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

[Gold Pants Girl]

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.

She moved back to Australia? Has she made any comments about this anywhere, I don't think I've read anything from her.

 

[ivy]

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

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.

Yes the jurors will most probably have heard the 2005 trial but it is possible to find jurors who are neutral and who can only decide based on what will be presented in this case.

I personally do not see the benefit in bringing in old cases and comparing them. for example convincing jury penetration is never claimed before but some other claims have been consistent doesn't bring anything positive IMO. There's the risk of "no smoke without fire" and let's not forget this is a civil trial which doesn't require "beyond reasonable doubt". I would think the only way past instances mentioned should be 93 investigation didn't lead to a criminal trial and 2005 trial has ended with not guilty verdict.

So what will he claim? That his mother knew he was being molested but did nothing? I doubt that he will claim that.

There's no claim about that. It was mentioned in the documents. Wade also claims he told it for the first time to his therapist after his breakdowns.

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.

I agree with all , it'll be hard thing to prove. As for knowing he would need to show some sort of information that predates him which I think is unlikely or some action that every reasonable person would find suspicious. I don't think there's no such thing.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

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

^She's remained quiet as far as I'm awere of. His prick sister Chantal, has supported him.

 

[Petrarose]

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

^^Yeah his mom skipped out before and then Wade did also. He came back to go on tv though. It seems they planned it that way. I wonder if Chuck will move to some other place too for a while. They seem to be trying to do a lot of things in a similar way.

 

[HIStory]

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

Yes the jurors will most probably have heard the 2005 trial but it is possible to find jurors who are neutral and who can only decide based on what will be presented in this case.

I personally do not see the benefit in bringing in old cases and comparing them. for example convincing jury penetration is never claimed before but some other claims have been consistent doesn't bring anything positive IMO. There's the risk of "no smoke without fire" and let's not forget this is a civil trial which doesn't require "beyond reasonable doubt". I would think the only way past instances mentioned should be 93 investigation didn't lead to a criminal trial and 2005 trial has ended with not guilty verdict.

I don't think there are many consistent things in these allegations. In fact when you lay them side by side, you will see how incosistent they are with each other. And any consistency there is in them is easy to explain with the fact that these were all very public allegations. It's not like Wade could not have access to info about them anywhere on the internet, from media articles or books. Just like Gavin obviously had access to Jordan's allegations (through media and also through Larry Feldman).

And like I said in my post the "no smoke without fire" way of thinking by the jury is as much of of a risk IMO if they do not say anything about those past allegations. It's not just about the consistency and inconsistency in them. Many people think (because that's what the media hammered in the heads) that MJ "got off" in 2005 and that the 1993 case was strong and MJ only "got off" because he settled. It's only when you learn the details of those cases that you see how weak actually both of those cases were and how shady the accusers were and what a set up it was on both occasions - or all three, if you count the Francias too.

And IMO to show that all of those earlier allegations were a scam would strengthen Michael's case, because if he did not molest Jordan, Jason Francia and Gavin then how likely it is he did Wade and Safechuck? Or is it more likely that they just took inspiration from those scams? But if those earlier allegations are left unaddressed to the jury, who knows what beliefs they might harbour about them and it might sway them in Robson's favour. Yes, that's what jury selection is for - to find jury members with as little bias and preconcieved beliefs as possible, but it's not always possible to totally filter out such elements.

I would not like this to drag this out for months and MJ being re-tried again and again about 2005 and 1993, but it's a very unique situation with Michael being the celebrity he is, with the media being as biased against him as they are and as many false info being out there about these allegations brainwashing the masses as there are. So I don't know what would be the best, if "prior bad acts" would not be allowed or if it was. Hopefully whatever the decision is about that it will be the best for Michael.

 

[Pimboli]

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

so, now that Wade has said in cort docs that he knew about the abuse back in 05, but didnt think of it as abuse, and therefore didnt mention it under oath.... i wonder where his "im so sorry for robbing you off your right to put your "molester" in jail, Gavin" speech is...? Also, even if he didnt think of it as abuse, the cross examination was pretty detailed. "did he ever touch you?" - well Wade should've answered "yes" even if he didnt think it was a wrong thing...
Also, is it possible for Gavin to sue Wade for robbing him of his right to "win the case" back in 05 for omitting information?

 

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

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.

I agree. And personally, I would not be surprised if Joy knew this mess was coming and she left because she didn't want anybody asking her questions. I'm sure Wade knows that. So that could be why she isn't mentioned anywhere in his court documents, in my opinion. Right now, I also think he doesn't want her anywhere near this case because people could start wondering about her also. But time will tell if she says anything.

 

[HIStory]

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

If it goes to court Joy cannot pull herself out of this mess.

 

[MJresearcher]

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

This could drag on for years.

 

[AngelMJ136]

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

This could drag on for years.

Lets just hope once the hearing does occur the case gets thrown in a bin by the court where it deserves to be. It sounds so ridiculous and a clear attempt to defame the most powerful man's organization in the music industry for whom the earnings are always above a 6 figure amount, it shouldn't be allowed to even get heard lol. IMO, I am sure the case would fizzle out, the media outlets who have even bothered reporting it (also that Diane loser) didn't receive a good response, lot of them accused Wade of being a liar. People are now warming up to MJ and Xscape's release has earned many new fans. It is also very different from 2003 because back then the media had completely taken control of the coverage and very few people actually got to know about Michael's side. This time, media had dare not repeat the same thing and do a biased reporting because a lot of people are willing to believe MJ was innocent. Also people have access to the internet, they are just a click away from knowing the facts about the case and trust me many will or already know he has always been framed (unless they are twisted in the head and want to hate on MJ). I am glad this time a lot of people including the doubters are not buying into it, its only being fueled by this group of MJ haters who I am sure are being funded for devoting so much time and energy. I know this sounds sort of far-fetched but I can't think why these people would be so intent on spreading hate on MJ and even running websites for it, every time engaged in hatred and negativity, I mean there is a limit to something unless there is a person behind it who was humiliated by all this very badly. And I can only think of the entire defeated prosecution team from 2005. This whole wade thing sounds as outrageous as a lame movie's script. And the reaction is the same - utter disbelief. :doh:
As for the media, it would actually make sense if they shift their reporting to favor MJ instead of against him because they would earn triple by positivity this time (Xscape, bodyguard's books and simply general awareness of MJ) and I hope they have this figured out (unless they are also twisted in their heads, not that they were any better before). And if things STILL don't favor MJ, well he always has his army ready for them. :assassin:

 

[HIStory]

Ivy,

There is an idiot on LSA claiming that she saw letters between the Estate lawyers and Wade's lawyers regarding a settlement. She claims it was the about the Estate lawyers offering Wade a settlement but he declined it because he wants his case be heard in a court. He claims he saw it on that hater website before the docs were password protected. She claims she does not talk about that Case Management Document, but letters between the lawyers wanting to meet with Wade's lawyers in hope of a resolution, but Wade's lawyers declining it.

I call BS on it, because I checked the timeline on MJfacts Twitter and they do not mention any such letters only this Case Management Document. That's what they are trying to turn into this "the Estate offered a settlement to Wade but Wade declined" BS. Also reading comprehension is not this person's strongest point, so I wonder if she saw letters pertaining to this and interpreted it as it being about a settlement:

Robson has served several hundred interrogatories (over the limit of 35) and these requests are subject to protective order. Estate states most interrogatories are about MJ’s alleged personal and private conduct and they have no information. Robson lawyers refuse Estate’s request to meet and confer about interrogatories.

This is what she said:

I saw the documents it was a group of 2 to 4 letters Before the admin placed the password on it. That is the reason why I knew the information that was posted here wasn't the information that I was talking about. These were letter that the attornies sent to each other.

Since you have access to the same docs as MJFacts, can you please tell us what letters she might talk about? Thank you.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Is it factor? It figures. It believes it states that his lawyers won't discuss an evidence matter. some people are clueless and they want others to be just as clueless

 

[HIStory]

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

Is it factor? It figures. It believes it states that his lawyers won't discuss an evidence matter. some people are clueless and they want others to be just as clueless

It's Sept02, that vile and stupid hater who believes every crap about Michael from him being a child molester to being Brandon Howard's father.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

She's to much of a drunk to know how to read

 

[ivy]

Ivy,

There is an idiot on LSA claiming that she saw letters between the Estate lawyers and Wade's lawyers regarding a settlement. She claims it was the about the Estate lawyers offering Wade a settlement but he declined it because he wants his case be heard in a court. He claims he saw it on that hater website before the docs were password protected. She claims she does not talk about that Case Management Document, but letters between the lawyers wanting to meet with Wade's lawyers in hope of a resolution, but Wade's lawyers declining it.

I call BS on it, because I checked the timeline on MJfacts Twitter and they do not mention any such letters only this Case Management Document. That's what they are trying to turn into this "the Estate offered a settlement to Wade but Wade declined" BS. Also reading comprehension is not this person's strongest point, so I wonder if she saw letters pertaining to this and interpreted it as it being about a settlement:



This is what she said:



Since you have access to the same docs as MJFacts, can you please tell us what letters she might talk about? Thank you.

you are correct the document MJfact referred to is case management statement -

"MJ Facts @RealMJFacts · Jul 21
Ask me for a password
Case Management Statement - MJJ Ventures, MJJ Productions "

In terms of dismissal of MJ / Doe 1 defendant they have a 3 letter exchange - which was reported by the media. No talk about any settlement.

Another thing is the interrogatories which Estate mentions they were sent in hundreds and Robson's lawyers refusing to meet and confer about them. Again not about any settlement.

so I would think she's has seen either those two and misunderstood or misrepresented that it's about a settlement. It's not.

 

[HIStory]

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

Thanks, Ivy. It didn't make any sense anyway, because why would the Estate even want to talk settlement at this point? The case might as well as be thrown out so offering a settlement before that decision is even made would be foolish and a waste of money. And I'm sure if they offered a settlement to Robson he would not decline it.

 

[passy001]

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

Guys, you can forget about settlement. This ain't happening.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

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

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

According to the document, he and MJ had anal sex on at least 3 occasions. My wife is a 32 year old woman, and I've tried anal sex with her just to see what it was like and it was a very uncomfortable experience. She told me it hurt like hell and that she never wanted to do it again and we haven't done it since, so the idea of this happening to a 7 or 8 year old boy on more than one occasion does not sound believable to me.

 

[HIStory]

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

According to the document, he and MJ had anal sex on at least 3 occasions. My wife is a 32 year old woman, and I've tried anal sex with her just to see what it was like and it was a very uncomfortable experience. She told me it hurt like hell and that she never wanted to do it again and we haven't done it since, so the idea of this happening to a 7 or 8 year old boy on more than one occasion does not sound believable to me.

It can happen if he is raped, but it could not go unnoticed IMO. It would have sever physical and psychological effects. And damn sure you would not mistake it for "love"...

 

[dannyboy72]

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

so, now that Wade has said in cort docs that he knew about the abuse back in 05, but didnt think of it as abuse, and therefore didnt mention it under oath.... i wonder where his "im so sorry for robbing you off your right to put your "molester" in jail, Gavin" speech is...? Also, even if he didnt think of it as abuse, the cross examination was pretty detailed. "did he ever touch you?" - well Wade should've answered "yes" even if he didnt think it was a wrong thing...
Also, is it possible for Gavin to sue Wade for robbing him of his right to "win the case" back in 05 for omitting information?

No Gavin is not going to sue because Gavin lied his ass off and he knows he lied. You can't sue for something that never happened.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

For it to go unnoticed that would no one noticed him in the pain. No one noticed him bleeding. And no one heard him scream in pain. Moreover his behavior never changed and he never went to the doctor has a child. He did not know it was wrong but he to lie about it when asked. Whatever prick

 

[MJresearcher]

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

It can happen if he is raped, but it could not go unnoticed IMO. It would have sever physical and psychological effects. And damn sure you would not mistake it for "love"...

A kid that age who had been raped would likely be lucky to be capable of sitting down without wincing in pain, it would be blatantly obvious.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

Here are some of the things Wade claims MJ told him:

"Michael told me that we loved each other and that this was love"...."He said that people are ignorant and they would never understand that we love each other"


Looks like somebody's been watching the Bashir documentary

 

[analogue]

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

The fact that Wade claims anal rape is a blessing in disguise.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

If MJ was a pedophile then he must have been a very lucky one to have so many of his victims remain friends with him well into adulthood and constantly defend and praise him to everyone who would listen. I wonder if any of Sandusky's victims has ever referred to him as "god" and the person "who helped me to see the pure goodness of human kind"..

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

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.

As i understand it, it then becomes like all the other creditor claims that the estate rejects, like raymone bain's. It goes to trial or is settled before that point is reached, i'm assuming in probate court.

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.

Wade's side is just trying to convince this probate judge beckloff, to allow a late creditor's claim. If they're going to start swamping him with all this perjorative material then it's not going to work imo - the judge is strictly there to enforce the law, not to be swayed by all these tabloid stories about mj presented by the losing side of a previous court case. I guess they feel with equitable estoppel they feel they might have a bit of a chance as it suggests some exercising of moral judgement on the part of the judge to allow him to overlook the timelimits. But the 4 elements to equitable estoppel which wade's side lists are patently not present in wade's case. They can't claim mj's 'conduct' caused the other party to miss the timelimits and somehow prevented wade from missing out on justice - Calif law allows for people like wade to suddenly remember that they were molested by someone who is now deceased and they are given 60 days, it's purely down to wade that he took 365 days to get himself down to a lawyer, absolutely nothing to do with mj, he had been dead for 4 yrs. There is no way as far as i can see how a probate judge can start changing these statutory timelimits. The estate arguments seem to be v dry and legal, whilst wade's side is far more contradictory and emotional so you can see just from that who has the upper hand and who is desperate.

I imagine all these requests for discovery is to pressure the estate and/or to come up with some new names for victims/witnesses they can approach to bolster their side. Or he's just acting like a typical lawyer with a poor case. They're probably asking for all mj's financials as well.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

Thanks, Ivy. It didn't make any sense anyway, because why would the Estate even want to talk settlement at this point? The case might as well as be thrown out so offering a settlement before that decision is even made would be foolish and a waste of money. And I'm sure if they offered a settlement to Robson he would not decline it.

I've no idea about this poster you mention but i imagine it's a reference to the fact that the estate lawyers ticked some box on this case management file saying they wd be willing to go to alternative dispute resolution, which wd include settlement i guess. I don't know anything about these forms, whether there is an option not to tick it or whether in 99.9% cases it is expected that you shd tick it, idk. I imagine wade's lawyers ticked this box too, despite his stated aim to air his truth, idk. I wd think it's just a formality, part of the process of a trial, but yes i can see haterz trying to make something of it.

 

[HIStory]

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

They can't claim mj's 'threats' caused the other party to miss the timelimits and somehow prevented wade from missing out on 'justice' - Calif law allows for people like wade to suddenly remember that they were molested by someone who is now deceased and they are given 60 days, it's purely down to wade that he took 365 days to get himself down to a lawyer, absolutely nothing to do with mj, he had been dead for 4 yrs. There is no way as far as i can see how a probate judge can start changing statutory timelimits.

They are trying to circumvent by saying that Wade did not know about the administration of the Estate until March 2013.

Here:

"A creditor has "actual knowledge" of the estate administration if he has received notice given under Probate Code Section 9050, and "constructive knowledge" through publication of a notice of death or other information that does not come to the attention of the creditor is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the actual knowledge threshold."

So he claims that "constructive knowledge" of MJ's death and the administration of his Estate did not come to his attention until March 2013. Common sense says that's BS. I hope the legal sytsem says that too.

And wasn't there some tidbit in one of the articles (Radar Online?) that the Estate lawyers managed to get him admit in a deposition that he did have knowledge of the Estate before March 2013? Could be just a rumour, but I hope that's true as well.

But even the first part of his argument is shaky - ie. about not knowing he was abused until 2012 - and we have analyzed that here too before. The law actually requires that he either claims repressed memories or not knowing about the wrongfulness of the alleged acts. He claims the later but there are many factors in his claim which contradict that. Eg.:

1) If he did not know it was wrong why did he supposedly lie about it in court?
2) He claims rape, acts which were against his will - and acc. to the law and the general application of California law by courts in that case you cannot claim you did not know it was wrong.

On top of the unlikeliness of an adult man not realizing it was abuse and it was wrong, while his alleged abuser is on criminal trial, of course.

One has to really bend over to give credit to these claims.

 

[HIStory]

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

I've no idea about this poster you mention but i imagine it's a reference to the fact that the estate lawyers ticked some box on this case management file saying they wd be willing to go to alternative dispute resolution, which wd include settlement i guess. I don't know anything about these forms, whether there is an option not to tick it or whether in 99.9% cases it is expected that you shd tick it, idk. I imagine wade's lawyers ticked this box too, despite his stated aim to air his truth, idk. I wd think it's just a formality, part of the process of a trial, but yes i can see haterz trying to make something of it.

Yes, we know about that case management file, but this person claimed it's not what she's referring to but letters between the Estate lawyers and Wade lawyers. But she was clearly BSing. She mixed together the two things and created her own version of the events. The letters are about discovery - that's what the Estate lawyers wanted to meet Wade's lawyers about, not a settlement. They did not offer any settlement to Wade.

I imagine wade's lawyers ticked this box too, despite his stated aim to air his truth, idk

IIRC Ivy said they did not tick it, but I don't think that means anything. Like you said it's just a plan, obviously not ticking it would not prohibit them to settle if the Estate offered them such a thing. And it's mainly up to the defendant if a settlement happens or not - I mean it's a defendant who has to be willing to offer a settlement for it to happen, no matter what a plaintiff ticks in that box.

I'm pretty sure if they were offered a settlement they would accept it, just like I think that is their actual aim - a settlement. There is nothing in their actions so far indicating that they are out for justice and not money. A creditor's claim isn't about having "his truth" heard in a court. Wanting to have his lawsuit sealed citing the privacy interests of the accused is not about saying "his truth" loud, like he claims. And if he wasn't interested in money, an open letter in the media would have been enough for him to have "his truth" heard, instead of trying to circumvent statues of limitations by using the craziest arguments like not knowing about the Estate until March 2013, not knowing anal rape was abuse and wrong etc.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

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

I don't mean to upset anyone here, I apologize beforehand if I do so and if I'm graphic in my post.

I watched 6 years ago by chance one of those taped interviews police conduct on suspects or criminals. This one in particular there was a white SOB recounting how he tried to sodomize a 5-year-old boy but he felt himself a "failure" because he couldn't penetrate him, it hurt the poor thing in the attempt nonetheless. uke:

If that bastard crook was allegedly raped, THERE'S NO WAY it could've passed unnoticed, it doesn't matter his age. If you've visited 'The Manhood Thread,' you'll know what I'm talking about.