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

[HIStory]

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

Here is a video where they skim through one of these by the prosecution and now by Radar Online so criminalized books, The Golden Age of Neglect: https://vimeo.com/54012676

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

It never ends does it you dont know whether to laugh or cry. No doubt in 20 years we will still be having this discussion as some looney tries to cash in. When u think of all those real abuse cases where they find 1000's of indecent images and real evidence on computers etc ontop of dozens of victims.says it all doesnt it

If ppl ever doubted mj all u have to do is look at things like this. Where theres no evidence at all provern by the desperate actions by the press and lawyers. bringing up the same old non excistant evidence because thats all they had and all they eve had! Reminds me of guiterrez so desperate for mj to be a pedo so it would help his nambla pals. Makes me wonder whos the real pedos in cases like this. The sickos at radar sneddon and co etc etc etc.

If ever you needed evidence of the ongoing lynching this is it

 

[MJresearcher]

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

And lol at Radar Online blocking out the crotch area on photos that are not actually explicit, trying to imply that they are. RadarOnline's version:

Actual photo:

BTW, the photo is from a book that deals with the life and artistic work of James Bidgood. The Amazon description of the book:

Wow, this is really pathetic. Notice how the picture from Radar Online is in black and white too? That makes it much more difficult to see that the people in the picture are in fact clothed. Nothing in this picture needs to be blurred, this is a deliberate manipulation of a photograph to make it look completely different to what it actually is and it's absolutely despicable. Bidgood was at least 30 years old here so how does this somehow prove pedophilia again? Sigh.

http://clampart.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Resume170.pdf

Edit:

To be fair, I'm reading through the document right now and all the pictures included are in black and white, perhaps they were scanned. I still don't know what the need for covering the genitals was since the people in the picture I spoke about weren't nude.

 

[SarahJ]

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

I think the word "desperation" has taken on a whole new meaning now with this bunch. Also "disturbed" comes to mind. Because seriously the man has been gone for 7 years and you have to wonder the mind set of people who would go to this extreme for money, revenge due to some imagined slight from the estate, whatever..

I looked up Ed Templeton and he is a modern and contemporary art photographer. Apparently in 2002 his work was featured at an exhibition at the Palais de Tokyo in Paris, which features modern and contemporary art. And was accompanied by the Golden Age of Neglect.

His website showcasing his other works: http://ed-templeton.com/
Guess Zonen, WR and his lawyers aren't into contemporary art/photography.

 

[SarahJ]

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

Wow, this is really pathetic. Notice how the picture from Radar Online is in black and white too? That makes it much more difficult to see that the people in the picture are in fact clothed. Nothing in this picture needs to be blurred, this is a deliberate manipulation of a photograph to make it look completely different to what it actually is and it's absolutely despicable. Bidgood was at least 30 years old here so how does this somehow prove pedophilia again? Sigh.

http://clampart.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Resume170.pdf

Edit:

To be fair, I'm reading through the document right now and all the pictures included are in black and white, perhaps they were scanned. I still don't know what the need for covering the genitals was since the people in the picture I spoke about weren't nude.

To bring attention to them and plant a suggestion in the reader's mind. And your right, the poorly scanned blurred images are intentional so the viewer can't really make out what the photos really represent and their imaginations can run wild. Propaganda at its most base/lowest level.

 

[HIStory]

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

I think the word "desperation" has taken on a whole new meaning now with this bunch. Also "disturbed" comes to mind. Because seriously the man has been gone for 7 years and you have to wonder the mind set of people who would go to this extreme for money, revenge due to some imagined slight from the estate, whatever..

I looked up Ed Templeton and he is a modern and contemporary art photographer. Apparently in 2002 his work was featured at an exhibition at the Palais de Tokyo in Paris, which features modern and contemporary art. And was accompanied by the Golden Age of Neglect.

His website showcasing his other works: http://ed-templeton.com/
Guess Zonen, WR and his lawyers aren't into contemporary art/photography.

It's the same with all of these books. These are renowned photo artists with exhibitions, with books in the Library of Congress etc. This is not some dark, shady stuff. These are all readily available in book stores and libraries, the pics can be seen in open exhibitions etc. It's Radar Online who are trying to paint it something else, relying on the fact that most people don't know the facts when it comes to this case, nor will they actually check out what we are talking about so they will just take any slacious headline as a fact. It actually shows how weak the prosecution's evidence was when a couple of art books are still being used and twisted by the media to create something out of it.

I wonder about the timing. I read Robson also posted some nonsense again on his FB about how he thanks his son for helping him face his childhood troubles. Barf @ his shamless exploitation of his son for this. So is it MJ's approaching death anniversary why they activated themselves or is something going on right now in Court for that they need some bad publicity on MJ?

 

[MJresearcher]

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

I went to the article itself and this picture isn't in the article, it's in the document. I've seen that document before without Radar Online's logo printed all over it. Looking at it in the context of the whole document all the pictures are in black and white (probably scanned) and I'm not sure why genital areas that were covered were edited out but I don't know who did that or when. I also don't know if the jury were shown the scanned pictures or the actual ones (it would make more sense to show the actual coloured pictures from the actual books) so it's possible that this wasn't an intentional thing by Radar Online, rather that the document itself is set up in that way. I absolutely hate the way Radar Online writes their articles, acting as though prosecution documents are the truth and providing only their side, completely failing to provide anything from the defense and leaving out all context. They also fail to mention that the investigator wrote that none of the material was considered child porn; the way the article is written you'd think otherwise. The dishonesty is disgusting!

 

[HIStory]

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

I went to the article itself and this picture isn't in the article, it's in the document. I've seen that document before without Radar Online's logo printed all over it. Looking at it in the context of the whole document all the pictures are in black and white (probably scanned) and I'm not sure why genital areas that were covered were edited out but I don't know who did that or when. I also don't know if the jury were shown the scanned pictures or the actual ones (it would make more sense to show the actual coloured pictures from the actual books) so it's possible that this wasn't an intentional thing by Radar Online, rather that the document itself is set up in that way.

The scanned pics are not in the original 2005 prosecution documents and in court it were the actual books themselves that were shown.

Also the blocking seems to be put on the pdf in the hindsight, digitally, because when the documents load slowly the blocking itself loads a tad bit slower than the actual pic. So yes, the blockings seem to be Radar's doing. I think the scans themselves were put in there by Robson's lawyers, as well the other docs mixed in, such as articles about Precocet, descriptions on one of the books from the Internet etc, because those aren't in the original document either.

I absolutely hate the way Radar Online writes their articles, acting as though prosecution documents are the truth and providing only their side, completely failing to provide anything from the defense and leaving out all context. They also fail to mention that the investigator wrote that none of the material was considered child porn; the way the article is written you'd think otherwise. The dishonesty is disgusting!

It's just a low-brow tabloid being a low-brow tabloid relying on the stupidity of its core audience. They are quickly reaching Mirror and National Enquirer level with this "journalism". They are also clearly in cohorts with Robson's camp. Alan Duke should be ashamed of himself for selling his soul for cash because he knows better than this.

It's just mind boggling how 7 years after his death the media is still so hell-bent on destroying this man's legacy. He truly was and is a threat to many people. And it's very telling that they need to do gymnastics like this to get him convicted in the court of public opinion. If he had truly been guilty then we would not still discuss this 7 years after his death and the media would not need to twist innocent art books into something horrible, because after all those house searches and everything we would have tons of actual real evidence.

 

[MJresearcher]

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

Well this is just great, it's spreading. My friend tagged me in this:

https://www.facebook.com/Jezebel/posts/10153465519962434?comment_id=10153465837737434&notif_t=comment_mention&notif_id=1466480224391411

I'll be there leaving my own comments, if anyone else would like to join me it would be appreciated. If not, that's understandable.

 

[ivy]

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

Probably when Robson/Safechuck asked for the search documents they were given copies of the documents and pictures. That's probably why the pictures are in black and white and in low quality.

This is a combination document made by Robson/Safechuck lawyers. Such as they had the list of seized elements and added the relevant pictures and/or their research notes. You can see names of the books written in blue color, yellow highlights and handwritten notes - which seems to be written by Robson/Safechuck lawyers. So overall it's a color pdf.

There is some original redaction - which seems to be phones and addresses of people. That is standard redaction. It seems Radar has also added some blocking, to the pictures. Respect is right. when you open the document the digital blocking Radar did loads slower than the actual document.

The only curious thing is how they got access to this document and why they are posting it now. (of course we all know they timed it with June 25th but I wonder if there could be more to it). It could be filed with the court at Robson discovery or Safechuck civil demurrer. That's another case I lost access. Estate had filed their demurrer in late December. So that demurrer process is probably happening right now. Given we haven't heard anything about a ruling yet, I'm assuming it is ongoing. However the color in the document makes me suspect that this was provided to Radar by Robson/Safechuck lawyers and not gotten from court clerk.

 

[HIStory]

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

I agree that it was given to RO by Robson's lawyers and it seems to be a desperate move to stir negative publicity. I wonder why they felt the need to drop this now.

It's nothing really, the only annoying thing is that people are so gullible and they will believe any salacious, false headline just because the tabloids keep repeating nonsense like this about MJ. It's really frustrating, but then I try to remind myself that tabloid readers are just a tiny portion of society and usually not the smartest and most critically thinking ones either. But it is still frustrating that the media keeps repeating BS like this until it gets into public conscious as "true".

Earlier this week the Guardian referred to Victor Gutierrez's bogus story about MJ abusing two Mexican boys in the 80s but getting off because the FBI dropped the investigation because he was to recieve an award in the White House. It's a false story that even MJ's FBI files say it's false, yet the media - including supposedly reputable media - keeps repeating it as if it is a fact. And they do that with a thousand things. Eg. Mirror's fake "FBI files prove MJ paid off 20 boys" story is often referenced as fact too. The media is extremely lazy these days. Just put "FBI", "authorities", "police report" in a story and that's enough for them to spread the story around as if true. They don't even check if such FBI files or reports exist at all. Now thanks to this RadarOnline article talk BS about MJ like he had child porn (when not even the actual prosecution document claims that - in fact in the description of each and every one of these publications they note just the contrary: that it's nothing illegal. They only managed to introduce it to court not because it was illegal, but with the narrative that such material with nudes can be used to groom children. And RO took the BS to another level with the whole "child torture" and "animal sacrifice" thing. I am sure people are having the mental images of horrendous and tortoruse child porn, which I am sure was the goal. Of course, it changes nothing for Robson, because it's not true and it is only good for stirring negative publicity, but it is still sad that MJ keeps getting slandered like this.

Although those who are potentially interested in MJ as an artist and as a human being will hopefully do the research and not just believe any tabloid article and the rest would never be interested anyway.

 

[MJresearcher]

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

Thank you very much to those who have been commenting on that stupid facebook post, I think we're evening out the comments now, many of which were very negative thanks to people who don't read or understand things properly. Hopefully people will listen and learn some things< I'm raging so hard right now. Love you guys

 

[SarahJ]

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

I agree that it was given to RO by Robson's lawyers and it seems to be a desperate move to stir negative publicity. I wonder why they felt the need to drop this now.

It's nothing really, the only annoying thing is that people are so gullible and they will believe any salacious, false headline just because the tabloids keep repeating nonsense like this about MJ. It's really frustrating, but then I try to remind myself that tabloid readers are just a tiny portion of society and usually not the smartest and most critically thinking ones either. But it is still frustrating that the media keeps repeating BS like this until it gets into public conscious as "true".

Earlier this week the Guardian referred to Victor Gutierrez's bogus story about MJ abusing two Mexican boys in the 80s but getting off because the FBI dropped the investigation because he was to recieve an award in the White House. It's a false story that even MJ's FBI files say it's false, yet the media - including supposedly reputable media - keeps repeating it as if it is a fact. And they do that with a thousand things. Eg. Mirror's fake "FBI files prove MJ paid off 20 boys" story is often referenced as fact too. The media is extremely lazy these days. Just put "FBI", "authorities", "police report" in a story and that's enough for them to spread the story around as if true. They don't even check if such FBI files or reports exist at all. Now thanks to this RadarOnline article talk BS about MJ like he had child porn (when not even the actual prosecution document claims that - in fact in the description of each and every one of these publications they note just the contrary: that it's nothing illegal. The only managed to introduce it to court not because it was illegal, but with the narrative that such material with nudes can be used to groom children. And RO took the BS to another level with the whole "child torture" and "animal sacrifice" thing. I am sure people are having the mental images of horrendous and tortoruse child porn, which I am sure was the goal. Of course, it changes nothing for Robson, because it's stirring negative publicity, but it is still sad.

Although those who are potentially interested in MJ as an artist and as a human being will hopefully do the research and not just believe any tabloid article and the rest would never be interested anyway.

Reminds of what Feldman did in '93 and Sneddon with his PR team. Using the media to promote their side. Coming in strong with anything salacious to counter any positive news, statements, or anything that may generate sympathy. Through in "police reports" and some over watermarked images (some so bad you can't even see what it is), re-word the meaning and people will eat it up.
The estate really needs to up their game and use propaganda as well in a positive way, because I have no doubt this is going to get nastier.

 

[HIStory]

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

Radar has been crawling up Robson's backside ever since the start of this and I wonder if he knows how they're pushing this? If he agrees with it he'll only be further proving he's full of it. I wonder how TMZ will react to it? They can be good sometimes, like when they called out the fake FBI story bullshit. I hope at least they tell it like it actually is.

I am sure Robson knows if indeed his lawyers are behind this. When Radar Online posted his allegations with a title that said MJ "anal raped Robson" he and his family were cheering on that article. Chantal or Amanda (one of them, I don't remember now which) reposted the link to it with a little heart put beside it which I found gross and weird. Who "hearts" such a disgusting thing and title whether you believe it is true or not? It's just not a thing to put little hearts beside it. But this is not the first nor the last thing they do that is inappropriate.

RadarOnline seems to be the media that they use as their mouthpiece. I think initially they wanted TMZ, but TMZ for some reason turned against them. Remember when Robson's lawyer first came out to comment it with the whole "MJ was a monster" tirade it was on TMZ. I also remember Robson's cousin said in a comment section in the early days that people should follow TMZ regarding the case (another weird thing to say). But things seemed to have gone sour between the Robsons and TMZ because now TMZ hardly ever reports about them and often when they do they are kind of sceptical and sarcastic about them. And since everything pro-Robson and leaked docs and stuff like this one moved to RadarOnline.

Maybe they're still hoping for a settlement if they push bullshit hard enough. I hope they never see a goddamn cent.

Could be. Or they feel the need to put pressure on or influence someone in court now. Like the Judge or a potential witness and they hope to achieve it through this public smear campaign.

A person on that Facebook comment section actually agreed with me that he was not well researched in the case so he might be wrong. It's a rarity. LOL.

Yeah, I was only commenting on the documentary I saw. I do not have the time nor the energy to go into full-on ****ing research mode on celebrity gossip -- on a deceased celebrity for that matter. I'm so lame for that, I know.

 

[HIStory]

Reminds of what Feldman did in '93 and Sneddon with his PR team. Using the media to promote their side. Coming in strong with anything salacious to counter any positive news, statements, or anything that may generate sympathy.

And they say MJ was the one with "power" when all of these people played the media with their high profile lawyers and PR teams like MJ could never. Evan Chandler claimed he didn't go to court against MJ because MJ was powerful and he was just this tiny little poor dentist and people buy into that notion based on some general prejudice against celebrities, but the reality was just the contrary. The Chandlers and also the Arvizos had some of the most powerful lawyers in the country. Larry Feldman is one of the countries top civil trial lawyers. The Chandlers also had people like Robert Shapiro (mostly known from OJ Simpson's dream team) and other top lawyers. But they were supposedly these poor little nobodies with no chance against a celebrity with his high profile lawyers. Then they played the media like a harp. They had all the connections to the National Enquirer, Hard Copy (the Chandlers' book calls Dimond Evan's "best alley"), they sold stories anonymously left and right and so they dictated the media narrative, not MJ. So the "Goliath MJ vs. little poor David Chandlers" narrative just doesn't hold water but people eat that up because they already have that prejudice against celebrities. Same for the Arvizos. Feldman worked for them as well. Then Sneddon with his full PR team, planting stories to the media etc etc.

ETA: I see the RadarOnline article also once again perpetuates the myth that MJ's FBI files said he paid off 20 boys with $200 million (by the same old rule of "repeat a lie often enough, sooner or later people will believe it"). The reason why that is pathetic, coming from Robson's team is that when that lie was first published by the Mirror/Sunday People, Robson's lawyer was desperate for it to be true and she commented about it in the Daily Mail:

Choreographer Robson&#8217;s litigation counsel Maryann R. Marzano of Gradstein & Marzano said: 'These revelations confirm what we've been saying: that Michael Jackson was a pedophile and Wade Robson was one of his victims.
'To continue to deny this, defies both common sense and common decency.'
A source close to Wade added: 'The information in these files could provide many leads both for witnesses in the case and background information on deals we may never have heard of before.
'Wade wants his lawyers to go through the papers page by page.

This was in early July 2013. In none of their court documents ever since they ever referenced such a case, although such a case would be extremely useful for them because it could prove some sort of conspiracy within MJ's companies to keep people silent and thus a knowledge about child abuse by MJ which is one of the things they have to prove regarding the statutes. So based on the lack of any such case mentioned in their court docs it is safe to say no matter how hard they looked they found none. Yet, they still keep perpetuating that lie in the media simply out of PR reasons. They are playing the same disgusting media games that the Chandlers did: trying to pressure the Estate with bad publicity. It's so incredibly dishonest. They know it is a lie, yet they still perpetuate it.

 

[8701girl]

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

Did ya'll see the latest on the jezebel website???


The writer who wrote a article claims she spoke with an officier from santa barbra police who claims they have evidence that mj tortured animals and had nude pics of boys or something like that ??????


The animal cruelty allegation is what making me laugh so hard cuz why wasnt he fined/charged with that at the time and why does he come out with it now & not in 2003??!!

I swear they have no brains ??

 

[HIStory]

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

Did ya'll see the latest on the jezebel website???


The writer who wrote a article claims she spoke with an officier from santa barbra police who claims they have evidence that mj tortured animals and had nude pics of boys or something like that ??????


The animal cruelty allegation is what making me laugh so hard cuz why wasnt he fined/charged with that at the time and why does he come out with it now & not in 2003??!!

I swear they have no brains ??

They didn't talk to anyone. They are just rehasing RadarOnline's BS. And even if they had talked to someone it wouldn't make it true. None of the evidence ever listed or introduced to court was child porn, pics of animal torture or child torture. That's BS made up by RadarOnline. RadarOnline is extremely dishonest for claiming it because the prosecution documents never claimed any such thing and they know that and they could also never claim any such thing in court. The books were brought in court not because they were illegal but because the prosecution claimed such material can be used to groom kids. They could never claim that any of this material was illegal or criminal. So how would they be child porn, pics of child torture or animal sacrifice? Nonsense. The books can be looked up. They are absolutely not what RadarOnline and the other tabloids made of them.

BTW, even Friedman can smell the BS.

 

[8701girl]

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

LOL!! But thats what the woman who wrote is saying! that she "spoke with an officier :lol:


And love how roger called sneddon a biohard :lol: :lol: i personally would've called him snakehead but anyhoo....

 

[HIStory]

LOL!! But thats what the woman who wrote is saying! that she "spoke with an officier :lol:

No, the article doesn't claim that. It says "Police reports reveal that the late Michael Jackson amassed a collection of gruesome pornography and violent images, including &#8220;animal torture, S&M, and gore&#8221; at his Neverland Ranch." (BS) Not that they personally spoke with an officer. Unless you read a different article. Anyway, Jezabel is one of worst and least reliable tabloids, so who cares?

On a different note, I realize the official court website for the 2005 trial is now gone: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/

I wonder if it is just because it was long ago or they are trying to hide something. (May look paranoid, but I wouldn't put anything past them with their attempts at rewriting history and bury actual facts and court documents under tabloid articles.) Thankfully I have most of the most important documents saved but it is still sad because facts are MJ fans biggest allies against tabloids' and haters' nonsense.

 

[8701girl]

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

Unless i read wrong but still how else would they get this "new info" from? When it comes to the media and police especially santa barbra police department i wouldnt put it past them to be cohoots with each other. Remember diane dimbat (diane dimond) was in cohoots with sneddon so im not surprised that jezebel website and all these media websites / formats are saying more foolish crap again. ...its just beyond PATHETIC

 

[HIStory]

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

Unless i read wrong but still how else would they get this "new info" from? When it comes to the media and police especially santa barbra police department i wouldnt put it past them to be cohoots with each other. Remember diane dimbat (diane dimond) was in cohoots with sneddon so im not surprised that jezebel website and all these media websites / formats are saying more foolish crap again. ...its just beyond PATHETIC

It's not new info. It's a prosecution document from 2005, only RadarOnline now acts like it's some big bombshell evidence that no one ever heard of and they also twist it to make innocent material look sinister and criminal.

I've read comments questioning why he wasn't arrested for owning illegal sexually explicit material.... ummmm... perhaps because he didn't own any???

Same here. People are so gullible and it's frustrating. I have seen people discuss "Oh he had child porn and wasn't arrested. That's because he was a celebrity" bla-bla-bla, all the usual nonsense. How come that despite of being a celebrity he was arrested on Gavin's allegations but never arrested on owning child porn? What exactly is the theory for Sneddon not charging him with the possession of child porn if he had it? It's nonsense and you do not even have to know the case to see through it. He wasn't charged with that because he didn't have it. As simple as that. Not even the prosecution claimed any of of these books were illegal. But RO managed to twist it into some horrificly brutal child porn. That's what "journalism" is today. Manipulation and deceit. Shameful. I wish people would be smarter to see through all the nonsense.

 

[8701girl]

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

But thats kind of what i mean it may not to be new to us mj fans but to the non mj fans - general public its a "new bombshell" and radoronline & perhaps the police are hoping it will sway the public to beliving mj is guilty.

 

[HIStory]

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

But thats kind of what i mean it may not to be new to us mj fans but to the non mj fans - general public its a "new bombshell" and radoronline & perhaps the police are hoping it will sway the public to beliving mj is guilty.

Every couple of years they dig up the same old tired arguments and present them as "new, bombshell evidence" because the public has a short memory and the same ol' trick can be sold to them over and over again. It's not new to the general public either. These books were discussed and dissected in the media as well when MJ was on trial.

On another note, I went to Amanda's Facebook and I see Wade still keeps putting out these short dance videos he directs. Odd. I thought he said in his lawsuit he could not dance or direct or be associated with films again because of the trauma he allegedly suffered. If someone is truly triggered by an activity as a victim of something he will be triggered by that same activity no matter if he is doing it as a job or he is doing it as a hobby. It's nonsense to claim that he is triggered by it when he is doing it for a job, but still keeps doing the same ish as a hobby. The only thing he is triggered by is work and the responsibility and pressure that comes with a real job. But that doesn't have anything do to with his non-existent alleged sexual abuse.

 

[Bad7]

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

Which book is it that is supposed to be of animal torture? Obviously it's not, but what did Radar base that claim on?

Also, is there another website with documents from the 2005 case given SBSC is either down or no longer around? I was curious as to what the defence said in response to the books and magazines.

In reading the document, and the old claim of MJ using books to seduce children, I haven't fully read all testimonies yet, but Gavin and Star never mentioned these books were shown to them did they?

 

[Justthefacts]

It always makes me laugh when people fail to realize that child porn is a federal crime and, the feds do not care what your name is. Had Michael had any form of child porn the feds would have gotten him before Sneddon and there would not have been no turn yourself in they would have gotten Michael from Vegas. Michael would still be in jail on the child porn charges alone.Common sense isn’t always common because everyone does not have it

 

[HIStory]

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

Which book is it that is supposed to be of animal torture? Obviously it's not, but what did Radar base that claim on?

I have no idea. Nor do I have any idea which book in their mind is about child torture. I can only guess they are trying to twist Room to Play into "animal abuse" because it has photos like this (it's a fish in a wash basin). But it is a very lame attempt.

Other animal pics from that book.

He is bothering those cockroaches so this must be the animal abuse.

Also, is there another website with documents from the 2005 case given SBSC is either down or no longer around? I was curious as to what the defence said in response to the books and magazines.

I don't think I have their answer. I can guess they would oppose it because frankly, it's not very relevant to the charges but the Judge let them in and that didn't bother much either.

In reading the document, and the old claim of MJ using books to seduce children, I haven't fully read all testimonies yet, but Gavin and Star never mentioned these books were shown to them did they?

No, they haven't claimed anything about books. That's one of the reasons they were irrelevant to the case. Robson and Safechuck now claim that MJ have shown them art books - how convenient, that they claim that when they know about them in the hindsight of the 2005 trial (in fact, Robson was shown these books on the stand in 2005 by the prosecution), but no accuser before 2005, not Jordan, not Gavin, not Jason Francia ever claimed such a thing. IMO that's another givaway of fabricated stories. Because only those claim MJ showing them books who came after 2005, when the existence of such books became a public record. As a pattern it doesn't make any sense, however. Supposedly MJ showed Robson and Safechuck books and porn but not to Jordan and Jason whom they allegedly abused around the same time? Then he shows again porn (but not books) to Gavin and Star? The only pattern that makes sense here is if Robson and Safechuck saw the the material that was sized in 2005 (and they did see it) and now they incorporated it in thei fabricated story.

 

[HIStory]

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

Which book is it that is supposed to be of animal torture? Obviously it's not, but what did Radar base that claim on?

I have no idea. Nor do I have any idea which book in their mind is about child torture. I can only guess they are trying to twist Room to Play into "animal abuse" because it has photos like this (it's a fish in a wash basin). But it is a very lame attempt since we are all guilty of this who have ever bought a fish that was alive and took it home to eat.

Other animal pics from that book. Maybe because the monkey is tied? But it is stupid because these are obviously heavily edited photos for artistic purposes. In any case once again making a mountain out of a molehill with the intent of slandering MJ.

He is bothering those cockroaches so this must be the animal abuse.

Also, is there another website with documents from the 2005 case given SBSC is either down or no longer around? I was curious as to what the defence said in response to the books and magazines.

I don't think I have their answer. I can guess they would oppose it because frankly, it's not very relevant to the charges but the Judge let them in and that didn't bother much either.

In reading the document, and the old claim of MJ using books to seduce children, I haven't fully read all testimonies yet, but Gavin and Star never mentioned these books were shown to them did they?

No, they haven't claimed anything about books. That's one of the reasons they were irrelevant to the case. Robson and Safechuck now claim that MJ have shown them art books - how convenient, that they claim that when they know about them in the hindsight of the 2005 trial (in fact, Robson was shown these books on the stand in 2005 by the prosecution), but no accuser before 2005, not Jordan, not Gavin, not Jason Francia ever claimed such a thing. IMO that's another givaway of fabricated stories. Because only those claim MJ showing them books who came after 2005, when the existence of such books became a public record. As a pattern it doesn't make any sense, however. Supposedly MJ showed Robson and Safechuck books and porn but not to Jordan and Jason whom they allegedly abused around the same time? Then he shows again porn (but not books) to Gavin and Star? The only pattern that makes sense here is if Robson and Safechuck saw the the material that was sized in 2005 (and they did see it) and now they incorporated them in their fabricated story.

 

[Bad7]

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

I have no idea. Nor do I have any idea which book in their mind is about child torture. I can only guess they are trying to twist Room to Play into "animal abuse" because it has photos like this (it's a fish in a wash basin). But it is a very lame attempt.

Other animal pics from that book.

He is bothering those cockroaches so this must be the animal abuse.

I don't think I have their answer. I can guess they would oppose it because frankly, it's not very relevant to the charges but the Judge let them in and that didn't bother much either.



No, they haven't claimed anything about books. That's one of the reasons they were irrelevant to the case. Robson and Safechuck now claim that MJ have shown them art books - how convenient, that they claim that when they know about them in the hindsight of the 2005 trial (in fact, Robson was shown these books on the stand in 2005 by the prosecution), but no accuser before 2005, not Jordan, not Gavin, not Jason Francia ever claimed such a thing. IMO that's another givaway of fabricated stories. Because only those claim MJ showing them books who came after 2005, when the existence of such books became a public record. As a pattern it doesn't make any sense, however. Supposedly MJ showed Robson and Safechuck books and porn but not to Jordan and Jason whom they allegedly abused around the same time? Then he shows again porn (but not books) to Gavin and Star? The only pattern that makes sense here is if Robson and Safechuck saw the the material that was sized in 2005 (and they did see it) and now they incorporated it in thei fabricated story.

I've read most of the document and had seen nothing to do with animal torture thus far. I'm not surprised there's nothing at all to do with it in the document. I didn't realise there was something in that sink due to Radar's stamp of their image on it. *Sigh* at those being other pictures from the book on animal torture. The grasping at straws is beyond boring now.

---

Yeah, I imagine it was opposed. I'll have to see if that document is around anywhere on the net.

---

All that fuss about the books yet nobody had said they'd seen them before Wade and Safechuck's nonsense. The showing of porn and books to Wade and Safechuck just adds to the perplexing claims of both. The stories vary wildly amongst accusers and it makes no sense.

 

[Rhilo]

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

Reading reader comments on daily mail has left me feeling sick. Its like key everyone's hating on Michael. I demand justice for Michael

 

[Bad7]

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

Reading reader comments on daily mail has left me feeling sick. Its like key everyone's hating on Michael. I demand justice for Michael

Had a quick browse and there are some positive. Unfortunately, a lot of these people who are saying bad things have never actually looked at the defence's side. If you're not an MJ fan or sad deluded hater then you're unlikely to bother reading into the cases. With the media's constant prosecution reports, the majority will see that as what happened in the cases. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

Some won't bother questioning how a man who supposedly had child porn wasn't put behind bars for that alone.

Edit: I've just seen the Daily Mail label it 'underage sex photo collection'. Surprisingly they didn't lie and deem it child porn. However, instead they used wording which many would deem to be child porn.