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

Here's a radio interview that J David Shapiro gave explaining Evan "the dentist" Chandler's involvement in the screeplay, "Robin Hood: Men In Tights." Which was correcting the spelling errors.

Put On The Spot With Don and Scott

Ep23 – The Man Without Tights – JD Shapiro
Posted on January 28, 2014

Some of you won’t know him right away but J.D. Shapiro is the writer of Robin Hood: Men in Tights. That is not all though, beside working with Mel Brooks, he has more projects going on than any “Superhero” I can think of. One of those being “Bedtime Bible Stories” with Joey Kirkman. I sit down with JD and have a great time talking with him about these projects along with a few personal details of his life. Listen and please share, share, and share. Leave comments at our Facebook page and invite your friends to Like us.

Ep23 - The Man Without Tights - JD Shapiro [ 33:00 ]


http://www.putonspot.com/ep23-the-man-without-tights-jd-shapiro/

JD Shapiro begins talking about meeting Evan around 6:55. JD Shapiro mentions having dinner with Evan's wife, but no one else.


evan-nathalie-jordan-little-bro.png
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I really don't think that is the case, to be honest. He called Michael a pedophile on national TV. I don't see how that is any better than if he had called him a monster or a criminal. It's just a different term, but it's equally bad, if not worse.

To me Wade comes accross as a sociopath and sociopaths do not feel empathy or regret about some bad thing they pull. As long as they get their way they do not care about others.

This is from a personal point-of-view, but I don't like the word sociopath thrown around willy-nilly. You can do horrible things and not be sociopath since that is a mental disorder.

Yes, calling Michael a pedo in national television was bad. No one is debating that. However, he could and should have been more vicious. He could have told a national audience that Michael raped him. I mean, that would grab headlines and woken up the audiences. That Michael Jacksons didn't just give him handjobs and touched him in the wrong places, but actually raped him up the butt. I mean even if some people don't believe him, he would have stayed in the news much longer than a couple of days. It made no sense for his case to compliment Michael at all. I mean, why would you call the man who raped you a genius and give him compassion? No, he's a monster and he should be called that and the world should know that he is one and not praise him. He should had laid Michael out and he didn't. The reason why no one believe Wade's interview is because he didn't bring that righteous fire. His language was weak and I think it is partly because for the reasons I stated before.

Also, Soundmind, he got his cousin calling Michael crap. That's nice, but why isn't he himself doing this? Why isn't he calling Michael names instead of having people like his lawyer and some family members bring the outrage. I think it is because he knows he cannot be convincing, hence the sad attempt on the Today Show. So, he got attack dogs to do his dirty work.

But this is all internet physiology and we can all agree to disagree. Only Wade knows what's in his own soul (if he still has one).
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^Yeah I have to agree with you on that one.

Let's see what they have in store for us for June. No doubt they are planning something. Prepare for some article from DD or that Haeger woman.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

An article from Psychology Today on sociopaths:


Understanding the Sociopath: Cause, Motivation, Relationship


The sociopath remains largely misunderstood.
Published on April 2, 2013 by Seth Meyers, Psy.D.

I've been reflecting a lot lately on sociopathy as a function of commenting on television about Jodi Arias, the woman who burtally murdered her boyfriend in 2008 and is currently in the middle of a much-publicized trial. I've come to ask myself some very basic questions about those who are sociopaths, as I very much expect that Ms. Arias qualifies as one. Further, recently reading former Harvard professor Martha Stout's book, The Sociopath Next Door, I've been reminded how mysterious sociopathy remains.

Part of what makes sociopathy so fascinating is that we understand very little about what causes it. The sociopath overall is little understood, manifested primarily in the conventional belief that the sociopath has the malicious intent to harm others. The truth, however, is more complex than a single answer allows. Are sociopaths bad people? It's easy to utter a full-throated "Yes!" for so many reasons, but the reality is that sociopaths don't necessarily have malicious feelings toward others. The problem is that they have very little true feeling at all for others, which allows them to treat others as objects. The effect of their behavior is undoubtedly malicious, though the intention is not necessarily the same thing.

Ultimately, the sociopath typically emotionally destroys those who are close to him or her, but the sociopath destroys them in a way consistent with their unique approach to others: They take them out like your average person kills off characters in a video game. Those in the wake of the sociopath suffer because they have the liability sociopaths don't: actual human feelings that stem from a deep sense of social obligations to others, a moral anchor that is supposed to be part and parcel of having relationships.

The sense of entitlement that comes with sociopathy is astonishing to those who abide by the social laws and conventions of our culture. Where does the entitlement come from? It stems from an underlying sense of rage. Sociopaths feel deeply angry and resentful underneath their often-charming exterior, and this rage fuels their sense that they have the right to act out in whichever way they happen to choose at the time. Everything is up for grabs with sociopaths and nothing is off limits.

In relationships, sociopaths are the epitome of Machiavellian creatures. If they were astrological signs, they would be Geminis, with two distinct 'selfs' at work. They are duplicity incarnate, with a polished self shown to the world and a covert, hidden self that has a rigid and calculating agenda: assume the highest level of the social hierarchy and win, win, win. It is often the kindest and most trusting individuals who suffer the most at the hands of sociopaths, and the healing process for these individuals continues long after the relationship has ended. Those in the wake of the sociopath are often left wondering, What happened to me? Why does this one individual have such a powerful effect on me?

In the media, I'm often asked what causes sociopathy. "Are they born this way?" is one of the most frequently asked questions. The truth is that we don't know. Stout (2005) sums up the research well, explaining that as much as 50% percent of the cause of sociopathy can be attributed to heritability, while the remaining percentage is a confusing and not-yet-understood mixture of environmental factors. (Notably, a history of childhood abuse among sociopaths is not always present.) Similarly, Ferguson (2010) conducted a meta-analysis and found that 56% of the variance in Antisocial Personality Disorder, the formal disorder of sociopathy, can be explained through genetic influences.

I'm hard-pressed to say that I have vast reservoirs of empathy for the sociopath. At the same time, to see the life trajectory of a sociopath, it's hard to not feel sad that the sociopath has an existence that separates him from the vast majorty of 'normal' people. They often end up in prison and never truly know what it feels like to love and trust. Just imagine what that existence is like, not just for a week or month or summer, but for life. Do they even know what they're missing? No, but they live in a constant state of hypervigilance, viewing the world in a sterile, game-like manner. They have no real attachment to anyone.

Given the major role biology appears to play in creating or planting the seed of socioapthy, are sociopaths deserving of some empathy? If, as the research suggests, sociopaths are born with a predisposition to sociopathy, it means that they don't have total control over their behavior. To think that a poor child is born with such a horrific, life-long liability is a terribly sad reality. After all, no child deserves to carry around that kind of baggage.

As I write this, I'm reminded of an article, "The Easy Way Out With Evil," I wrote for Psychology Today about a British model who was the victim of a horrific crime in which a man threw acid on her face as she walked on the sidewalk of a crowded city street. At the time, many people responded to the news in the media and called the criminal "evil." My take on the subject was that evil was not a sufficient term for the man who committed the crime, favoring instead the notion that the criminal was mentally ill. In fact, as a psychologist, I don't believe true evil exists. Instead, I see this situation - and the larger issue of sociopathy - as a source of malfunctioning, as if a robot gone wild. We can try to call it whatever we wish, but the truth remains that we don't fully understand it and, unless brain research proves otherwise over time, we may never fully understanthane etiological process underlying sociopathy.

The current Jodi Arias trial has brought the psychological maze of sociopathy back into American culture, a trend that emerges every few years when a legal case has all the fixin's for a super-sized sensational trial. Day after day, Ms. Arias sits in the courtroom, affectless, as if a character in a movie instead of her own life. While my sense is that Ms. Arias is a true sociopath, to see her each day in the courtroom is to see a woman who appears incredibly lost, lonely, and emotionless. In so many ways, she appears to be the perfect face of sociopathy: ever-changing, highly guarded and empty. At the end of the day, she is a powerful reminder of how complex, dangerous and, yes, misunderstood the sociopath remains today.

References:

Ferguson, C. (2010).Genetic Contributions to Antisocial Personality and Behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 150 (2), 160-180.

Stout, M. (2005) The Sociopath Next Door. Crown.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...g-the-sociopath-cause-motivation-relationship

I'd love to know what Wade's psychotherapist thinks about him. If this goes to trial (a big if) we might find that out, I'm sure the estate would have something to say about his mental condition.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

This is from a personal point-of-view, but I don't like the word sociopath thrown around willy-nilly. You can do horrible things and not be sociopath since that is a mental disorder.

Yes, it is all internet psychology and one opinion is not more right than the other, since none of us know him personally. But when his cousin said on Wade's old website that "he always has to get things his way no matter what, even if it hurts other people" that should be noted.

Yes, calling Michael a pedo in national television was bad. No one is debating that. However, he could and should have been more vicious. He could have told a national audience that Michael raped him. I mean, that would grab headlines and woken up the audiences. That Michael Jacksons didn't just give him handjobs and touched him in the wrong places, but actually raped him up the butt. I mean even if some people don't believe him, he would have stayed in the news much longer than a couple of days. It made no sense for his case to compliment Michael at all. I mean, why would you call the man who raped you a genius and give him compassion? No, he's a monster and he should be called that and the world should know that he is one and not praise him. He should had laid Michael out and he didn't. The reason why no one believe Wade's interview is because he didn't bring that righteous fire. His language was weak and I think it is partly because for the reasons I stated before.

That he did not go into graphic details could simply be a strategy, not out of some kind of "compassion" for Michael. Actually, I think it was simply because at the time the Judge has not decided yet if the seal on the lawsuit would be lifted or not.

When I read his lawsuit I also noticed how he just clustered together all the allegations. I mean he seperately gives a narrative about what event followed what: we came to the US, me and Chantal spent the night in his room bla-bla, but in those parts he just said "and I was abused". Doesn't name specific acts there. He just says "paragraph 15 describes the sexual abuse". And paragraph 15 goes "the sexual activities between me and Doe 1" and one big black line - I guess he's throwing everything but the kitchen sink there, a list of all the acts we figured out from the penal codes.

Of course, he could say that with 7 years of alleged abuse he cannot seperate each and every event, and that would be reasonable. However at least he would be able to seperate what supposedly happened on the first night, no? Or supposedly MJ just started to do all does acts on him right on the first night? . That he does not say "and the first night he did this and that", and "it was the Xth night when he started to do this and that" could be simply a strategy - simply giving himself room to change and adjust the story. And this could be one reason why he didn't go into specific acts on the Today's Show, not some kind of "compassion" for Michael. But I think the main one was that it was simply not decided yet by the Judge whether the seal would be lifted. And let's not forget even when the lawsuit was unsealed, the specific alleged acts remained sealed. So those are simply under seal and I think that's why Wade could not throw around specific graphic claims on Today's show.

Sorry, but I can see no compassion in what he is doing, no matter what he says. Going on national TV and calling Michael a pedophile IS horrible! In fact, IMO, that he used that word was totally intentional and calculated for impact.

And let's not forget Wade has thrown in allegations that no other accuser did before: violent acts like anal rape. Wade is the very first person to claim such a thing! He could have claimed just masturbation, like Jordan and Gavin, but no, he has to go for the most shocking acts. That is absolutely vicious! If his lawsuit gets thrown out and he will try to make his money by touring the media I'm sure he will have no problem with talking about all those graphic claims.

That he said he felt compassion for Michael could be strategy as well: it could be cited as one of his reasons to not come forward earlier. I don't think for a minute that he really feels compassion for him. If he did he would never try to pull this crap. If he had a tiny bit of empathy towards Michael, he would know what it meant for Michael to go through all these allegations, how these allegations broke him and eventually contributed to his death. If he felt any kind of compassion he would not pull this on three orphaned children who have gone through enough already.

I don't think he cares about either Michael or his children. He cares only about one person: Wade Rosbon and to make him rich. And for that he will do anything it takes.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yes, it is all internet psychology and one opinion is not more right than the other, since none of us know him personally. But when his cousin said on Wade's old website that "he always has to get things his way no matter what, even if it hurts other people" that should be noted.



That he did not go into graphic details could simply be a strategy, not out of some kind of "compassion" for Michael. Actually, I think it was simply because at the time the Judge has not decided yet if the seal on the lawsuit would be lifted or not.

When I read his lawsuit I also noticed how he just clustered together all the allegations. I mean he seperately gives a narrative about what event followed what: we came to the US, me and Chantal spent the night in his room bla-bla, but in those parts he just said "and I was abused". Doesn't name specific acts there. He just says "paragraph 15 describes the sexual abuse". And paragraph 15 goes "the sexual activities between me and Doe 1" and one big black line - I guess he's throwing everything but the kitchen sink there, a list of all the acts we figured out from the penal codes.

Of course, he could say that with 7 years of alleged abuse he cannot seperate each and every event, and that would be reasonable. However at least he would be able to seperate what supposedly happened on the first night, no? Or supposedly MJ just started to do all does acts on him right on the first night? . That he does not say "and the first night he did this and that", and "it was the Xth night when he started to do this and that" could be simply a strategy - simply giving himself room to change and adjust the story. And this could be one reason why he didn't go into specific acts on the Today's Show, not some kind of "compassion" for Michael. But I think the main one was that it was simply not decided yet by the Judge whether the seal would be lifted. And let's not forget even when the lawsuit was unsealed, the specific alleged acts remained sealed. So those are simply under seal and I think that's why Wade could not throw around specific graphic claims on Today's show.

Sorry, but I can see no compassion in what he is doing, no matter what he says. Going on national TV and calling Michael a pedophile IS horrible! In fact, IMO, that he used that word was totally intentional and calculated for impact.

And let's not forget Wade has thrown in allegations that no other accuser did before: violent acts like anal rape. Wade is the very first person to claim such a thing! He could have claimed just masturbation, like Jordan and Gavin, but no, he has to go for the most shocking acts. That is absolutely vicious! If his lawsuit gets thrown out and he will try to make his money by touring the media I'm sure he will have no problem with talking about all those graphic claims.

That he said he felt compassion for Michael could be strategy as well: it could be cited as one of his reasons to not come forward earlier. I don't think for a minute that he really feels compassion for him. If he did he would never try to pull this crap. If he had a tiny bit of empathy towards Michael, he would know what it meant for Michael to go through all these allegations, how these allegations broke him and eventually contributed to his death. If he felt any kind of compassion he would not pull this on three orphaned children who have gone through enough already.

I don't think he cares about either Michael or his children. He cares only about one person: Wade Rosbon and to make him rich. And for that he will do anything it takes.


I think we can both agree that he called Michael a pedo for effect on the Today Show. I also think we can both agree that he claimed that he was anal raped in his lawsuit for effect as well. He wants to push the estate into a corner and force them to settle. However, I still don't see why he didn't say on the Today Show that he was raped and in general very weak language. Like I said, he should have been more vicious than just saying the P word. He needed to be outrage, but he came across as almost indifferent.

I guess he could have said compassion to slither his way out of not talking for twenty years, but that does not make much sense going by Wade's own words in that interview. He said that if anyone did to his son what Michael did to him, he would kill them. So, there should be no compassion at all since he freely said he would kill a person like Michael. In fact, that is the only time Wade showed real anger.

To be clear, I never said Wade felt compassion for Michael. I said he may still have a sense of fondness, which is why he praised Michael where he really shouldn't and made his case weaker. I think the reason why Wade is doing this is because he figures Michael is dead so he can't see or feel any of this, so Michael's feeling doesn't matter. I actually think back to what Michael's mom once said about Michael not being around not even in a spiritual sense because he's asleep and not aware of anything.

I will agree that Wade doesn't care about Michael's kids and may even resent them.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

He said that if anyone did to his son what Michael did to him, he would kill them. So, there should be no compassion at all since he freely said he would kill a person like Michael. In fact, that is the only time Wade showed real anger.

I agree, it's odd that he didn't show anger when he spoke of his own supposed abuse. Any parent would get angry or upset at the thought of something like that happening to their child, but when speaking about himself he seemed too calm, but then it is difficult to show proper emotion about something you didn't actually experience unless you're an exceptional actor.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

To be clear, I never said Wade felt compassion for Michael. I said he may still have a sense of fondness, which is why he praised Michael where he really shouldn't and made his case weaker.


Yes ^^. This also leads to an interesting point, which is, just because you have some tiny regard for a person, it does not mean you will not attack, rob, swindle or commit fraud against the person. I remember way back in the beginning of the thread, I gave a long testament about people who liked me, talked to me every day, but still tried to swindle me. Some may think that Wade hates Michael so he is doing this, but that may not be the case. He may actually admire him as an entertainer, professional role model, and have some fond memories of Michael. Yet he has a bigger goal right now which involves milking the estate for money, and he will use the means that he feels is most believable (due to Chandler) to get that money. All this of course says something about Wade himself, since what type of person does something like this.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

They have what they call a well-known doctor saying why Wade did not come forward sooner. Saying stuff like Michael was a God to him and that Michael told him if he said anything the both of them would go to jail for the rest of their lives and that mentally made him unable to come forward. I noticed what is missing is legal reasons why this case should go forward. IMO when the estate got him to admit he knew there was an estate of Michael Jackson that was the end all to be all concerning his CC claim
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

They have what they call a well-known doctor saying why Wade did not come forward sooner. Saying stuff like Michael was a God to him and that Michael told him if he said anything the both of them would go to jail for the rest of their lives and that mentally made him unable to come forward. I noticed what is missing is legal reasons why this case should go forward. IMO when the estate got him to admit he knew there was an estate of Michael Jackson that was the end all to be all concerning his CC claim

I agree. His case seems to be based on making excuses for why he didn't say anything about this when Michael was still alive, in my opinion.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^It seems Wade is going to use experts to claim why he did not come forward, why his behavior is typical, why he still promoted Michael after Michael died, why he did not understand, why he had about 3 breakdowns. Maybe the "experts" might say that as part of the grooming and abuse Michael made him think Michael was a hero and godlike, and Wade worshiped him; and even after Michael died, Wade still worshiped Michael and could not stop praising him or some such nonsense. They will have a shakey psychological reason for everything. Maybe they will try to win the case by using theories from shyster experts, since they have no hard evidence.

Anyone notice they are trying to do the same thing that Panish did--ask for the discovery and then use the discovery to look for support of their allegations and as their own discovery? Be prepared to have some of the statements that came out of the AEG trial used in Wade's scenarios.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^It seems Wade is going to use experts to claim why he did not come forward, why his behavior is typical, why he still promoted Michael after Michael died, why he did not understand, why he had about 3 breakdowns. Maybe the "experts" might say that as part of the grooming and abuse Michael made him think Michael was a hero and godlike, and Wade worshiped him; and even after Michael died, Wade still worshiped Michael and could not stop praising him or some such nonsense. They will have a shakey psychological reason for everything. Maybe they will try to win the case by using theories from shyster experts, since they have no hard evidence.

This case is crazy on it's face, in my opinion. But with nothing but talk, talk and more talk from so-called "experts", I hope the Estate has a plan for dealing with it. Because this doesn't sound good, even if talking is all that Wade's people can do.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Thing is with "experts" that you can find one to support any position in a lawsuit a party wants to support. Sure Wade will have his "experts" vouching for him, but so will the Estate have its experts vouching for MJ and the Estate's position. Expert opinion can be interesting but when a whole case is based on expert opinion which can be subjective, then that is a weak case.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Aside from money, I guess the other reason for preferring a civil suit is that you only have to prove your case 'on the balance of probability' and not 'beyond reasonable doubt'....which I am sure they know that they could never do. I don't think 'expert opinion' would stack up to a case 'on the balance of probability' without some real, individual evidence for each plaintiffs case. I don't see how 'state of mind' can count as solid evidence when expert opinion is divided.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Elizabeth ?@StatenStories 11 Min.
New image of court filing by WR & JS....via Ivy...strangely has another name we recognize, petitioner Debbie Rowe http://twitpic.com/e4vs2n

Ivy ?@Ivy_4MJ

Safechuck's name is now listed as claimant. It looks like they went to Dimond 3 days before filing with the court http://twitpic.com/e4vs2n
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Elizabeth ?@StatenStories 11 Min.
New image of court filing by WR & JS....via Ivy...strangely has another name we recognize, petitioner Debbie Rowe http://twitpic.com/e4vs2n

Ivy ?@Ivy_4MJ

Safechuck's name is now listed as claimant. It looks like they went to Dimond 3 days before filing with the court http://twitpic.com/e4vs2n

Oh, they had to get it out quickly to Dimond just in time for Xscape's release. :smilerolleyes:

But didn't Dimond write at the time that JS filed "last Friday" (DD's article was published on Monday, May 12):

The latest sexual assault complaint, filed in court last Friday, remains sealed, but two sources close to the case revealed that the man involved is James Safechuck, who appeared in a Pepsi ad featuring Jackson in 1987 and proceeded to have a close association with the singer for several years.

So was that a lie and in reality they still had not filed when DD wrote her article but just wanted that info out there quickly for album release?


I guess, the Debbie Rowe thing is a seperate case and Peter Ronay is her attorney? Wonder what's that about.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

This crap just keeps getting weirder.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Just the fact that they went to Diane before doing anything tells me how desperate they are. We know she told several lies in her story now we know why. Howard W. was so right when he said focus on the music and I am so happy people are doing that.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Debbie Rowe is not involved with Robson / Safechuck. Probate court lists hundreds of people who had and have legal dealings with MJ Estate over the last 5 years alphabetically. It's just alphabetically her name falls between Robson and Safechuck.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

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

Ivy thanks. It is such a shame that you don't give document information as much as you used to, but I understand why.

Don't they realize though that interested parties can see when the filing was done and when the article came out?

I will really like to see what their discovery will be if this gets the go ahead for trial. This is supposed to be crime committed years ago that Wade kept secret. It is not as though it is like a murder case, so I expect the case will hinge a lot on expert testimony rather than hard physical evidence.

We may have to buy some of these documents when they are available.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Robson came across as ver intelligent and articulate, but not honest. His intelligence even hurt his credibility. He said he just now realized it was abuse. The guy is a parent for crying out loud. How can he not know what sexual abuse is? I can just picture his moment of realization. " Wait a minute! That was abuse!" I mean seriously. Any adult who isn't mentally handicapped understands what is child molestation.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Well no real shocker Dimond got the story before it was filed....I mean ofcourse. Her moves are very predictable! They keep playing the same tired games. They must like to LOSE! -_-
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Robson came across as ver intelligent and articulate, but not honest. His intelligence even hurt his credibility. He said he just now realized it was abuse. The guy is a parent for crying out loud. How can he not know what sexual abuse is? I can just picture his moment of realization. " Wait a minute! That was abuse!" I mean seriously. Any adult who isn't mentally handicapped understands what is child molestation.

Yes. Wade wants people to believe that he spent his entire adult life until a couple of years ago knowing nothing about what abuse is. He testified in Michael's defense in 2005 with well-spoken language and forcefulness in the face of tough prosecution questioning. He apparently wants people to believe he was totally mindless and stupid even then. But his claim of ignorance doesn't work with me.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Robson came across as ver intelligent and articulate, but not honest. His intelligence even hurt his credibility. He said he just now realized it was abuse. The guy is a parent for crying out loud. How can he not know what sexual abuse is? I can just picture his moment of realization. " Wait a minute! That was abuse!" I mean seriously. Any adult who isn't mentally handicapped understands what is child molestation.

Of course he knew molestation was wrong. He was participating in a trial to determine if another person was guilty of it and send them away to prison for 20+ years.

It's so obvious that whole act of being oblivious in the past is a ploy to try to entice the judge to waive the statute of limitations and allow this claim to proceed.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Elizabeth ?@StatenStories 11 Min.
New image of court filing by WR & JS....via Ivy...strangely has another name we recognize, petitioner Debbie Rowe http://twitpic.com/e4vs2n

Ivy ?@Ivy_4MJ

Safechuck's name is now listed as claimant. It looks like they went to Dimond 3 days before filing with the court http://twitpic.com/e4vs2n

Yep, Diane Dimond wrote her article about Safechuck on May 12th... 3 days before it was filed in the courts. She lied on her web article (no surprise there). At the time she wrote it, NOTHING was even filed with the court yet. So, it proves Safechuck and his legal team are using Diane Dimond for their game. And the most obvious thing is the timing of it to coincide with the Xscape release to get the most impact.

These people are so sneaky and creepy.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It always stuck with me that the comment was made somewhere that 'there were two other men waiting in the wings' with allegations, but that they'd 'wait what would happen to his case', just after Wade came out with his story. Now that James is pulling the same shit it makes me wonder, could they've been in on it together from the start? And come out one after another to make it seem more credible?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It always stuck with me that the comment was made somewhere that 'there were two other men waiting in the wings' with allegations, but that they'd 'wait what would happen to his case', just after Wade came out with his story. Now that James is pulling the same shit it makes me wonder, could they've been in on it together from the start? And come out one after another to make it seem more credible?

That claim came from the Daily Star (one the least reliable tabloids) and I don't think there was anything behind it.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Again if you are a victim , interested in the truth, in the justice , in making your voice heard, in punishing your victimizer, why would contacting a tabloid reporter be of any priority to you ? !
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Again if you are a victim , interested in the truth, in the justice , in making your voice heard, in punishing your victimizer, why would contacting a tabloid reporter be of any priority to you ? !

That $ure is a My$tery
 
Back
Top