily refuted by haters and then fans end up looking like fools.
 
Back
Top