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

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I agree with the estate's stance that they reply if the reporter calls them and asks their input for the article. That way their reply is in the same article, instead of them going on releasing reply in different post altogether, which means that garbage story runs longer than should.

We have been through it many times and I do not feel like starting this again, but I don't think they handled it well PR-wise. Sometimes you cannot let a news report run viral without the Estate demanding - yes, demanding - every major publication that run the original story to also present their denial. I think they could and should do a lot better on that area, so I'm not going to pat them on the back over this.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

We have been through it many times and I do not feel like starting this again, but I don't think they handled it well PR-wise. Sometimes you cannot let a news report run viral without the Estate demanding - yes, demanding - every major publication that run the original story to also present their denial. I think they could and should do a lot better on that area, so I'm not going to pat them on the back over this.


I don't know that the estate has that much of power that they can demand any publications to run their reply?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't know that the estate has that much of power that they can demand any publications to run their reply?

It's not about "power" but there are certain journalistic standards. For example, if there is a claim made by someone but it is disputed by another party they actually have to publish the other party's reply as well to be ethical. They have to represent that it is a disputed claim, not fact. Maybe some tabloids would still ignore these standards, but I'm sure with a little more effort bigger spreadsheets could have been made publish the Estate's answer. For that to be effective though the Estate should have been quicker in their reply. I just don't feel the Estate is very effective on the PR department - at least in this case. They have dropped the ball several times.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It's not about "power" but there are certain journalistic standards. For example, if there is a claim made by someone but it is disputed by another party they actually have to publish the other party's reply as well to be ethical. They have to represent that it is a disputed claim, not fact. Maybe some tabloids would still ignore these standards, but I'm sure with a little more effort bigger spreadsheets could have been made publish the Estate's answer. For that to be effective though the Estate should have been quicker in their reply. I just don't feel the Estate is very effective on the PR department - at least in this case. They have dropped the ball several times.

Hypothetical situation:
Lets say the estate had responded Stacy B's latests garbage. What do you think it would have achieved?

I tell my thoughts:
The story would have been in the tabloids for longer.
People who reads Stacy's garbage, are not going to believe what Michael's estate says because they work for Michael, they get paid for what they are doing. Although, I don't particularly like what TMezz has said recently, but he hit the nail in the head when he said that the public is not going to believe someone who is close to Michael, no family nor the estate. Unfortunately he said that about Cry babe Sullivan, but nevertheless, I got the point.

Then the publicity. Stacy B is freelancer, so he writes, and some tabloids buys his so called articles. As this article was bought by NY Post, they got loads of publicity because other tabloids bought that article. NY Post editor was patting himself to back for buying this article and so many others bought their garbage too, and NY Post's advertising numbers goes up. As other media outlets sees the response to Stacy's articles, they think, "hey this guy is on to something. Maybe we should buy his articles, so we get more viewers=advertising money=visibility".

Then my worst nightmare possibility, Stacy Brown validated as expert on all thing Michael Jackson, just the way I seen Demon Dimond being interviewed as MJ expert:puke:

Then the public would have seen the estate's response to this article. Another hypothetical situation to help me here, if Justin Bieber does something silly, and his people release a statement, do you believe Justin's people?
Unfortunately, if people's mind is set for believing something, no statement is not going to change their minds, even less when it comes from accused camp.

Of course, I could be wrong and all of above is just my nightmare vision.

Can you give your possible scenario what could have happened?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Some maybe would believe the Estate, some would not, but the bigger point is that the way the Estate handles things is that they leave massively viral and harmful things basically unchallenged and unopposed - or with extremely weak responses. And one can argue they do that because people would not believe them anyway, but IMO that's a weak argument because leaving it unchallenged and unopposed is a lot more harmful. That leaves the impression that the Estate has nothing to say about it, they have no (visible) opposition so maybe it's true. There is nothing more harmful than leaving that impression. Whether people believe the Estate or not, in case of a visible and vocal denial at least they will know that this is not a claim that is unopposed and unchallenged by Michael's representatives. And the media too will know that there is another side to the story so they cannot handle it as fact. That's the whole point of this type of communication, not necessarily to get everyone believe the Estate just because they say something. And there are cases where the "responding would only make it go viral/stay longer in the tabloids" argument just does not fly. When a report is already viral and treated as fact despite of being a lie, then the Estate needs to issue a vocal response and not only if TMZ asks them two days too late. They need to be proactive. PR is a profession and the Estate has not been very good at it - at least not regarding the allegations. I know this is a sensitive subject, difficult to handle PR wise, but that's why the Estate should hire professionals for this if they cannot handle it themselves.

But like I said we have been through this same discussion already and I am not interested in going on about it again. I just disagree that the Estate could not have handled it any better.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Unfortunately, if people's mind is set for believing something, no statement is not going to change their minds, even less when it comes from accused camp.


That's why the Estate shouldn't respond with a statement but with ARGUMENTS.
Point by point why the whole paid off phantom victims storyline is absurd and doesn't even make sense in light of what MJ did when he first assaulted with these accusations.

A statement is not enough, right but if you challenge the reader to think about and if you tell them what really happened in Aug 1993 with the Chandler monetary demands that will give them a pause.

the problem is that to this day most people don't have a clue that Evan Chandler demanded money from MJ BEFORE they accused him and that they wouldn't have accused him if MJ had paid.

Other than the issue of circumcision this is the biggest red flag in the Chandler story, just like the timeline and Gavin Arvizo attributing his grandmother words to MJ are the biggest red flags in the Arvizo story.

The Estate should be busy to spread this info instead they don't do shit.

I know this is a sensitive subject, difficult to handle PR wise, but that's why the Estate should hire professionals for this if they cannot handle it themselves.

I don't thin it's difficult to handle at all! The facts are on MJ's side. The only way to handle this issue is the same in your face approach MJ's enemies use.
They should point out the sheer absurdity of Robson's and Safechuck's claims, that grown men would not understand that sex abuse is sex abuse while they understand that it's illegal.
These two have already told so many contradictory things it would be the easiest thing to ridicule him.

Think about Robson's lie that he didn't know about the Estate.
Why didn't the Estate say in plain English that Wade Robson lied to get around the SOL and we have proof that he lied!
If he lies about that what else is he lying about?

Why don't they point out that Robson miraculously realized that he was abused just when it became clear to him that he won't get the Immortal job?

That he contradicts not only his own but his sister's and mother's testimonies too.

And the list goes on.

I don't understand why the Estate doesn't realize that the single most effective weapon against MJ's legacy (and therefore the Estate's earning capacity) is the perception that MJ was a child molester.
That they don't fight against it is just mindblowing.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't understand why the Estate doesn't realize that the single most effective weapon against MJ's legacy (and therefore the Estate's earning capacity) is the perception that MJ was a child molester.
That they don't fight against it is just mindblowing.
I'm sure they are painfully aware of it. If they have to, they will fight it to the death. However, I think the time to roll out all your arguments would be only if this case gets past the statutes.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I'm sure they are painfully aware of it. If they have to, they will fight it to the death. However, I think the time to roll out all your arguments would be only if this case gets past the statutes.


They should understand that what is going on in the media is as much if not more important then what goes on in the courtroom.
There's no doubt the media will spin this as a SOL issue if it gets thrown out.

And thst's not the main problem with the Robson/Safechuck's claims.
There is no reason for the Estate to talk about the blatant lies and contradictions in those claims.
Even if it goes to trial they can make the same arguments in the media and in the courtroom too.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't think the Robson/Safechuck case should be fought in the media by the Estate. Actually that case did not really get any traction in the media. Later, when it's out of the court system and if Robson and/or Safechuck goes on some sort of media tour then the Estate should be prepared to fight back with facts and with pointing out all those contradictions and lies in their complaints. However, at the moment it should not be fought in the media, but the Estate should keep their arguments for the courtroom in case it gets to court. It also does not come accross well to judges and juries if one party fights their case in the media. So no, that's not what I meant the Estate should do.

What got much attention, twice, was that whole MJ paying 20-24 phantom victims $24-200 million fantasy. And it seems that story for some reason has more potential to go viral than anything Robson/Safechuck claims. It did go viral twice already. The fact that a story like that rather goes viral than Robson/Safechuck's allegations tells a lot about how credible even the tabloids feel Robson/Safechuck are. They try to boost their stories not by making their own claims go viral, but by making up some fantasy BS story about a dozen or two dozen other victims whom no one has ever seen - not prosecutors, not the FBI, not lawyers, no one around MJ. And this is actually a claim that is very easy to refute and challenge by the Estate. They did not have to be in a room with Robson and MJ to refute this BS story about paid phantom victims who never existed.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I don't think the Robson/Safechuck case should be fought in the media by the Estate. Actually that case did not really get any traction in the media. Later, when it's out of the court system and if Robson and/or Safechuck goes on some sort of media tour then the Estate should be prepared to fight back with facts and with pointing out all those contradictions and lies in their complaints. However, at the moment it should not be fought in the media, but the Estate should keep their arguments for the courtroom in case it gets to court. It also does not come accross well to judges and juries if one party fights their case in the media. So no, that's not what I meant the Estate should do.

What got much attention, twice, was that whole MJ paying 20-24 phantom victims $24-200 million fantasy. And it seems that story for some reason has more potential to go viral than anything Robson/Safechuck claims. It did go viral twice already. The fact that a story like that rather goes viral than Robson/Safechuck's allegations tells a lot about how credible even the tabloids feel Robson/Safechuck are. They try to boost their stories not by making their own claims go viral, but by making up some fantasy BS story about a dozen or two dozen other victims whom no one has ever seen - not prosecutors, not the FBI, not lawyers, no one around MJ. And this is actually a claim that is very easy to refute and challenge by the Estate. They did not have to be in a room with Robson and MJ to refute this BS story about paid phantom victims who never existed.

Great post.

They do have to pick their battles, and where, when, how it's best to fight them. But I so wish when they decide to fight, they are adamant and forceful. These guys are lawyers. Words are their trade. I do think they could use some stronger ones in defense of MJ at times in the public arena.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Do you know about any other cases where victims first defended their abusers in court and then pressed charges against them?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Do you know about any other cases where victims first defended their abusers in court and then pressed charges against them?

Matt Sandusky testified for Sandusky during the grand jury hearings but he was Sandusky's adopted son and even he testified against him during the trial itself.

There is no example when a child abuse victim testified for his abusser under oath both as a child and as an adult and there is certainly no proven pedophile
whose victims, one after another, all had the strange habit of hanging out with him long after hitting puberty, keeping the gifts they got from him, praising him repeatedly,
going back to his home to take vacations and shoot movies, invite him to their wedding, become the godfather of his kids, attend his memorial and funeral, have their profile pictures showing them with their abuser etc.

Mac Culkin
Brett Barnes
Jonathan Spence
Jimmy Safecchuck
Wade Robson

The haters and Sneddon wanted us to believe that every single one of them had lingering Stockholm syndrome.
What are the chances?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think haters love to use the term "Stockholm syndrome" even though it doesn't fit any of these situations. None of these people were hostages and they weren't even close to that.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think haters love to use the term "Stockholm syndrome" even though it doesn't fit any of these situations. None of these people were hostages and they weren't even close to that.


When people say stuff like that you begin to realize that this has absolutely positively nothing to do with feeling bad for the so called victim.. There are people like Diane likes Brown who earn their living saying things about Michael that are the most horrid things that another individual could say about another person. In America there are these people who do nothing all day but watch Nancy Grace and read tabs. Because they have nothing going on in their lives so they take some kind of perverse pleasure in stories about other people.they are willing to believe the worst no matter how ridiculous it sounds the matter how many lies the story has.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

will today be the day...
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I think haters love to use the term "Stockholm syndrome" even though it doesn't fit any of these situations. None of these people were hostages and they weren't even close to that.

Plus MJ had been betrayed by people all through his life and had major trust issues. For him to believe he had brainwashing power so potent that someone would keep forever quiet about what Robson is claiming he did to him is actually laughable. Just like those stories are about him paying off folks to keep quiet. They're unscrupulous enough to take money, but so honorable they will forever keep their mouths shut. The Chandlers got a multimillion dollar settlement for their lies and went after MJ for more. It's all just insane.


will today be the day...

I sure do hope so.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The facts were laid down for people to see during 2005 trial and even before that...Michael was proven innocent! The ones that still choose to believe all the lies told by people that want just money, those can't be brought to light, they just like the dirty, salacious stories...
 
I was reading The Roots of Pedophilia By: Sam Vaknin
http://www.silentlambs.org/Therootsofpedophilia.htm

because I read in Sullivan's book that Ray Chandler used this study to prove that MJ was a pedophile. He of course cherry picked a few lines and interpreted in his way, completely ignoring the rest of the text and 99% of MJ's life.

What one actually finds reading this study is how much MJ does NOT fit any of these profiles at all.



Pedophiles seem to have narcissistic and antisocial (psychopathic) traits.

Micheal didn't like to look in the mirror (he told Oprah), was very shy and even ashamed of how he
looked (Debbie testified that he thought he was like the Elephant Man), hard to see how he was a
narcissist.
And antisocial?? He had more people coming in and out of his life then an army division all put together.
He was constantly looking to make new friends: men, women, boys, girls, everyone.
Listen to what Chris Columbus said about MJ calling him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MvFvzk6-M0&list=PLUNRNxfONfvUZjdGMXjyWbM4_SkFpV9tN&index=10

And psychopathic traits? Diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior?
He was the exact opposite. He always wanted to help others and make others happy.

They lack empathy for their victims and express no remorse for their actions.

Anyone who says that MJ lacked empathy probably also says that Mother Theresa was a serial killer.
He certainly had a lots of empathy for Taj Jackson after he was molested, and hard to see how someone
who thinks sex with kids is OK would or could write lyrics like Do you know where your children are?

He's taking her on the streets of Sunset Boulevard
She's selling her body, ha girl that will take her far
The police come round the corner, somebody there told
He's arresting this little girl, she's only 12 years old

Save me (from this living hell)

Not to mention things like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o-GCA-zJao
or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdncrcmAE24
Or him starting to cry just by mentioning the Holocaust, or Chopra talking about starving kids in Africa, or
Brett Ratner telling him that it's impossible to cure every child in the world or his reaction to the book
Gonsalves gave him When a child cries.

If anything MJ was frantically emphatic, much more so than the average person and it would have killed him
if he had been responsible for anyone's suffering.


They are in denial and, being pathological confabulators, they rationalize their transgressions, claiming
that the children were merely being educated for their own good and, anyhow, derived great pleasure
from it.

Not even his accusers ever claimed such a thing and he certainly never tried to rationalize sex with kids, he
actually said "that's nuts".

The pedophile's ego-syntony rests on his alloplastic defenses. He generally tends to blame others (or the
world or the "system") for his misfortunes, failures, and deficiencies.

MJ was a perfectionist who cried after the Motown 25 performance. Hardly a sign of someone who
blamed others for his failures, and deficiencies.
Generally people tend to blame others first, MJ didn't do this more than any other person.

"The pedophile - similar to the autistic patient - misinterprets the child's body language and inter-
personal cues."

When did MJ misinterpret a child's body language and inter-personal cues?
In every picture and every video showing him interacting with kids he seems to perfectly understand
their body language and inter-personal cues.
Like that of this little girl who walks up to him to hug him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsA-Vcp9TEk

His social communication skills are impaired and he fails to adjust information gained to the surrounding
circumstances (for instance, to the kid's age and maturity).

He perfectly communicated with kids from babies to older teenagers.

Coupled with his lack of empathy, this recurrent inability to truly comprehend others cause the pedophile
to objectify the targets of his lasciviousness. Pedophilia is, in essence, auto-erotic. The pedophile uses
children's bodies to masturbate with. Hence the success of the Internet among pedophiles: it offers
disembodied, anonymous, masturbatory sex. Children in cyberspace are mere representations - often
nothing more than erotic photos and screen names.

MJ never used the Internet to contact kids let alone watch child porn. His hard drives were examined by
the FBI they found nothing.

Sex with subteens implies freedom of action with impunity. It enhances the pedophile's magical sense of
omnipotence and immunity. By defying the authority of the state and the edicts of his culture and society,
the pedophile experiences an adrenaline rush to which he gradually becomes addicted. Illicit sex becomes
the outlet for his urgent need to live dangerously and recklessly.

Even if we believed ALL of his accusers it would hardly be an addiction.
In fact it would show that MJ could go without sex for months even years and then suddenly become
uncontrollably horny. So much that he would even abduct a family just to have two mastrubation sessions
with a bulky ugly arrogant teenager. Right.


The pedophile is on a quest to reassert control over his life. Studies have consistently shown that
pedophilia is associated with anomic states (war, famine, epidemics) and with major life crises (failure,
relocation, infidelity of spouse, separation, divorce, unemployment, bankruptcy, illness, death of the
offender's nearest and dearest).

None of this is true to MJ's life.

It is likely - though hitherto unsubstantiated by research - that the typical pedophile is depressive and with
a borderline personality (low organization and fuzzy personal boundaries).

Totally unlike MJ who could smile even amid the worst ordeals of his life as was described by many as a funloving person. Hardly depressive.

Pedophiles are reckless and emotionally labile.

LOL MJ was not reckless (consider all the safety measures in Neverland) and actually remarkably even-tempered.

The pedophile's sense of self-worth is volatile and dysregulated.

MJ never had any problem understanding his self-worth.

He is likely to suffer from abandonment anxiety and be a codependent or counterdependent.

When was he suffering from abandonment anxiety? If anything he was perpetually lonely because
of his fame but he liked doing things in his own ways. Unless we count the employees he was
dependent on like his bodyguards. But that was necessary in his circumstances.

The pedophile makes frequent (though unconscious) use of projection and projective identification in his
relationships with children. He makes his victims treat him the way he views himself - or attributes to them
traits and behaviors that are truly his.

None of his accusers ever said that "he made me treat him the way he views himself".

He derives pleasure from the sleazy nature of his pursuits because it tends to sustain his view of himself as
"bad", "a failure", "deserving of punishment", and "guilty".

Yeah MJ viewed himself as Bad, really really Bad.
But failure? Hell no.
Deserving of punishment? Hell no.
Guilty? Hell no.

Many pedophile truly bond with their prey. To them, children are the reification of innocence, genuineness,
trust, and faithfulness - qualities that the pedophile wishes to nostalgically recapture.

MJ didn't want to RECAPTURE innocence, trust, faithfulness. He WAS innocent and trusting by his very
nature. Ola Ray said when he thinks about MJ he thinks about innocence when Bruce Swedien was asked
"was he suspicious of people" Bruce replied "Nooo".
And he bonded with dozens of kids, boys and girls but he only wanted to "recapture innocence, trust,
faithfulness" with a few who coincidentally wanted his money? Makes sense.
What about his bond with Mac Culkin or Frank Cascio or Kelly Parker or Amy Agajanian?

The relationship with the child provides the pedophile with a "safe passage" to his own, repressed and
fearful, inner child.

MJ's inner child was many things, none of it repressed.
His inner child was in full display every day whether he was with kids or not.
Consider this, for example when he was alone with Jane Goodall , a grown woman:

"In some ways, he was like a child, and a very sweet and gentle child, and he wanted me to tell him many,
many stories," she said. "Stories about the chimpanzees, the forests, animals, anything. He told me he liked
the way I told stories."
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/10/09/ent.jackson.goodall/index.html?eref=ew

or when he was with Harrison Funk, a grown man:

"He liked to play practical jokes, and he liked to have fun. He was a big kid. There was one food fight
where I wore a bucket of shrimp...after they poured it all over me,”

Or when he transformed his New York apartment in to a mini-Neverland all for himself, not for kids:

IN AUGUST 1999, MICHAEL STARTED WORK ON HIS NEW album, which would become Invincible, in New
York City. He rented a town house on the Upper East Side, on Seventy-fourth Street. As Michael had done
with his Hideaway in Culver City, we transformed that Upper East Side town house into a mini- Neverland.
Michael wanted to create an environment where he felt comfortable, and he felt most comfortable when
he was being a kid. So up on the fifth floor was a game room, with video games, a pool table, a movie
projector, a popcorn machine, and a fully stocked candy counter. Michael asked for some mannequins,
which I picked out at showrooms. They were delivered, assembled, and dressed in sportswear. We posed
them around the first floor. To keep them company, there was a life-size Batman from Sharper Image
standing in the middle of the room.

http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books-jetzi-02/11mfm/11mfm11.html



Through his victim, the pedophile gains access to his suppressed and thwarted emotions. It is a fantasy-
like second chance to reenact his childhood, this time benignly. The pedophile's dream to make peace
with his past comes true transforming the interaction with the child to an exercise in wish fulfillment.

Again the question would be why would he try to do this only with those who had mentally ill parents
looking for making millions?

And didn't he try to reenact his childhood by doing stuff like this all the time?:
http://img.spokeo.com/public/900-600/bill_bray_1977_07_23.jpg
http://s826.photobucket.com/user/KayMickz/media/Michael Jackson/78419991.jpg.html
http://media.photobucket.com/user/T...ckson - Bad Era/TheBadTour32.jpg.html?filters[term]=michael%20jackson&filters[primary]=images&sort=1&o=12938

He wanted to do things he didn't have the chance to do as a child.
Are we supposed to believe that he wanted to have sex as a child?

This explanation would make sense if the person was not doing so many childlike things as MJ clearly did and if he had a repressed inner child instead of an overt one like MJ had.

It's very telling that in his conservation with Schmuley he specifically mentioned sexual things that he saw as a child and he was fed up with which is why later on
he didn't want any of it and wanted instead to go to Disneyland.


The pedophile treats "his" chosen child as an object, an extension of himself, devoid of a separate
existence and denuded of distinct needs. He finds the child's submissiveness and gullibility gratifying. He
frowns on any sign of personal autonomy and regards it as a threat. By intimidating, cajoling, charming,
and making false promises, the abuser isolates his prey from his family, school, peers, and from the rest of
society and, thus, makes the child's dependence on him total.

MJ did not isolate any of his accusers from anyone. In fact their families were always around.
MJ even spent time in the homes of the Chandler parents. What kind of isolation is that?
And which "victim's" dependence on his was total or anywhere near total?

The pedophile “ stealthily but unfailingly “ exploits the vulnerabilities in the psychological makeup of his
victim. The child may have low self-esteem, a fluctuating sense of self-worth, primitive defence
mechanisms, phobias, mental health problems, a disability, a history of failure, bad relations with parents,
siblings, teachers, or peers, or a tendency to blame herself, or to feel inadequate (autoplastic neurosis).


Chandler was not vulnerable. He was healty, good looking, a good student, he had friends he didn't have bad relations with his
parents. And Arvizo was especially not vulnerable he was an arrogant bastard who was proud to be an
arrogant bastard.
Robson Safechuck? Same thing. Neither of them was in any way vulnerable. They were in good families,
and they didn't have disablities or pshycho problems in any way.

The kid may come from an abusive family or environment“ which conditioned her or him to expect abuse
as inevitable and "normal".

None of his accusers came from an abusive family except Arvizo who most certainly didn't consider sexual
abuse normal and wouldn't have tolerated it.

The pedophile is the guru at the center of a cult. Like other gurus, he demands complete obedience from
his "partner".

MJ demanding obedience? If anything kids were bossing him around all the time!
Like here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLECbwNK3kk

He was everything but an authoritative figure. Even if you consider Chandler's story where he claimed MJ
started to cry when he said he didn't like French kissing and then MJ never did it again. Yeah makes sense
since he didn't try to stop the blow job, just the French kissing. Anyway, would someone who demands
complete obedience simply stop doing something because the "partner" didn't like it?

He feels entitled to adulation and special treatment by his child-mate. He punishes the wayward and the
straying lambs. He enforces discipline.

No such things in any accuser's claims.

The child finds himself in a twilight zone. The pedophile imposes on him a shared psychosis, replete with
persecutory delusions, "enemies", mythical narratives, and apocalyptic scenarios if he is flouted.

No "enemies", mythical narratives, and apocalyptic scenarios in any accuser's claims.

The typical pedophile is a micro-manager. He exerts control over the minutest details and behaviors.

That does it. MJ was the complete opposite of a micro-manager. And he not only didn't exert control
over minutest details and behaviors he often didn't even know what the people around him were doing.
Just think about his finances in later years.

He punishes severely and abuses with holders of information and those who fail to conform to his wishes
and goals.

MJ's way of punishment was firing people who stole from him without ever filing charges.
His way of punishment for people who trashed him was to stop talking to them.
Indeed he punished people "severely".
He was notoriously non-confrontational.

The pedophile does not respect the boundaries and privacy of the (often reluctant and terrified) child. He
ignores his or her wishes and treats children as objects or instruments of gratification.

MJ ignoring kids' wishes and treating them as objects?
The very thing that got him into trouble was that he couldn't say NO when kids asked him.
How exactly did Gavin Arvizo end up in his bedroom? He ASKED MJ to let him sleep there.
And MJ was reluctant but still couldn't turn him away fearing that he would hurt his feelings.

He seeks to control both situations and people compulsively.

MJ was the total opposite. In fact he couldn't control situations and people when he certainly should have.
Like not allowing the Arvizos go anywhere in his house including his room while he wasn't even there.

The pedophile acts in a patronizing and condescending manner and criticizes often.

Again, MJ was just the opposite. He treated everyone with respect, he was soft-spoken and mild mannered
noone ever called him patronizing or condescending and he didn't critize often.
Just think about the episode where Blanca Francia was caught with MJ's jacket. Francia said I was cold and
MJ simply said Oh that's OK. Not everone would have bought Francia's BS explanation.

He alternates between emphasizing the minutest faults (devalues) and exaggerating the looks, talents,
traits, and skills (idealizes) of the child.

MJ never did that and none of his accusers ever claimed such a thing.

Narcissistic pedophiles claim to be infallible, superior, talented, skillful, omnipotent, and omniscient. They
often lie and confabulate to support these unfounded claims and to justify their actions.

Well, MJ never claimed that he was talented. LOL. He should have told the truth.
Anyway, he was always very humble about his talent and always credited God for everything he did.
Far from claiming to be omnipotent, and omniscient.

Most pedophiles suffer from cognitive deficits and reinterpret reality to fit their fantasies.

I can't think of a single example when MJ "reinterpret reality to fit his fantasies." He was so bloody
successful reality was pretty huge as it was. There was no need for reinterpretation.

In extreme cases, the pedophile feels above the law – any kind of law. This grandiose and haughty
conviction leads to criminal acts, incestuous or polygamous relationships, and recurrent friction with the
authorities
.

Other than the bogus charges he never had a friction with authorities.

The pedophile regards sex with children as an ego-booster .
Subteen children are, by definition, "inferior".

MJ had a pretty healthy ego, thank you very much. There was no need to boost it one way or the other.
And he treated kids as his equal.

His relationships with children buttress the pedophile's twin grandiose delusions of omnipotence and
omniscience.

He didn't have twin delusions of omnipotence and omniscience.

Inevitably, the pedophile considers his child-victims to be his best friends and companions.

Now this is very telling.
Whenever MJ talked about who his friends were he always mentioned ADULTS and only adults.
Never kids!
Like in this interview, he mentions Diana Ross, Jane Fonda, Quincy Jones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umq1AGZhHYg&list=PLUNRNxfONfvUZjdGMXjyWbM4_SkFpV9tN&index=14

or in this one, "people outside of show-business, ladies"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lao3_sB0_nY&list=PLUNRNxfONfvUZjdGMXjyWbM4_SkFpV9tN&index=17

in this one Elizabeth Taylor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOnAFOrGRyE

in this one, one true friend Quincy Jones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFj6pxGslWA&list=PLUNRNxfONfvUZjdGMXjyWbM4_SkFpV9tN&index=37

in the Schmuley interview: Taylor, Shirley Temple, Mac Culkin (by this time an adult)
SB: Someone you can unburden yourself to emotionally in a way that Prince couldn't understand or
Paris coulnd't understand.
MJ: Mmmm. Friends and certain people you can trust. Elizabeth or whoever...Mac
Shirley Temple, people who have been there.

Even among kids his accusers were far from being his best friends.
He tried to avoid Arvizo, he rarely even met with Jason Francia. When Safechuck was around him
so was Sean Lennon who said he spent more time with him than probably anyone else. And Brett Barnes who was as close to him as any kid ever, except the Cascios.
Of all kids the Cascios were by far his best friends and they most certainly were not his
victims.

Pedophiles are lonely, erotomanic, people.

MJ was often lonely but that was due to his fame and not knowing who to trust, but erotomanic??
He never had any delusion that any kid was in love with him and no accuser ever claimed such a thing.
It was a fact that kids became very attached to him, both Robson and Safechuck said that they loved him unconditionally, and Chandler told his father that he liked MJ, and Arvizo most certainly was very clingy.
And MJ correctly recognized that kids fell in love with his personality because that's the way it was. It was not a delusion which is what erotomania is.



The pedophile believes that he is in love with (or simply loves) the child. Sex is merely one way to
communicate his affection and caring.

This bullshit can be ruled out in MJ's case. He most certainly didn't believe that sex with a child
was merely one way to communicate his affection and caring if he wrote this note to Dee Dee Jackson
after Taj was molested:
letter-to-Dee.jpg


To show his keen interest, the common pedophile keeps calling the child, dropping by, writing e-mails,
giving gifts, providing services, doing unsolicited errands "on the kid's behalf", getting into relationships
with the preteen's parents, friends, teachers, and peers,

Out of all these things he did only two: he called them on the phone and gave them gifts.
But not even that is a constant. He never called Jason Francia and he never gave him gifts.
He also stopped talking to Arvizo.
And most of all he spoke on the phone with everyone and gave gifts to everyone!
Long phone calls with the Stein family members, husband, wife, daugther, long phone calls with Kidada
Jones, with Laura Chaplin. Plenty of gifts for the Cascios or the van Valin kids, plenty of phone calls with
Karlee and Brett Barnes with Joy Robson with Mac Culkin, Rodney Allen Rippy....there is no pattern here
other than the fact that MJ liked to talk on the phone with pretty much everyone he considered a friend
and he gave gifts to everyone, often even strangers, simply because he was generous.

and, in general, making himself available (stalking) at all times.

Now that would have been awfully difficult in his case even if that's what he had wanted to do.
He most certainly didn't make himself available at all times.
Not even when Arvizo wanted him to be available.

The pedophile feels free to make legal, financial, and emotional decisions for the child.

No such thing in any accuser's claims.

The pedophile intrudes on the victim's privacy, disrespects the child's express wishes and personal boundaries and ignores his or her emotions, needs, and preferences.

Again, MJ was the exact opposite. He respected children's wishes, sometimes way too much, unfortunately.
And he most certainly didn't ignore their emotions, needs and preferences.

To the pedophile, "love" means enmeshment and clinging coupled with an overpowering separation anxiety (fear of being abandoned).

Didn't Arvizo complain because MJ abandoned his family?
MJ was most certainly not afraid of being abandoned by Arvizo. Or Chandler. Or Robson or Safechuck.
It's ironic that haters often make the argument that it was MJ who was ready to abandon kids once they become too old.
And if anyone was clinging it was his accusers. Particularly Arvizo who threw a tantrum in March 2003
after their "final escape" because he wanted to do back to Neverland and be with MJ!

The pedophile determinedly sees it as his or her task to bring life and happiness into the child's dreary and unhappy existence.

Like the unhappy existence of Jordan Chandler or Wade Robson or Safechuck?
In what way was their existence unhappy?

Thus, regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the pedophile is convinced that his feelings are reciprocated - in other words, that the child is equally infatuated with him or her.

MJ was convinced that Arvizo was in love with him? And he was in love with Arvizo?
And Jason Francia? Ridiculous. I suppose he was in love with Star Arvizo too because initially he too claimed to be molested.
And I'm sure Mj was convinced that the fat ugly kid was in love with him.

:crazy


Some (by no means all) pedophiles are socially-inapt, awkward, schizoid, and suffer from a host of mood and anxiety disorders.

None of this is true to MJ. He was a remarkably even-tempered guy even under pressure. And he was not
awkward let alone schizoid. He was shy as everyone with disfiguring conditions would be.

They are driven by their all-consuming loneliness and all-pervasive fantasies.

Imagine MJ being driven by his all-consuming loneliness to Gavin Arvizo!
LOL. Except he didn't want to do anything with him before or even after the Bashir interview.
And had it not been for the Bashir doc being a complete distortion of what he was really all about
the Arvizos would have never entered his life again.
He was driven by damage control not all-consuming loneliness.

Consequently, pedophiles react badly to any perceived rejection by their victims. They turn on a dime and become dangerously vindictive, out to destroy the source of their mounting frustration.

That's not what Chandler described at all. MJ supposedly started to cry when Chandler didn't want to be French kissed. Hardly the same as becoming vindictive.
And noone ever claimed that MJ wanted to destroy them. Well except Safechuck in his recent desperate effort to support his e. estoppel argument.
And even that is not the response to rejection but a threat not to reveal what happened.

When the "relationship" looks hopeless, some pedophiles violently embark on a spree of self-destruction.

Hm...never happened in MJ's life.



Conclusion:
Ray Chandler is full of shit.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

When you look at hater websites those two are very focused on armchair psychoanalysis and use that to try to convince people of MJ's guilt and that's because they have nothing else. Haters will never discuss the totality of these cases because that would show that MJ was innocent. So they play armchair psychologist instead. That's something they like because it is easy to manipulate by taking certain things out of context, by twisting them to try to make them fit, by cherry-picking etc. Let's take a statement like this for example (I just picked it randomly from the above list):

Some (by no means all) pedophiles are socially-inapt, awkward, schizoid, and suffer from a host of mood and anxiety disorders.

Things like this are easy to apply to a great number of people. There are many, many socially-inapt, awkward, schizoid people who suffer from a host of mood and anxiety disorders. But of course that does not make them pedophiles. Most people who are socially awkward are NOT pedophiles.

Of course, neither haters or Ray Chandler are psychologists, so that they psycho-analyze Michael is ridiculous. And it's also nothing but a red herring to divert attention from the real facts of these cases.

You haven't been here yet, but a couple of months ago I discussed a book that Robson posted on his website. It's called "Conversations With A Pedophile: In the Interest of Our Children". He stated on his website that it gave him a better insight into the mind of his "abuser". So I read it, because I was curious about what he meant (and also to be alert on what kind of books he uses to construct his stories). Not surprisingly it turned out that the pedophile in the book has absolutely nothing to do with Michael. He is actually the complete opposite of him. I wrote a summary of it back then: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tate/page501?p=4036081&viewfull=1#post4036081

Just ridiculous that Robson could write that anything in that book reminds him of MJ. If you read the summary you will see why him saying that is nothing but throwing everything but the kitchen sink strategy.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

When you see actual pedophiles you see just how strong their delusion is and how awkward they really are.

Maybe some people see Michael as different but his social skills weren't all that awful like those guys you see on TV. He was very capable of making friendships once people got over his fame.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The books that respect and castor have posted about remind me of the stuff that Clemente probably uses for his arguments-just proves that you can take and twist just about anything to suit your agenda. That's why I rarely have any faith in expert witnesses in trials. The one exception was the Conrad Murray trial-but maybe that's because the experts were talking about science and not people's states of mind.

Any word from court yet? :)
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The books that respect and castor have posted about remind me of the stuff that Clemente probably uses for his arguments-just proves that you can take and twist just about anything to suit your agenda. That's why I rarely have any faith in expert witnesses in trials. The one exception was the Conrad Murray trial-but maybe that's because the experts were talking about science and not people's states of mind.

Things like medicine science are exact sciences. Psychology is not. There is way too much room for different conclusions and it's way too easy to mislead so called experts (therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists). People like Clemente show that very well. He's got a biased and prejudiced opinion first and then ignores a whole lot of facts and circumstances about these cases just to be able to hold on to his prejudiced ideas.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Judge has had plenty of time to go over his ruling, so hopefully we get the ruling today.:timer:
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ I'm betting on today too. At least a decision showing at the court system by midnight. He took 2 weeks for Safechuck demurrer, today is 2 weeks for robson Summary judgment.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I searched the top grossing dancers in the world :lol:

The richest dancer-chreographer is the world is Michael Flatley whose net worth is around $304 million but he's also a TV host, musician and actor. Next on the list are around 0.5-8 million. Nowhere near a billion :lol:

http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/category/celeb/dancer/
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ I'm betting on today too. At least a decision showing at the court system by midnight. He took 2 weeks for Safechuck demurrer, today is 2 weeks for robson Summary judgment.

what was his ruling on the demurrer?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

what was his ruling on the demurrer?

Sustained with leave. That means the Judge ruled in favour of the Estate's demurrer but gave Safechuck another chance to amend his complaint and try again.
 
There is a section in the Statement of probable cause titled
Characteristics of persons involved in sex crimes against children:
http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/plugin-111703stmtpc.pdf

And if you read it once again the only thing it proves how much MJ did not have those characteristics at all!
It's just ridiculous.


Pedophiles may collect sexually explicit materials consisting of photographs, magazines, motion pictures, video tapes, books and slides depicting juvelines or youngish-looking adults, which they use for their own sexual gratification, fantasy and for displaying to potential victims.


MJ did NOT collect sexually explicit materials depicting juvelines or youngish-looking adults.
He had one Barely Legal one Just Legal and one Finally Legal magazine depicting youngish-looking WOMEN, among more than 80 Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse depicting fully adult women, and one Over 50 and one 44 Plus depicting, well,... let's just say matured women. If anything his collection proves that he got sexual gratification from looking at adult women of all ages, not kids.

Displaying to potential victims?
It somehow didn't hit them that neither Chandler not Francia ever mentioned such magazines, neither did any person , adult or child who have ever been in Neverland (and it's a sure thing the tabloids would have loved a story about MJ and his porn collection).
Also, Star Arvizo also claimed that MJ showed him porn magazines, how does that fit into the theory that
he showed porn to lower his victim's inhibition? Star Arvizo was his victim too?
Well, according to the first version of the story he was, in a golf cart of all places. Then this element miraculously disappears from the story.

Pedophiles rarely, if ever, dispose of their sexually explicit materials, especially if it is used in the seduction of their victims.

We know for a fact that Chandler never claimed any such mags were used to seduce him and we know that they didn't find anything issued before 1991.
So MJ most certainly did dispose some porn magazines unless we believe that he started to be interested in such things only after 1991 -- which of course would contradict Safechuck's claims!
And if someone brings up the two books with naked boys we know for a fact that MJ didn't mind not having them anymore because he didn't do anything to re-obtain them after 1993.

Pedophiles often correspond with or meet with one another to share information and identities of their victims, and as a means of gaining status, trust, acceptance and pshychological support.

MJ did no such thing and wasn't even accused of doing such a thing.

Pedophiles rarely destroy correspondence received from other people with similar interests unless they are specifically requested to do so.

Noone ever found such correspondence during any of the raids or on his computer, there is no recorded phone call with any pedophile either.

The majority of pedophiles prefer contact with children of a particular sex as well as a particular age or developmental range, the combination of which is peculiar to each individual pedophile.

We know that Gutierez picked a few boys around MJ and declared them to be victims and the prosecution and the media then parroted that same list completely ignoring all the other kids, both boys and girls who were younger or older than those "victims" and were very close to MJ, like Amy Agajanian who met him at age 4 and MJ told her right away that "we're gonna be friends for life". Or Emmanuel Lewis who was 13 but looked and sounded like a 5 year old.
In reality MJ didn't prefer contact with 10-13 year old boys, for one thing he loved babies just as much as it was obvious from the pictures found in his bedroom where he died, he loved girls as it is obvious from the statues and paintings in Neverland which depicted both boys and girls of all ages, not to mention the countless girls with whom he had contact and formed friendships, sometimes closer ones than he had with any of his accusers!
Three girls testified during the trial that they slept in his bed and another was mentioned, Brandi Jackson who slept there too.
None of his enemies could ever explain the girls so they simply pretend they don't exist.
Neither can they explain his friendship with older teenagers like Frank Cascio, Mac Culkin, Brett Barnes, Gotham Chopra or Omer Batthi all of whom remained close to him well beyond puberty.

The photos and/or videos described above are kept to re-live fantasies or actual encounters with the depicted children.

No such photos or videos were ever found during any raid.

To reduce the chance of discovery, pedophiles may maintain and run their own photographic production and reproduction equipment, This may be as simple as the use of "instant" photo equipment such as Polaroid cameras and home video equipment, or as complex as a completely outfitted photo lab.

MJ didn't use any production and reproduction equipment to create photos or videos or his "victims" or anything remotely sexual involving kids.

Pedophiles often go to great lengths to conceal their collections of erotic materials and protect them from discovery , theft and damage.

This is hilarious. The prosecution tried to make the case that MJ recklessly left sexually explicit stuff all over Neverland! So which one? Did he wanted to protect them from discovery or didn't do enough to hide them? One thing is sure: he should have never let the Arvizos roam around his house while he was not at home! That they could break in his room proves an astonishing level of naivety on MJ's part.

Pedophiles often collect read, copy or maintain names, addresses, phone numbers or lists of persons who have similar sexual interests. These may have been acquired by personal contact or through advertisments in various publications. These contacts are maintained as a means of personal referral, for exchange and for commercial profit.

MJ did no such thing.

Pedophiles often correspond with other pedophiles through the use of computerized bulletin boards and the Internet.

MJ did no such thing.

The names of such contacts may be maintained by preservation of the publications in which they appeared, in phonebooks or notebooks, in computer hard or soft ware, or merely on scraps or paper.

Every piece of paper they could find in Neverland was examined.
His hard drives were examined by the FBI. They found nothing.

Vast quantities of child pornography may also be stored on electronic media such as computer hard drives, computer diskettes, magnetic or digital tape, and computer CD-ROM disks.

MJ did not have child porn at all.

Pedophiles often keep the names of children they are involved with or with whome they have had sexual contact. They maintain these names in much the same manner as described in the preceding paragaph, and for much the same reasons.

MJ kept the names of Chandler, Arvizo, Robson, Safechuck and Francia? Sure.
Just like he kept the names of hundreds of other people he knew, just like I keep the names and phone numbers of people I know.
However no such dedicated list to his "victims" was ever found during any of the raids.

Pedophiles often maintain diaries of their sexual encounters with children.

MJ had no such diary.


These accounts of their sexual experiences are used as a means of reliving the encounter when the offender has no children to molest. Such accounts may be set out in a notebook, or on scraps of paper, or in a formal diary. Depending upon the resources available to the offender, they may be contained on audio tape or electronic entries into a home computer.

So MJ didn't have anyone to molest between March and Nov 2003 that's why they found accounts of his sexual experiences with Gavin Arvizo during the Nov raid.
Except they found no such thing at all!
Ever.
Which begs the question: what on Earth was he doing during the months and years when he didn't have
any "victim" around? What was he doing between March 2003 and June 2009? All of a sudden he no longer had sexual interest in boys?

Pedophiles often cut pictures of children out of magazines, newspaper, books, and other publications, which they use to facililate fantasy relationships.

MJ didn't cut out pictures of children, he did have paintings depicting children of both genders and of all ages, he had photos of babies often given to him by fans.
I suppose he fasciliated fantasy relationships with babies, girls, boys and he also wanted his guests to see that he was into that kind of thing after all the pictures were visible all over his house.
It's also worth to mention that the only common theme among these pictures is that the kids looked happy! The statues were both girls and boys, all playing and smiling, having a good time.
He even had a poem displayed in Neverland about SMILING babies.
And of course he had this inscription in Boys will be boys:
“Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces, this is the spirit of Boyhood. A life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.”
Or remember that Sweet Baby picture in his bedroom? He was smiling too.
There's no doubt that MJ loved looking at HAPPY kids.
Which is one reason why he would never do anything to harm them.
He would have destroyed the very thing he loved about them the most.
And it's also one of the many reasons why Safehuck's story of how MJ made him cry repeatedly is baloney.
Look at this picture:
http://makerofdreams.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/David-Nordahl-FieldOfDreams.png
or this
http://arrestedmotion.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/mj-nordhal-moonrise-1995.jpg
or this
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f0/28/1e/f0281ecc5acf31da1e3ac82a495da2ad.jpg
or this
http://starcasm.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/FP_4181071_BARM_Nordahl_Jackson_EXCL_121009.jpg

These pictures have nothing to do with sexual fantasies. But with magic and wonderment, the things MJ talked about so often.
These so-called experts should have been challenged to find such paintings in any proven pedophile's home.

These pictures help the investigators to identify the age and sexual preference of the person under investigation.

LOL, good luck with that. I wonder how these helped "investigators to identify the age and sexual preference of MJ:
article-1197247-05933C04000005DC-220_634x461.jpg

53dc27b6680adb17a5bfbff3c8457c76.jpg

Neverland_31.jpg



Pedophiles may use sexual aids such as dildos, fashioned after a man's penis and of various sizes and shapes, in the secuction of their victims.

Err...no dildos anywhere, sorry.

Pedophiles may collect and maintain books, magazines, articles, and other writings on the subject of sexual activity. These books and materials may be on the topics of human sexuality and sexual education or consist of sex manuals discussing or showing various sexual acts, positions, or sexual activities.

I only have a few hundred books but even I own the Kama Sutra. I think it's safe to say that 95% of American households have at least one book or magazine about sex.
However, MJ had 10 000 books in Neverland and out of all those there was only one book about sex, a book he didn't even open and was probably sent along with hundreds of others books from a used book store, knowing how MJ bought books (often not taking them but sending a car for them the following day)
Oh an he had two articles about the G-spot! Which obviously proves he was into boys.
Right.

These books and materials are used as a means of seduction of the victim by arousing curiosity, demonstrating the seeming propriety of the desired acts, explaining or demonstrating what the offender desires to be done, and as a means of sexual arousal on the part of the offender, particularly when naked children are shown or depicted in the materials.

Just imagine MJ using articles about the G-spot to "explain or demonstrate what the offender desires to be done" with his penis! Oh wait.

Chandler and Francia and Arvizo never even mentioned such books because they didn't even know MJ had them! After the 2003 raid found books with naked men, women and girls (not boys, that was in 1993)
Robson and Safechuck suddenly puts books into their story. But even they fail to elaborate why MJ showed them such books, they just say he showed them AFTER he had already begun to molest them.
So how exactly did he used those artbooks to lower their inhibitions when their inihibitions were already lowered?
And nowhere did Robson mention that Mj used that one book about gay sex to "demonstrate the seeming propriety of the desired acts". It would be quite funny anyway since the book was found in a cardboard box and it was obvious that MJ didn't even open it. It would also be interesting to know when those books were purchased. If after 1997, which is most likely, how could MJ use them to seduce Robson?
And since after 1993 MJ didn't own a single book which had naked boys it's hard to see how
he was using such material for sexual arousal.

Pedophiles often use drugs as a means of inducement to get a child to a particular location such as the offender's home.

MJ was never even accused of doing such thing. Those kids were more than happy to go to his home. Over and over again.

Alcohol is also used in this fashion.

No mention of alcohol in the Chandler, Francia, Robson stories. Arvizo is the first who talked about it and we know that he and his brother were caught drinking alone and stealing alcohol and Davelin was lying about her age to the flight attendant to get alcohol. We also know that said flight attendants pretty much killed the Arvizo story about MJ giving them alcohol in that plane.
Safechuck of course took a page from the Arvizo story.
But as with many other elements in these accusations the whole thing is ridiculously random.
Why Arvizo but not Chandler? Why Safechuck but not Robson?

Both drugs and alcohol are also used as a means of seduction, reducing the child's inhibitions for sexual excitement.

So it was not necessary to reduce Chandler's Francia's and Robson's inhibitions but it was necessary
with Avizo and Safechuck. Makes sense.
As for drugs, it's interesting that the initial version of the Arvizo story included a sleeping pill which MJ supposedly gave Star and Gavin, and which they supposedly kept. Of course like many other things, this part too vanished later on. Probably they realized how ridiculous it would be to show a pill in court and argue that this was the one MJ gave them and yes we didn't throw it away because we already knew that months later we would accuse him and this could be the smoking gun evidence.

Pedophiles often collect and maintain artifacts, statues, paintings or other media which depict children or young persons in nude poses or sexual acts. These are kept or left in places where the victims can find or
"discover" them.

LOL. Yes MJ definitely kept statues depicting children in nude poses where the victims could find them.
And so could the thousands of other people who visited the ranch:

99437919_o.jpg

99546529_o.jpg

99547412_o.jpg


Oh wait these are not nude. Nevermind.

Pedphiles may maintain and keep things of interest to their victims. They may consist of magazines, books, and toys for the age level of the victims their desire to attract, and may be as complicated as video games, toy train sets and computers.

MJ had toys for the age level of Chandler and Arvizo. Like his collection of baby dolls! Or pictures of Mickey Mouse and Peter Pan.
I stopped caring about those characters when I was 8.
The fact is that MJ had such an eclectic collection of toys that it's simply impossible to draw any conclusion from them.
Other than the fact that he liked giving toys for all kinds of kids, both boys and girls of all ages.
But the biggest problem with this argument is the fact that MJ himself LOVED toys and video games.
He had those thing for his own amusement even when kids were not around, which is absolutely not typical behavior for a pedophile.
Remember the part in the Bashir doc when he played with that arcade game in his Las Vegas hotel room?
Not to mention things like this:
michael-jackson-and-mickey-mouse.jpg

Disney-image-disney-36426469-496-559.jpg

original.jpg


Pedophiles may keep mementos of their relationship with specific children as a means of remembrance, The mementos may consist of underwear of other garments or things that are unique to the relationship they had with the child.

So we know where they got that ridiculous underwear story from.
Except noone ever found any such underwear in any of MJ's homes.
And the usual problem with no pattern is true in this case too:
why would he be interested in keeping Gavin's underwear when he didn't keep any mementos of Chandler, Francia, Robson or Safechuck?

Pedophiles may obtain, collect and maintain photographs of the children they are or have been involved with. These photos are rarely, if ever, disposed of and are so treasured that they are often kept upon the individual's person, in wallets and like containers,

They didn't find any photo of any of his accusers.
The only photo they found of the boys he knew was a completely innocent picture of Mac Culkin from Home Alone. And it was in a place where anyone could see it, he didn't try to hide it or keep it in a special place.
He also had a huge photo of young Shirley Temple in his bedroom.
Now what kind of conclusion would "investigators" draw from that?
We know the bullshit about that non-existent photo of naked Jonathan Spence.
It's like these bastards desperately tried to create some evidence based on some general profile of pedophiles but they always came up empty handed so they put their spin on completely innocent things
or even things which actually prove that MJ liked women not boys. They are also not bothered by the fact that these things show absolutely no pattern of behavior at all.

If a picture of a child depicting the child in the nude is taken by the pedophile, there is a high probability the child was molested before, during or after the photo-taking session because the act of posing the child in such a great sexual stimulus for the pedophile.

If they had indeed found a naked photo of Spence it would have not only been all over the press but
Spence would have been questioned about it during his police interview, and Spence's parents would have accused MJ, obviously.
MJ never took any naked photo of any child, period.
 
Last edited:
^ That Statement of Probable Cause by the prosecution is a lot of nonsense. Obviously they are trying to make a shoe fit that does not. "Pedophiles often have porn magazines", "pedophiles often have camera equipment", "pedophiles often have books on human sexuality". Well, if such things are evidence of pedophila then I guess 80-90% of people are pedophiles. These are trivial things that anyone can have and many fully healthy and normal people do have - especially men.

You forgot the iceing on the cake: their reasoning for why the search warrants should be granted:

“The mere fact of forty-five-year-old Jackson’s three-year-long interest in the adolescent Gavin is corroborating in itself; it would strike a reasonable person as grossly abnormal. So is the way that interest manifested itself: endless telephone conversations with the youngster, inappropriate and relatively public touching, kissing, licking and cuddling of him; expensive gifts, cross-country flights, the relocation of the family from their modest quarters in Los Angeles, his efforts to have them take up residence in Brazil.”

Except none of it is true and even their own witnesses and even the accusers refuted many of these things: Gavin complained on the stand that MJ was actively avoiding him during those three years and did not take and return his phone calls. So how is MJ portrayed in this Statement of probable cause as someone who was stalking Gavin when even the accuser did not - and could not - make such a claim? The so called “inappropriate, public touching, kissing, licking and cuddling” was conveniently always only observed by other members of the Arvizo family and there were no independent witnesses to confirm them. As for expensive gifts, MJ was generous with everyone – children and adults alike. The only cross-country flight (there were no cross-country flights in plural) took place on February 5-6 where the Arvizo family, including the mother, was invited to Miami for a press conference which eventually was called off and the claim about an attempt to relocate the family, to have them “take up residence in Brazil” is also a gross misrepresentation of what really happened. Mesereau's cross examination of Janet Arvizo:

Q. Well, the itinerary says you’re leaving Los Angeles for Sao Paulo, Brazil, on March 1st, 2003, right?

A. Okay.

Q. It says you’re returning from Sao Paulo, Brazil, to Miami on March 6th, 2003, correct?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And it says you’re leaving Miami for Los Angeles on March 7th, 2003, correct?

A. Uh-huh.

So they would have gone on a 6 days vacation (that was eventually called off). How is that portrayed as an attempt to relocate them to "take up residence in Brazil"?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top