Latest on MJJC

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

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

Someone needs to warn taj that its Stacey brown doing this s**it!!
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Interesting find. Well one of the photographers from the RO article is a bit ticked according to this article in the CBC. He is a Canadian photographer from Ottawa and is now aware that his photo of the girl who resembles Jonbenet Ramsay was one of the ones shown in the article.
Note the date the photo was shot..2008. 5 years after the initial raid on Neverland. The article says 3 years, but the 1st raid was on Nov. 18, 2003.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-artist-photo-michael-jackson-1.3651598

And the Daily Mail knows who he is too..From April 23, 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1379780/Art-exploitation-Photographer-uses-children-enact-tragic-historical-events-9-11-angers-parenting-groups.html

So if the Daily Mail knew, how much you wanna bet RO did too when they went hunting for pics?

I'm not on twitter but I see the CBC has it posted on their page.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
I read on another forum that now RadarOnline deleted pages from their initial 88-page document that they posted on Monday because now it's just 60 pages. Apparently they are trying to cover themselves because the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department mentioned the document was mixed with content taken from the internet.

Pathetic dishonest liars.
Click to expand...
This is beyond MJ. That article also suggest by making these claim that the Sheriff/DA dept had evidence of child porn but did not use it. That is impying that the sheriff and the DA did something wrong and we know these folks went way and beyond and did not find nothing.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

So, all those pages removed from the original RO article were probably photos that they added themselves for their smear campaign, and not ever in Michael's possession because they probably can easily be proven that they weren't even in existence when the raid occurred? Do you guy knows how many websites ran with the story referring to the "sick" Jon Benet Ramsey photo in his possession? Many did! I'm will to bet that the so-called dead goose animal torture pictures, etc. were all "additions" and never in his possession.

This is big, and damning against RO.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

GreenEyes said:
So, all those pages removed from the original RO article were probably photos that they added themselves for their smear campaign, and not ever in Michael's possession because they probably can easily be proven that they weren't even in existence when the raid occurred? Do you guy knows how many websites ran with the story referring to the "sick" Jon Benet Ramsey photo in his possession? Many did! I'm will to bet that the so-called dead goose animal torture pictures, etc. were all "additions" and never in his possession.

This is big, and damning against RO.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

After doing a search of the photographers name on Google I also saw articles from Vice, Huffington Post etc..So while I don't expect every publication remembers every person they do a story on, there is no doubt the man's name is known.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

We, or some of us should copy and save all the pics from upcoming articles, maybe to take the printscreen pics, and then expose the lies not only to us on this board.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

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

terrell said:
This is beyond MJ. That article also suggest by making these claim that the Sheriff/DA dept had evidence of child porn but did not use it. That is impying that the sheriff and the DA did something wrong and we know these folks went way and beyond and did not find nothing.[/QUOTE

You know the arvizos could sue da and santa barbra police department for this if they really wanted to uf this were to be true loo
Click to expand...
 
respect77;4153572 said:
I read on another forum that now RadarOnline deleted pages from their initial 88-page document that they posted on Monday because now it's just 60 pages. Apparently they are trying to cover themselves because the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department mentioned the document was mixed with content taken from the internet.

Pathetic dishonest liars.
Click to expand...

I checked it, it is 61 pages now. they removed all the photos. Now it's just the sheriff department files plus the typed research notes - which I believe to be from Robson lawyers given the 2013 percocet article

SarahJ;4153600 said:
From his Facebook...Oooops! He says it was shown to the public until 2010.
https://www.facebook.com/JonathanHobin.Art/
Click to expand...

He talked to the media as well - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-artist-photo-michael-jackson-1.3651598

Ottawa artist angry over unauthorized use of photo in online gossip rag
Jonathan Hobin debunks website's link of his photo to a 2005 raid of Michael Jackson's home
By Mario Carlucci, CBC News Posted: Jun 24, 2016 5:05 PM ET Last Updated: Jun 24, 2016 5:05 PM ET

An Ottawa artist is coming face-to-face with the lawlessness of the web and an international story reviving allegations of sexual misconduct by deceased pop star Michael Jackson.

Jonathan Hobin has gained artistic notoriety for his photo works depicting children acting out disturbing news events and traumatic situations.

Ottawa-based artist Jonathan Hobin is photographed with pieces from his exhibit "In The Playroom" at the Ottawa Art Gallery in Ottawa on Friday, April 19, 2013.

One image depicts a child resembling Jonbenet Ramsey, the six-year-old girl found murdered in her parents' Boulder, Colorado, home on December 26, 1996.

According to an online article by a celebrity gossip publication called Radar Online, Hobin's image was confiscated by the Santa Barbara sheriff's department in a 2005 search of Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch.

"I started to get texts and emails at three in the morning the other day … at first (I was) excited that Michael Jackson was a fan, despite it being part of his (alleged) sex den," Hobin told All In A Day host Alan Neal on Friday.

"In truth I knew right away that actually it debunked the story of the day I guess about Michael Jackson because I knew for a fact that that child potentially was not even born … before the police raid," said Hobin, and that the photo itself was taken in 2008, three years after the raid.

Work 'taken out of context'

Santa Barbara police haven't yet confirmed the claims in the Radar Online article — which was picked up by publications such as Vanity Fair and Britain's Daily Mail Online — and did not immediately return requests for comment by CBC Ottawa.

But a spokesperson for Santa Barbara police is quoted in a Los Angeles Times article saying the Radar Online piece merges aspects of its police report with content from the internet and other sources.

The whole debacle upsets him, but he isn't surprised, says Hobin, who is creative director for the School of Photographic Arts in Ottawa.

"At first I was just disappointed that the media didn't do their research but then I was also disappointed that my work was taken out of context.

"The whole purpose of the series is to talk about the horrible disturbing things that kids see on a daily basis and then to take it out of context it became one of those images."

Then, there's the association with pornography and child exploitation he finds most egregious.

'People are manipulating the context of art for their own sinister purposes.'
- Artist Jonathan Hobin
"I've had my critics call it that in the past but you have to understand context is everything … If you read it in the context for which it was intended a lot of people consider the work to be powerful and thought provoking."

Wants clarification from police

A lot of the work that they're referencing in the Radar Online report isn't in fact pornography, but images obtained online from art books, according to Hobin.

"People are manipulating the context of art for their own sinister purposes. I think again, it harkens back to poor journalism and the excitement around creating drama that doesn't exist," he said.

Hobin believes the best way to put an end to the misinformation is for the police department in question to deny the claims.

"(The sheriff's department) could have put out word immediately saying that this is someone's attempt to ... corrupt a previously existing police investigation," he said.

"I'd like them to speak to it sooner rather than later … everyone from Vanity Fair to Daily Mail to wherever, they're talking about this thing that supposedly exists and to some extent I question if there is some sort of intention of them to allow that discussion to continue when they can put a stop to it right now."

edited to add: in the original file Radar posted on that picture someone handwritten "room to play", the photographer calls it "in the playroom". epic google search fail by the robson lawyers
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

He needs to make statements to Cnn, foxnews, etc and sue all those who claim to be fair when if fact, they are not fair.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The estate needs to contact him and other photographers and offer to finance a legal battle against Radar , the same way that Silicon Valley billionaire financed Hulk Hogan lawsuit. This is their opportunity and I bet radar is shitting themselves right now given that they removed the images. But I am hoping for too much I know, Branca have better "plans" than defending Mj.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I won't hold my breath for the Estate to do anything about it.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Maybe Taj will do. Maybe Katherine can start the lawsuit and force the anti-MJ estate to pay.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Sadly I don't expect the family to do much because they know there isn't big money to be made from suing radar.

As much as I appreciate Taj defending his defenseless uncle, the threat of a lawsuit is likely to remain just that. A threat.

Has the family ever sued anyone for slandering and spreading lies about Michael or the family in general?

Hell, I wish Michael had taken the Arvizo's back to court the minute he was exonerated.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The slander train doesn't stop. Just saw another story courtesy of - shock and horror - The Mirror, where they've apparently "secretly unveiled" tapes where Michael is talking crap about Prince, how Prince also talked crapped about MJ and his family among other things.

Can't they just leave these two men in peace? I mean who really cares anyway (funny because most comments on the Facebook posts have been "who cares" ahah).
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Rhilo said:
Sadly I don't expect the family to do much because they know there isn't big money to be made from suing radar.

As much as I appreciate Taj defending his defenseless uncle, the threat of a lawsuit is likely to remain just that. A threat.

Has the family ever sued anyone for slandering and spreading lies about Michael or the family in general?

Hell, I wish Michael had taken the Arvizo's back to court the minute he was exonerated.
Click to expand...

That's why I was asking if the children could sue radar since I don't expect anything from the other Jacksons. If my memory serves me right, Taj tried to sue the tabloid who run the FBI files crap, I don't remember if it was the Daily Fail or The Mirror but it didn't proceed.

I understand why Michael didn't take the Arvizos to court, he was physically, mentally exhausted and heartbroken. :(
 
ivy;4153617 said:
He talked to the media as well - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-artist-photo-michael-jackson-1.3651598

Ottawa artist angry over unauthorized use of photo in online gossip rag
Jonathan Hobin debunks website's link of his photo to a 2005 raid of Michael Jackson's home
By Mario Carlucci, CBC News Posted: Jun 24, 2016 5:05 PM ET Last Updated: Jun 24, 2016 5:05 PM ET

An Ottawa artist is coming face-to-face with the lawlessness of the web and an international story reviving allegations of sexual misconduct by deceased pop star Michael Jackson.

Jonathan Hobin has gained artistic notoriety for his photo works depicting children acting out disturbing news events and traumatic situations.

Ottawa-based artist Jonathan Hobin is photographed with pieces from his exhibit "In The Playroom" at the Ottawa Art Gallery in Ottawa on Friday, April 19, 2013.

One image depicts a child resembling Jonbenet Ramsey, the six-year-old girl found murdered in her parents' Boulder, Colorado, home on December 26, 1996.

According to an online article by a celebrity gossip publication called Radar Online, Hobin's image was confiscated by the Santa Barbara sheriff's department in a 2005 search of Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch.

"I started to get texts and emails at three in the morning the other day … at first (I was) excited that Michael Jackson was a fan, despite it being part of his (alleged) sex den," Hobin told All In A Day host Alan Neal on Friday.

"In truth I knew right away that actually it debunked the story of the day I guess about Michael Jackson because I knew for a fact that that child potentially was not even born … before the police raid," said Hobin, and that the photo itself was taken in 2008, three years after the raid.

Work 'taken out of context'

Santa Barbara police haven't yet confirmed the claims in the Radar Online article — which was picked up by publications such as Vanity Fair and Britain's Daily Mail Online — and did not immediately return requests for comment by CBC Ottawa.

But a spokesperson for Santa Barbara police is quoted in a Los Angeles Times article saying the Radar Online piece merges aspects of its police report with content from the internet and other sources.

The whole debacle upsets him, but he isn't surprised, says Hobin, who is creative director for the School of Photographic Arts in Ottawa.

"At first I was just disappointed that the media didn't do their research but then I was also disappointed that my work was taken out of context.

"The whole purpose of the series is to talk about the horrible disturbing things that kids see on a daily basis and then to take it out of context it became one of those images."

Then, there's the association with pornography and child exploitation he finds most egregious.

'People are manipulating the context of art for their own sinister purposes.'
- Artist Jonathan Hobin
"I've had my critics call it that in the past but you have to understand context is everything … If you read it in the context for which it was intended a lot of people consider the work to be powerful and thought provoking."

Wants clarification from police

A lot of the work that they're referencing in the Radar Online report isn't in fact pornography, but images obtained online from art books, according to Hobin.

"People are manipulating the context of art for their own sinister purposes. I think again, it harkens back to poor journalism and the excitement around creating drama that doesn't exist," he said.

Hobin believes the best way to put an end to the misinformation is for the police department in question to deny the claims.

"(The sheriff's department) could have put out word immediately saying that this is someone's attempt to ... corrupt a previously existing police investigation," he said.

"I'd like them to speak to it sooner rather than later … everyone from Vanity Fair to Daily Mail to wherever, they're talking about this thing that supposedly exists and to some extent I question if there is some sort of intention of them to allow that discussion to continue when they can put a stop to it right now."

edited to add: in the original file Radar posted on that picture someone handwritten "room to play", the photographer calls it "in the playroom". epic google search fail by the robson lawyers
Click to expand...


I am glad one of the artists reacted. So this confirms that not only Radar manipulated some pics but they also threw in pics that weren't even in MJ's books at all. In fact, this particular photo was mentioned in several of the articles as something horrible. From the Daily Beast:

Radar alleges that a sex book called Room to Play—which included a photo of murdered child beauty queen Jon Benet Ramsay with a rope around her neck—was among items found.
Click to expand...

They claim the photo was in Room to Play (which was found in MJ's possession and which is an art book with surrealistic photos of kids) while it is taken from another artist and the photo wasn't even created until many years after the raid. Just unreal how shamelessly the media lies and manipulates things. Frankly, I think these artists have a basis to sue the pants off these tabloids. Whether they will take the trouble of it I don't know but if they do I'm in full support of them.

The Daily Fail apparently now turned their efforts on discrediting fans simply on the basis that they are fans. They wrote another article about how delusional MJ fans are because from all this evidence every "reasonable person" now can see "MJ was a child molester". And how do these prove that exactly? Even after Zonen refuted the child porn claims, the Daily Fail still keeps saying some of it was child porn. Just unreal how brazen the media have become in their lies. Actually, they even said in this new article that some of the police turned a blind eye on this because MJ was a star. Yeah, Sneddon and his gang was like that. LOL. So ridiculous. It seems now they try to discredit fans and even the police somewhat because they know fans are well prepared about this and can rebute each and every thing they claim and Zonen and the police already refuted some of their claims.

RadarOnline and the Daily Fail seem to be two of the main publications used in this campaign - I wouldn't be surprised if besides RO Robson's team was also in direct contact with the latter. They too seem extremely invested in discrediting people with ad hominems who they know have all the proof to rebute their stories.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Rhilo said:
Sadly I don't expect the family to do much because they know there isn't big money to be made from suing radar.

As much as I appreciate Taj defending his defenseless uncle, the threat of a lawsuit is likely to remain just that. A threat.

Has the family ever sued anyone for slandering and spreading lies about Michael or the family in general?

Hell, I wish Michael had taken the Arvizo's back to court the minute he was exonerated.
Click to expand...

There is definitely money to be paid. Radar has money. At this stage, and I can't believe I am saying that, the Jacksons are becomin way more tolerable than the two executors.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It wouldn't surprise me if DF had the nerve to discredit Jonathan Hobin for calling RO story bullshit and being rightfully angry radar for planting his art into a smearing campaigne.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

@respect77,
I would like to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude being an Mj fan for the very factual research you do, and the very professional way in which you defend MJ. We used to have a great fan called TSCM during the trial in 2005 who was a great asset to the fan base among many others. There are others now who are doing a great job, too. To those wonderful fans a gazillion thanks.

Thank you all for the dedication. :)
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
So this confirms that not only Radar manipulated some pics but they also threw in pics that weren't even in MJ's books at all.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it was Radar's doing or Robson/Safechuck lawyers doing. Don't get me wrong, Radar is totally a willing participant in this all. Their week long non stop negative stories makes their intention very clear. But the highlights, handwritten notes, typed research notes etc all seem like actually Robson/ Safechuck lawyers discovery and preparation work to me. Remember there were some photographs of the books with the print date on them - January 2016. so the photos weren't collected from the internet recently. I think the lawyers tried to google the books mentioned in the search lists , found some pictures, labelled them with handwritten titles. This seems to be mix up "room to play" versus "in the playroom". Radar might have been supplied the preparation documents by the lawyers (or it was filed as an exhibit in either WR or JS case) and wrote a negative narrative.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ It's possible. Doesn't make much difference to me. Robson/Safechuck and RO are the same team to me.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The fact that they removed the images means they do feel there is a basis for a lawsuit against them and that's why they removed them. I wonder how wade's lawyers will look if the estate presented the judge with evidence of manipulation regarding the pics. Radar will blame them if they felt they were threatened.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Soundmind said:
The fact that they removed the images means they do feel there is a basis for a lawsuit against them and that's why they removed them. I wonder how wade's lawyers will look if the estate presented the judge with evidence of manipulation regarding the pics. Radar will blame them if they felt they were threatened.
Click to expand...

I am afraid they would hide behind the Shield Law which says a journalist cannot be made to reveal his sources, not even by a court. This is the law that allowes them to get away with so many lies.

What I think is maybe there is a basis to sue because RO repeatedly insinuates that MJ molested his nephews 3T - even AFTER they repeatedly denied it. Or against the Daily Fail because they still keep saying there was child porn when Zonen said this week there wasn't.

Thing is with lawsuits against journalists it's not enough to prove lies but you have to prove malice on their part. They usually use these "unnamed sources" to hide behind from allegations of malice. They simply say "our sources said so and we just believed them we didn't have any malice, if it was a lie it is not our fault". But at the same time they cannot be made to reveal who that source was (and I suspect often it doesn't even exist) so that's where it ends.

But in the above mentioned cases, they still kept saying things after it was refuted by the people who were the best people to refute it (3T themselves, authorities). That may be proven to be malice IMO.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
I am afraid they would hide behind the Shield Law which says a journalist cannot be made to reveal his sources, not even by a court. This is the law that allowes them to get away with so many lies.
Click to expand...
They can still go to jail. Do you think they will go to jail to cover Wade?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Soundmind said:
They can still go to jail. Do you think they will go to jail to cover Wade?
Click to expand...

Nope. If they are really, really forced to they will throw their source (ie. the Robson/Safechuck team) under the bus to save their asses. The question is whether they can be pushed into such a corner.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Soundmind said:
They can still go to jail. Do you think they will go to jail to cover Wade?
Click to expand...

Nope. If they are really, really forced to they will throw their source (ie. the Robson/Safechuck team) under the bus to save their asses. The question is whether they can be pushed into such a corner.

It would be great if they could. If the Robson/Safechuck team was officially caught in these underhanded tactics that would not be a good look for them in a court.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Its all when and good proving that these pics are totally fake interms of them ever been in mjs possesion.but when theres no comeback for the tabloid fith for doing it, such as some sort of comission that punishes them or even for lawsuits to be filed then nothing will stop. They have free run to do anything they want.so you get a couple of articles or a f.b post about the artist not been happy. It does nothing when you have had 100's of articles all the world stating it as fact.and its just added to the long list of lies that became the truth in the medias obsession

But then thats where the estate would come in.puttng out statements to the world.but we kmow they dont give a dam about defending mj until the cash flow is effected

Same with the jacksons unless they can file in their name and take a nice lump sum they dont care. Heck they are the best at perpitrating b.s about mj when it suits them

All mj has is his army of love but theres only so much u can do from behind a comp screen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top