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

[Justthefacts]

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

Wade's lawyers really think they are above the law

 

[passy001]

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

it's called phishing expedition. in the end they will get nothing.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

They are saying if the estate says no to his CC claim they will add John Branca and John McClain to there lawsuit. Huh?

 

[PoP]

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

Robson's lawyers are so damned pathetic, they're co-conspiraters with their representative so that they can win the false case.

 

[ivy]

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

Well I guess there's a weird logic in all this. First MJ is dead and any claim against him has to be brought against Estate. Probate claim might be the first step and estate can respond to such claims as accept, partially accept or reject. Such rejection means a civil lawsuit has to be filed. So adding executors/estate to the civil case if probate claim is rejected makes sense in that regard.

Civil case currently is a mess IMO. He's suing a deceased and two companies that were involved in his visa, work etc status. However according to Estate and well Robson those companies are owned and controlled by Michael and not the other way around so it's not like MJJ Productions or Ventures could have said "no" to Michael.

I'm thinking eventually this will come to a civil case against MJ Estate - which Estate clearly will try get dismissed as well. (Note: I'm not sure what it means if the court rejects the creditor's claim. I wonder if that might mean Estate cannot be sued civilly as well. I guess we'll wait and see) One thing we know now that this process will definitely take a long time. In civil case Estate filed demurrers, Wade will respond, Estate will reply, hearing in October, decision will come later. Apparently probate issue could take until or even later than February 2015. If Estate gets added to civil lawsuit around that time demurrer etc will take months as well. If unsuccessful then there will be discovery, trial etc which probably won't happen until 2016. So this is a long and slow process. Hopefully there will be successful dismissals.

Another thing we learned - in my opinion- is if this eventually goes to trial Estate definitely plan to use Wade's statements against him - especially his under oath testimony during the criminal trial. Weitzman had a comment inserted in the filings hinting about this.

 

[HIStory]

I'm thinking eventually this will come to a civil case against MJ Estate - which Estate clearly will try get dismissed as well.

And the Estate can still argue about the statues of limitations. There is an article I found and posted here a couple of days ago which says this:

The Marsha V. court reflects a common thread between the decisions rejecting the delayed discovery rule in the case of adult survivors of childhood molestation. A plaintiff who, by her own admission, was molested "against her will" but does not claim to have immediately and completely suppressed the abuse, cannot take advantage of the discovery rule. This should be distinguished from the case where the plaintiff claims to have had no prior awareness of the "wrongfulness" of the defendant’s conduct until some point in time which is no more than three years before the complaint is filed. This is the distinction drawn in the Jolly and Evans decisions. California courts have thus far been reluctant to apply the discovery rule, unless the plaintiff can successfully argue that she has repressed the molestation, or that she was ignorant of the "wrongfulness" of her abuser’s conduct.

Here is the full post with more about this: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tate/page449?p=4027800&viewfull=1#post4027800

We know he claims the latter: so not repressed memories but that he did not know about the wrongfulness of his alleged abuser's alleged conduct. (Would be hard to sell considering the 2005 trial.) However the article also says that a plaintiff who "by her own admission, was molested "against her will" but does not claim to have immediately and completely suppressed the abuse, cannot take advantage of the discovery rule". Now, based on the Penal Codes in his lawsuit he does claim he was molested against his will (that it's against the victim's will is actually in the legal definition of rape what he claims).

To me it seems the law says with that: "if it was against your will you cannot claim you did not know it was wrong". That makes sense because claiming you were raped but you did not know it was wrong is nonsensical and goes against any common sense. The law seems to acknowledge that here.

 

[Petrarose]

it's called phishing expedition. in the end they will get nothing.

Exactly and they tried it before. They are trying to get information from former witnesses and from the raid to see if they can find something to use. This is so obvious and is a sure method of someone who does not have a strong case. What these fools think they will find I don't know, because if there was anything to be found the prosecution would have used it in 2005. I mean the DA has this great evidence from the police raid and he disregards it and leaves it for someone like Wade to come along and use--how foolish is that.

The response from the estate seems legally strong:

Such abuse claims can only be made against natural persons and not entities.
Any claims about corporate entities cannot be filed after plaintiff’s 26th birthday. (Wade was 30 when he filed the lawsuit)
The only exception to the above rule is when corporate entities have special relationship with the perpetrator, had control and could have prevented the abuse. It requires the corporate entities to know or had reason to know there was an unlawful sexual conduct by their employee, agent, representative and failed to take reasonable safeguards from preventing it. Estate states Robson’s own claim argues the opposite, Robson's complaint states that the corporate defendants were controlled by MJ and thefore Estate argues corporate entities had no ability to control their owner (MJ).



^^I wonder what was Wade's side response to it? Good that they want to try the 2 shakedowns separately. Let's see what Chuck's evidence is--maybe he will use the same thing Wade has. I just love the blackmail that if you deny it we will add your names to the lawsuit.

Just as we thought, it was them that were pushing for a "June" date. Is there any trick that they have not tried yet?

 

[HIStory]

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

Just as we thought, it was them that were pushing for a "June" date. Is there any trick that they have not tried yet?

I realized that too and I doubt it's a coincidence that they want the trial to be in June.

 

[Petrarose]

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

I suspect that all his statements on tv, internet, publications will be used against him, plus what he said under oath. I think one of the latest contradictions was when he was found making a film after he claimed he could not work anymore or something like that.

 

[MJresearcher]

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

I think I've said this before, but fishing for information when they aren't at the discovery stage of the lawsuit is dodgy. They're probably doing it because the media will report that the estate isn't giving them information and people will think they're hiding something because they don't know how this process works. Maybe they're trying to get as many people in the public as they can to increase the chances of jury members being on their side if it goes to trial.

 

[ivy]

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

And the Estate can still argue about the statues of limitations.

Yeah statue of limitations seem to be Wade's biggest issue.

^^I wonder what was Wade's side response to it?

he hasn't responded yet. Hopefully when he does I can get it too.

I think I've said this before, but fishing for information when they aren't at the discovery stage of the lawsuit is dodgy.

As far as I can tell they are asking for information to be able to respond to Estate's dismissal requests. There are some very limited exceptions and they are trying to find evidence of those to hopefully get the courts to grant his late filing.

 

[passy001]

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

Yeah statue of limitations seem to be Wade's biggest issue.



he hasn't responded yet. Hopefully when he does I can get it too.



As far as I can tell they are asking for information to be able to respond to Estate's dismissal requests. There are some very limited exceptions and they are trying to find evidence of those to hopefully get the courts to grant his late filing.

what are the exceptions? plus, what would be the point of all this dance when the estate says that even if the court grants them permission to file late creditor claim, it will still reject the claim.

 

[passy001]

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

They are saying if the estate says no to his CC claim they will add John Branca and John McClain to there lawsuit. Huh?

How is that going to help their frivolous case?

 

[ivy]

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

what are the exceptions?

based on motion to quash and objection at probate case, he says he needs those for his defense of equitable estoppel against statue of limitations.

document by radar online here - http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/jackson-estate047_redacted.pdf

This document - especially objection by Robson- explains why he needs such information.

plus, what would be the point of all this dance when the estate says that even if the court grants them permission to file late creditor claim, it will still reject the claim.

I have been thinking about it too and I don't know enough to make statements about it but I wonder if the probate court decision can make a difference? Such as they need probate court to say he can file a late claim to pursue a claim and/or civil case against Estate and if probate court rejects it Estate cannot be sued? I don't know I'm just wondering.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

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

I don't understand why it might take so long if Robson filed his ludicrous claim too late and against a person who can no longer defend himself because he's deceased. Isn't there a law against suing a deceased individual? I'm aware there must be procedures to follow but the fact he was permitted to file such claims is ridiculous.

 

[HIStory]

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

document by radar online here - http://amradaronline.files.wordpress...7_redacted.pdf

Thanks Ivy.

I understand that they are saying that to prove they are entitled to equitable estoppel they say they need the discovery - ie. witness statements from 2005/1993, evidence from NL search etc.

I don't really understand how it works though. It suggests that you are basically trying the case before a trial. For example let's say they bring in the testimony from Blanca Francia in support of Wade. But the credibility of Blanca Francia is obviously a matter of dispute. And that may be the case with many other witness interviews Wade intends to use (I assume Neverland 5 etc.) Their motives (financial and otherwise) need to be examined, it's not enough to just see they made a certain statement in a police interview or in court.

So basically you can or have to try the whole case before even there is a go ahead for this case? That sounds crazy to me. Or is it enough that they bring in for example Francia's statements from the 2005 case and whether she's credible or not will be only examined at the trial by the jury?

I also do not understand how any of this would be sufficient for him to prove he is entitled to equitable estoppel. How any other former allegations (which were never proven in court BTW) or even something like Blanca Francia's testimony would "prove" that Wade was so severly mentally manipulated and intimidated by Michael that - despite of two very public rounds of allegations against Michael, despite of a criminal trial - he could not reasonably realize that he was abused until 2012?

In fact, if anything bringing in those former allegations would just prove the opposite. It would suggest that Michael's so called intimidations and manipulations could not be so effective as he claims, if two other alleged victims came forward shortly after their alleged abuse. And how come Wade still felt intimidated after he saw those other alleged victims come forward and saw that none of them went to jail - especially in 2005 when he was already an adult?

Also Blanca Francia. If Wade claims now that he did shower with Michael in the nude, only he was not aware of the wrongfulness of it until 2005 he certainly should have realized in 2005 that it was wrong. Because of the trial, because of Blanca Francia's testimony and because of what and how he was asked in his own testimony. And if he did not realize it was wrong then why did he deny it?

And according to his recent claims showering together was just the least of what they did together and there were lot more brutal things happening. So if in 2005 he was told that even showering together was wrong how come he could not realize or derive from that that things like anal rape, masturbation etc. are even more wrong and more illicit and are in fact sexual abuse? It's just a crazy, crazy claim.

To me their claims seem to be all over the place. They say: "Claimant was unaware of the illicit, non-consensual nature of these acts until he sought therapy as an adult".

How can that be when Michael was on a criminal trial in 2005? Ridiculous. And this refers me back to that article I quoted above which says to get around statues of limitations one has to claim either repressed memories or not knowing about the wrongfulness of the alleged act. Wade claims the latter. But how can he claim that when many of the Penal Codes they reference in their lawsuit contains that it was against his will. Eg.:

(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.

And saying it was against his will is, he was forced etc., according to the law, is saying that he was aware of the wrongfulness of it:

A plaintiff who, by her own admission, was molested "against her will" but does not claim to have immediately and completely suppressed the abuse, cannot take advantage of the discovery rule.

I see Wade's side is using that hater webiste:

Let's see how many arguments they will use from that website during the course of their case...

What the heck does William Van Valin's treatment of Michael have to do with the allegations? They are just shooting in every direction and try to get access to every private info related to Michael.

Omer Bhatti objected to their use of his witness interview:

------

I hope it gets thrown out. It just seems so utterly unfair that they basically want to re-try the whole 2005 case and more again, without MJ being here to defend himself. The Witch Hunt must end at last!

 

[MJresearcher]

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

I see Wade's side is using that hater website:

I thought the credibility of Wade and his lawyers was bad before, now it's really gone down the drain! I can't believe they're getting information from this site! Now whoever runs that site will wave this around like a trophy and attempt to use it as "proof" that the information in their site is accurate because it's referred to in this case. I can't even put into words how wrong this is!!!

:mat: :tickingtimebomb :ranting errin :banghead :blowup:

 

[HIStory]

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

I thought the credibility of Wade and his lawyers was bad before, now it's really gone down the drain! I can't believe they're getting information from this site! Now whoever runs that site will wave this around like a trophy and attempt to use it as "proof" that the information in their site is accurate because it's referred to in this case. I can't even put into words how wrong this is!!!

:mat: :tickingtimebomb :ranting errin :banghead :blowup:

To be fair, they just use it here to show that the court transcripts are public, but I have no doubt they otherwise take ideas from that website as well. I also think they used this link as an example so that if the Jugde checks it out maybe he will bump into all the other BS on that website and maybe that might sway him in their favour.

 

[Justthefacts]

First of all let me say this. I disagree with TMEZ when he says Wade’s lawyer is a good tough lawyer. He is clearly a sleaze . Because has pointed out by the estate is asking for things that he knows he is never going to get and should not even be asking for. The thing that perplexes me is this. They keep saying that Wade did not know it was wrong in 05 that is why he never saidhe was abused but none of that justifies him being allowed to go around the law. He can speak about being abused all he wants he according to the law can’t ask for compensation because he waited too long. This again IMO is nothing more than an attempt to get a settlement you keep filing silly things and the hope that the estate would get annoyed with you and settle and I don’t think that is going to happen. I may not have much good to say about California laws but in this case they are as plain as the day is long and there is no reason why Wade should be allowed to play by his own rules. He wants to use people’s stories to bolster his claims never the fact he denied all of this in 05 and again if he did notknow it was wrong why deny it? Oh and this. his lawyers make a big deal about how Wade not know it was wrong so they better shut Wade up when he tells these groups he speaks too that he lived with the pain and the shame of being abused for years. And now he can finally speak the truth

 

[ivy]

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

I understand that they are saying that to prove they are entitled to equitable estoppel they say they need the discovery - ie. witness statements from 2005/1993, evidence from NL search etc.I don't really understand how it works though. It suggests that you are basically trying the case before a trial.

it's been a while I read that document and I'm not 100% certain but my understanding is that he is asking for that information to show that MJ had a certain MO and he is the reason why Robson could not come forward with his claims, MJ had brainwashed him.

Let me try an example. Imagine someone does something bad and then tells the victim "don't tell or I'll kill you". The victim keeps silent because of that threat. Statue of limitations pass. For whatever reason victim now tells it and obviously will answer statue of limitation issue. So the exception will be the reason the victim didn't tell was the threats coming from the accused and therefore the accused shouldn't get a free pass.

How any other former allegations (which were never proven in court BTW) or even something like Blanca Francia's testimony would "prove" that Wade was so severly mentally manipulated and intimidated by Michael that - despite of two very public rounds of allegations against Michael, despite of a criminal trial - he could not reasonably realize that he was abused until 2012?

His best bet would be other alleged victims /kids and what they said. For example didn't Jordy deny he was abused but then allegedly said he was while under drugs? Did he explain more? So I'm thinking any kid / alleged victim saying stuff like they didn't know it was abuse, MJ told them it was okay, normal etc could be used to help his case. As you said he is trying to prove he was severely mentally manipulated and intimidated by Michael - hence could not file a lawsuit until now. so I don't think this is about Francia or someone is saying "I saw him do this" but it's more about what Michael told to other kids.

So if in 2005 he was told that even showering together was wrong how come he could not realize or derive from that that things like anal rape, masturbation etc. are even more wrong and more illicit and are in fact sexual abuse? It's just a crazy, crazy claim.

How can that be when Michael was on a criminal trial in 2005? Ridiculous. And this refers me back to that article I quoted above which says to get around statues of limitations one has to claim either repressed memories or not knowing about the wrongfulness of the alleged act. Wade claims the latter.

It is ridiculous yes. In terms of his 2005 testimony, there were some very direct questions such as did he touch you etc (not exact question) which Wade replied "no". Regardless of knowing what happened between them is okay or abuse, Robson should have replied to that as "yes". If you look to his claims now and assume they are correct, it would only mean that Robson has intentionally lied. (It's one thing to not realize if a sexual act is acceptable or not but it's a totally different thing when someone asks if such sexual act occurred and him saying "no")

I don't see how he can claim "not knowing about the wrongfulness of the alleged act" during / after the 2005 trial. It should have been clear to a 23 year old, and his intentional lying (as he claims now) would show that. I don't know how he'll argue he didn't know and if a jury will buy it. It seems so far fetched. If you ask me to be a devil's advocate, I can see how a child might not be clear about what is okay and what is not, I can see people confusing some actions as love (for example someone thinking a kiss is a show of love when it's inappropriate) but a 23 year old sexually active man doesn't understand what sodomy is? So far fetched IMO. Perhaps it would have been better if Wade claimed repressed memories. To the contrary not only he claims he remembers them but also Michael coaches him about those reminding him before every accusation/trial.

 

[HIStory]

His best bet would be other alleged victims /kids and what they said. For example didn't Jordy deny he was abused but then allegedly said he was while under drugs? Did he explain more?

Jordan denied it for long, but the circumstances of his so called coming forward were very different. He was basically threatened, blackmailed and coerced into it by his father. Not sure if it would end up well for Wade if he went there, because telling this story to a Judge or Jury I don't think would strengthen the Chandler case and in turn Wade's case, on the contrary: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/how-did-the-allegations-of-the-chandlers-emerge/

So I'm thinking any kid / alleged victim saying stuff like they didn't know it was abuse, MJ told them it was okay, normal etc could be used to help his case.

There is one thing that he could maybe remotely use from Jordan in that regard, but even that can backfire. Jordan said this in the Gardner interview in October 1993:

"By the way, going back, did he say, 'It's a secret.'"

"Michael?"

"Yeah. In terms of did he make any threats?"

"I think he may have said, like, if you tell - - if people say 'Don't worry, just tell us, Michael

will go to jail and nothing will happen to me you.'He said that wasn't true, and I could, like,

go to juvenile hall or something."

"That he could go to jail but you'd go to juvenile hall?"

"Something like that."

"That he himself could go to jail?"

"I don't specifically remember. I'm almost positive though, that he said about juvenile hall.

I'm almost positive he said that, but I do indeed remember that he said that he would go to

jail, and that, like, I wouldn't get off Scott free."

"Did you believe that?"
"Well, I didn't really believe it at the time, and I definitely don't now. But at the time I didn't

really believe it but I said, okay, whatever, and just went along with it."

I don't think the threatening of jail claim proves anything. This is a very standard/text book threat by child molesters, you can find that in many, many child abuse stories - the kind of stories which I have no doubt both the Chandlers and Wade studied before constructing their allegations. Case in point:

One of the girl's teachers testified that, on the morning after the alleged attack, the girl accused Kokumo of threatening her if she told anybody about the incident.
She quoted the girl as saying: "He said, 'If you tell anybody, you will go to jail, I will go to jail, and then I will kill you.' "

http://articles.philly.com/1995-04-...cent-assault-philadelphia-girl-sexual-contact

Bear in mind, though, that abusers employ the most diabolic means of coercion: authority (‘I'm your father!'), threats (‘I'll kill you if you tell!'), brute physical force and even guilt (‘If you tell, Daddy will go to jail.').

http://www.silentlambs.org/press/victims.cfm

Using threats and blackmail to ensure the child keeps the secret. Threats such as the child will go to jail if they tell and they will never see their family again, that no-one will believe them and that they will be destroy the family, etc. The abuser will work very hard to ensure the child never tells.

http://singlemum.com.au/features/child-abuser-risks-23102014-jayneen-sanders.html

So this is very text book. And Wade possibly could have studied some aspects of the Chandler case too, of course, including this exchange between Gardner and Jordan, which is available online - inlcuding on that hater website that we know now he and his lawyer do monitor, or other articles, books about the 1993 case which included this info.

But if Wade used this for example to show MO, it could backfire in that Jordan actually said that he did not believe it. At the age of 13 he clearly felt a threat like that would sound stupid and not believable and he said "I didn't really believe it but I said, okay, whatever, and just went along with it."

He did not claim he was intimidated by it and that's why he could not come forward earlier. So while a 13-year-old Jordan said he didn't believe it Wade wants us to believe that he did believe such an alleged threat until the age of 30, even though he could see both in 1993 and 2005 that the accusers do not go to jail even when they lose the case.

And thing is with the whole Modus Operandi thing. When you break it down to detail you can see that Wade's allegations are very different from the previous accusers. Apparently he talks about sodomy and even anal rape, that no one else claimed before him. He claims Michael started to molest him right away on the first night, while both Jordan and Gavin claimed a lengthy "grooming" process. In fact in the Gardner interview that I quoted above Jordan talks about gradual steps: first it was just a kiss on the cheek, then on the mouth, bla-bla-bla, gradually and slowly going to more and more inappropriate and sexual acts. That was how they constructed their story. Wade, however, claimed the opposite. He claimed they slept together and the first night boom, MJ molests him out of the blue. No grooming process, nothing.

Moreover, their ages. Wade claims Michael started to molest him at the age of 7 and he lost interest at 14 when he started to reach puberty. Jordan and Gavin both claimed that he started to molested them at 13, going on 14 - at the same age he supposedly lost interest in Wade.

Also Wade's allegations would precede Jordan's. How come that this alleged serial molester would go from the more brutal acts with Wade (sodomy, anal rape) to "lighter" actions with his later alleged victims? Should not it be the other way around? Going from lighter acts to more brutal ones and not the other way around?

You can pick out certain tiny details, such as "jail" being mentioned in both the Chandler and Robson stories and call that a MO, but in reality when we go down to detail we would see a very, very patternless and MO-less "child molester" if we put the allegations of all of Michael's accusers' side by side.

I don't see how he can claim "not knowing about the wrongfulness of the alleged act" during / after the 2005 trial. It should have been clear to a 23 year old, and his intentional lying (as he claims now) would show that.

Exactly. Apparently to get around statues it's pivotal for him to claim that he did not know about the wrongfulness of the alleged acts. But if he he intentionally lied about them in 2005 that belies the claim he did not know about its wrongfulness.

Perhaps it would have been better if Wade claimed repressed memories. To the contrary not only he claims he remembers them but also Michael coaches him about those reminding him before every accusation/trial.

Yes, and he claims Michael still coached him in 2005 the same way as he did when he was 11. Okay...

 

[Justthefacts]

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

As I recall didn't he say that in 93 Michael told him people are making up stuff about us and it is disgusting lie, so your abuser is telling you himself that it is wrong?

 

[HIStory]

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

As I recall didn't he say that in 93 Michael told him people are making up stuff about us and it is disgusting lie, so your abuser is telling you himself that it is wrong?

Yes, this is what he says about 1993:

And then about 2005:

So on both occasions Michael told him they make up lies about them doing all that "disgusting sexual stuff" and it still did not occur to him: "Wait a minute! Did he just say "disgusting sexual stuff"? But I thought it was ok, normal and loving. So how come it's suddenly "disgusting sexual stuff"? Something is not OK here."

 

[ivy]

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

And thing is with the whole Modus Operandi thing.

I think as of now the only thing he needs to show is that there's a valid reason he couldn't come forward before. Some elements match to some other previous claims such as as you pointed out jail/losing careers and calling each other father/son etc. First we will see if he'll be given access to earlier interviews and if he uses them could he convince a judge that there's a valid reason for late filing.

When you break it down to detail you can see that Wade's allegations are very different from the previous accusers. Apparently he talks about sodomy and even anal rape, that no one else claimed before him. He claims Michael started to molest him right away on the first night, while both Jordan and Gavin claimed a lengthy "grooming" process. In fact in the Gardner interview that I quoted above Jordan talks about gradual steps: first it was just a kiss on the cheek, then on the mouth, bla-bla-bla, gradually and slowly going to more and more inappropriate and sexual acts. That was how they constructed their story. Wade, however, claimed the opposite. He claimed they slept together and the first night boom, MJ molests him out of the blue. No grooming process, nothing.

yeah if this goes to trial such details will come into play. Some of the penal code he references is about sodomy and sexual penetration (with something other than a penis) which has never been claimed before. Age doesn't fit either, neither how the abuse progressed. But will it even matter? The document from radar had stated "prior bad acts being inadmissible" if that's the case perhaps Judge/jury cannot compare and contrast his claims to other claims.

Also Wade's allegations would precede Jordan's.

I think the main disadvantage of that for Wade and advantage for Estate is that timing will work against his claims that the corporate defendants or anyone knew or should have known abuse and take precautions. Would it be red flag MJ wanting to sign a young talented kid to his label? No, MJ himself was discovered when he was a child. The "red flags" if you can call them was raised by 1993 accusations and settlement which was heavily publicized and followed by 1994 Francia civil lawsuit threat and later settlement which wasn't publicized. So I would think only after 1993 someone can argue there could have been a red flag and even that could be argued against with no criminal charges being filed even after a criminal investigation. so How would he prove anyone knew or should have known he was going to be abused?

 

[HIStory]

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

The document from radar had stated "prior bad acts being inadmissible" if that's the case perhaps Judge/jury cannot compare and contrast his claims to other claims.

I missed that info. I don't know if it would be good or bad for MJ's side because most people know about those allegations and certainly a jury would have them in the back of their minds. As we know there's so much misleading and false info out there about those cases and because of that jury members might think: "he's been accused before, there's no smoke without fire, so maybe he did molest Robson - I'm going to vote in his favour". I almost think it would be better for Michael's side to be able to present those cases and show how weak they actually were so that thought about the prior cases in the back of the jury's mind and the media myths surrounding them won't sway a jury in Robson's favour.

I think the main disadvantage of that for Wade and advantage for Estate is that timing will work against his claims that the corporate defendants or anyone knew or should have known abuse and take precautions. Would it be red flag MJ wanting to sign a young talented kid to his label? No, MJ himself was discovered when he was a child. The "red flags" if you can call them was raised by 1993 accusations and settlement which was heavily publicized and followed by 1994 Francia civil lawsuit threat and later settlement which wasn't publicized. So I would think only after 1993 someone can argue there could have been a red flag and even that could be argued against with no criminal charges being filed even after a criminal investigation. so How would he prove anyone knew or should have known he was going to be abused?

Yes, that's another ridiculous element in his case. He says Branca/McClain/Weitzman and/or other employees of MJ's companies knew and should have protected him. But he was with his mother who admitted on the stand in 2005 that she knew about the sleepovers and she allowed them - both before and after 1993. So what will he claim? That his mother knew he was being molested but did nothing? I doubt that he will claim that. He still seems to be on good terms with his mother. He does not seem to blame him for anything in his lawsuit either. If his mother who was closer to the whole situation and to Wade personally than anyone did not know or suspect anything, how is it reasonable to expect from employees at MJ's companies to know or suspect anything? If his own mother is not made responsible for allegedly not protecting him how is it reasonable to make MJ's companies responsible?

He says bringing him to the US from Australia was "facilitating" his abuse. But according to prosecution documents from 2005 it was actually Wade's mother who was pushing Michael's office for the green cards by calling them every day.

It is simply ridiculous from him to try to blame Michael's companies when if his story was true there would be no one he should blame and be angry with before his own mother. And I'm telling you if it goes to trial there is no way Joy Robson can come away from it looking good. Either she was facilitating the abuse of her son big time, being an absolutely reckless and negligent mother who bears a big responsibility in her son's abuse. Or she raised such children as Wade who would stab a friend in the back for money.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

How can anyone protect him when he kept saying nothing happend?

 

[PoP]

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

I thought the credibility of Wade and his lawyers was bad before, now it's really gone down the drain! I can't believe they're getting information from this site! Now whoever runs that site will wave this around like a trophy and attempt to use it as "proof" that the information in their site is accurate because it's referred to in this case. I can't even put into words how wrong this is!!!

:mat: :tickingtimebomb :ranting errin :banghead :blowup:

I have just as much hatred to this MJFacts site, he's probably picked those lies up from them and how I just wanna chuck hockey pucks at who's running that dreck site and at that b@$^@#& Robson too.

 

[GreenEyes]

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

He says bringing him to the US from Australia was "facilitating" his abuse. But according to prosecution documents from 2005 it was actually Wade's mother who was pushing Michael's office for the green cards by calling them every day.

I wish Michael would have not helped that family AT ALL and left his sorry ass in Australia.

This is the thanks he gets for helping them out of their situation? What a world.

Come to think of it.... there are a lot of people he shouldn't have helped.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

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

Shouldn't be Joy Robson accused of "neglecting" her child? (if we use his logic) Because she was the one who pushed him to be in showbiz and asked Michael to help him with his career and also getting their green card. Joy "handed" her crook son on a silver plate to Michael!

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Mama Joy went back tol Australia right before he filed his claim. She is it it up to her eyeballs just like her daughter is just like I'm sure some of his other family is like his cousin Jonathan.