Latest on MJJC

Michael Jackson v. Wade Robson, a new trial to be held

No need to bring Elvis into the discussion.

He has never been accused of molesting little boys. MJ has on multiple occasions.
 
wonderouzmj said:
I would think all elvis ppl that would've accused him is now gone
Click to expand...
Well, not really, Priscilla Presley is still alive for starters. It was only the 50s, not the 1800s.

But nobody did accuse him. So not many people know all that even. And I'm sure they'd have the same energy but it's the fact they don't even know and would probably never know because he wasn't accused. And they're not gonna view it the same way because they haven't been forced to rebuttal or consider it for their entire lives. Even John Lennon beating his wife gets touted more often by the would be killjoys.
 
Last edited:
Robbsaber01 said:
Wade is not going to win this trial. This thread has gotten tense to say the least. We knew this was a possibility (its becoming clear who have been following this case and who havent). I welcome this trial because I dont see him winning at all. He has provably changed his story several times. [...]
Click to expand...
This has always confused me so much. I don't understand how they have been allowed to do SO many appeals but also ... how have they been allowed to keep presenting a lawsuit when the details of the story have been changed so many times? It's weird. I don't really need an answer to this, I'm just thinking out loud. But it does make me wonder about the justice system.

Robbsaber01 said:
[...] We knew this was a possibility [...]
Click to expand...
Actually, I didn't see this as a possibility. The lawsuits were rejected so many times I just couldn't see how that would ever change.
 
wonderouzmj said:
I would think all elvis ppl that would've accused him is now gone
Click to expand...
Nope. There was a 2 page spread just a few days ago in a UK paper about Elvis's fixation on 14 year old girls complete with quotes from various women claiming to have been his 'girlfriends'. Stories have been written before about how young Priscilla was when she met him but this is new, afaik. It's being presented as 'Is this Elvis's MeToo moment?'

Also, Priscilla is only 78. Why would you assume that these people are dead?
 
For me, MJ's innocence became apparent after a long dive into the history of all the accusations. And I closed the matter until new material facts emerged, and there are none. Just a rundown of legal fiddling.
I've always admired Michael's childish philosophy and it's not about a man stuck in childhood. It's about children giving him the inspiration to live and create.
He was a great mentor who didn't call for irresponsibility and infantilism, but talked about the importance of learning, self-development, finding your calling and making dreams come true. And yes, he knew how to be on the same page with the kids. Games and sleepovers are just a small part of that.
He talked about his goal to change the world. And, happy and healthy children now are the foundation for a healthy and happy future. A very wise and obvious thought that has been known for a long time. His humanitarian projects were not only aimed at helping the sick, but also at getting an education. I think this is more significant than the shot of Gavin holding his hand.
And the footage from his childhood tape of him showing pictures of children and saying they were his inspiration? Shots that shouldn't have been public, there was no reason for him to lie or mislead.
I'm sorry, this is probably very awkwardly written, but I'm tired of erasing drafts, I'll post it as is.
 
CherubimII said:
Just to be clear:

https://news.yahoo.com/james-safechuck-wade-robson-lawsuits-032932411.html

"While the original suits were levied against the Michael Jackson Estate, a 2015 decision dismissing that aspect of the lawsuit will be upheld. The remaining defendants are MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc."
Click to expand...
For the people who want to go a bit deeper on the case and have some more knowledge on this topic:

Suing the production companies is Wade and James' only chance to sue and earn some money (funny because in LN and the aftermath is wasnt about money🤔).

Their claims:
"Robson and Safechuck allege that Jackson’s staff was complicit in Jackson’s alleged grooming and sexual abuse, and aided in covering it up"
"The suit claims that MJJ Productions policies were designed to allow Jackson to be alone with children"

Since it is not about accusations to Michael himself but the production companies, it raises some questions (I am not familiar with the US system), specifically:
> What will James and Wade have to prove to win the lawsuit?
> Do they have to prove the role the companies allegedly played?

We know their history of lies, changing stores etc.
> Will those inconsistencies and uncredibility have any weight in this trial?
> And how should the defence (companies) 'prove' their innocence?
 
zinniabooklover said:
Nope. There was a 2 page spread just a few days ago in a UK paper about Elvis's fixation on 14 year old girls complete with quotes from various women claiming to have been his 'girlfriends'. Stories have been written before about how young Priscilla was when she met him but this is new, afaik. It's being presented as 'Is this Elvis's MeToo moment?'

Also, Priscilla is only 78. Why would you assume that these people are dead?
Click to expand...
BuffaloBill87 said:
Who said anything about 14 years old girls?
Click to expand...
Well, I did.
 
MJImpeccable said:
Since it is not about accusations to Michael himself but the production companies, it raises some questions (I am not familiar with the US system), specifically:
> What will James and Wade have to prove to win the lawsuit?
Click to expand...
No idea but the burden of proof is lower in a civil case so whatever they have to prove, it's not 'beyond all reasonable doubt' as it would be in a criminal case.

MJImpeccable said:
> Do they have to prove the role the companies allegedly played?
Click to expand...
I assume so since they are saying that the companies and the staff were 'complicit'. But I'm just guessing.

MJImpeccable said:
We know their history of lies, changing stores etc.
> Will those inconsistencies and uncredibility have any weight in this trial?
Click to expand...
This is the bit that really gets me. Does all of that just get ignored or what?

MJImpeccable said:
> And how should the defence (companies) 'prove' their innocence?
Click to expand...
No idea. The burden, afaik, will be on WR and JS to prove their case just as it would be if it was a criminal case. The defence - Michael's team - have to destroy the case that those two put forward. That's my understanding, anyway. WR and JS have to prove their case but a lot of that has to do with the volume (not sure if that's the right word) of evidence. Which I definitely don't understand.
 
zinniabooklover said:
This has always confused me so much. I don't understand how they have been allowed to do SO many appeals but also ... how have they been allowed to keep presenting a lawsuit when the details of the story have been changed so many times? It's weird. I don't really need an answer to this, I'm just thinking out loud. But it does make me wonder about the justice system. […]
Click to expand...
Makes you wonder, really. Their credibility is down the drain. And wouldn’t it be something, to see Wade stand up for lying under oath? I don’t know the US justice apparatus, but I’d like to think there are merits to it.
 
I guess I'll come back to see if the thread becomes about the Robson case again at a later time.
 
Robbsaber01 said:
That's like, your opinion man.
Click to expand...
True but I would bet my house that the majority of the general public would say the same.

Anyway, this is getting silly now. I don't want to insult Michael because it's starting to get that way.

I just don't see the need to include Elvis in this topic.
 
Evidentiary Standards and Burdens of Proof in legal proceedings:
In almost every legal proceeding, the parties are required to adhere to important rules known as burdens of proof and evidentiary standards. These rules determine which party is responsible for putting forth enough evidence to either prove or defeat a particular claim and the amount of evidence necessary to accomplish that goal.

The burden of proof determines which party is responsible for putting forth evidence and the level of evidence they must provide in order to prevail. In most cases, the plaintiff (the party bringing the claim) has the burden of proof. As an initial matter, they must meet the burden of production. This requires the plaintiff to put forth evidence in the form of witness testimony, documents, or objects. After the plaintiff presents his or her case-in-chief, the burden of production shifts to the defendant, who then has the opportunity to provide evidence either rebutting the plaintiff’s evidence or supporting the defendant’s own arguments.

Evidentiary Standards in civil cases
Once the plaintiff has met the burden of production, they must meet the burden of persuasion. This burden involves the standard of proof the plaintiff must meet in presenting evidence to the judge or jury. A standard of proof determines the amount of evidence that the plaintiff or defendant needs to provide in order for the jury to reach a particular result. In most civil cases, the standard of proof is “a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the jury to return a judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is able to show that a particular fact or event was more likely than not to have occurred.

In some civil cases, the standard of proof is elevated to a higher standard called “clear and convincing evidence.” This standard of proof requires the plaintiff to prove that a particular fact is substantially more likely than not to be true. Some courts have described this standard as requiring the plaintiff to prove that there is a high probability that a particular fact is true. This standard sets a higher threshold than the preponderance of the evidence standard, but it does not quite rise to the widely recognized standard used in criminal cases, known as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

www.justia.com

Evidentiary Standards and Burdens of Proof in Legal Proceedings

Overview of how civil claims and criminal charges are proved when a judge or jury examines the evidence in a case, and how courts define these standards.
www.justia.com www.justia.com
 
Understanding Burden of Proof
The burden of proof requirement is designed to ensure that legal decisions are made based on facts rather than conjecture. The party initiating a case or lawsuit must support its claims with facts and evidence. Attornies are often tasked with collecting evidence and establishing a burden of proof on behalf of a plaintiff. There are three levels of the burden of proof that determine the amount of evidence required for a claim to be successful. These include "preponderance of the evidence," "clear and convincing," and "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Standards of Proof - Preponderance of the Evidence
Most civil lawsuits require plaintiffs to demonstrate to the judge or jury that the defendant is more than 50% responsible for their suffering and losses. Plaintiffs will often sue defendants to recover financial compensation for damages such as medical bills, lost wages, or property damage.

Clear and Convincing
Beyond financial compensation, a plaintiff may sue for something intangible. Clear and convincing evidence requires a higher standard of evidence than the preponderance of the evidence standard ...

www.investopedia.com

Burden of Proof: Meaning, Standards and Examples

Burden of proof is a legal standard that determines if a legal claim is valid or invalid based on the evidence produced.
www.investopedia.com www.investopedia.com
 
zinniabooklover said:
Evidentiary Standards and Burdens of Proof in legal proceedings:
In almost every legal proceeding, the parties are required to adhere to important rules known as burdens of proof and evidentiary standards. These rules determine which party is responsible for putting forth enough evidence to either prove or defeat a particular claim and the amount of evidence necessary to accomplish that goal.

The burden of proof determines which party is responsible for putting forth evidence and the level of evidence they must provide in order to prevail. In most cases, the plaintiff (the party bringing the claim) has the burden of proof. As an initial matter, they must meet the burden of production. This requires the plaintiff to put forth evidence in the form of witness testimony, documents, or objects. After the plaintiff presents his or her case-in-chief, the burden of production shifts to the defendant, who then has the opportunity to provide evidence either rebutting the plaintiff’s evidence or supporting the defendant’s own arguments.

Evidentiary Standards in civil cases
Once the plaintiff has met the burden of production, they must meet the burden of persuasion. This burden involves the standard of proof the plaintiff must meet in presenting evidence to the judge or jury. A standard of proof determines the amount of evidence that the plaintiff or defendant needs to provide in order for the jury to reach a particular result. In most civil cases, the standard of proof is “a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the jury to return a judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is able to show that a particular fact or event was more likely than not to have occurred.

In some civil cases, the standard of proof is elevated to a higher standard called “clear and convincing evidence.” This standard of proof requires the plaintiff to prove that a particular fact is substantially more likely than not to be true. Some courts have described this standard as requiring the plaintiff to prove that there is a high probability that a particular fact is true. This standard sets a higher threshold than the preponderance of the evidence standard, but it does not quite rise to the widely recognized standard used in criminal cases, known as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

www.justia.com

Evidentiary Standards and Burdens of Proof in Legal Proceedings

Overview of how civil claims and criminal charges are proved when a judge or jury examines the evidence in a case, and how courts define these standards.
www.justia.com www.justia.com
Click to expand...
Why is it that this is allowed to go as a civil case?
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
You know who else had sleepovers with minors and said they weren't sexual?

Elvis.

Literally had fans, had pillow fights. Like everything Michael did he did two times over.

Only his story is even more, in your face even though they say he didn't do anything.. Cause they were underage GIRLS. But I guess that doesn't seem as shocking to some because that wouldn't make him a GAY pedophile? Just a straight one.

You know whose legacy isn't "damaged"?

Elvis.

Literally just had a successful biopic, has sales on par with MJ, slightly more still possibly, treated as a god by so many. Nobody even talks about the fact he married a girl that he met when she was 14.

It's like we're so conditioned to only view Michael as "weird, suspicious, and acting strange". It's like he is literally held as the scapegoat so often. I wonder why(te)?

Yes MJ didn't need to have sleepovers, okay. We've had about 30 years to come to grips with that. But hey, he ain't the first to do it. And he ain't even the worst. Neither is Elvis to be fair. R.Kelly has them both beat and it's hilarious that people kinda even downplay that. At least he got caught.

I don't even understand these claims that MJs legacy is damaged. His legacy is, chained with an asterisk or two, but there already was some. A few nobody's claims of usual double standards is hilarious. Not everybody on earth was gonna be a Michael Jackson fan and I don't really care that they are. Michael Jackson Solo has been controversial for ages and he always will be. That's just what it is. Even the Thriller music video didn't have it's fans.

But these heinous claims need to be brought to the fore in this way. Not in another snuff piece, in a real 1 to 1 way where MJs camp can get his say. They need only get the FBI accounts to really close this door shut immediately.
Click to expand...

I want to press "like" on this many, many times!
 
zinniabooklover said:
Evidentiary Standards and Burdens of Proof in legal proceedings:
In almost every legal proceeding, the parties are required to adhere to important rules known as burdens of proof and evidentiary standards. These rules determine which party is responsible for putting forth enough evidence to either prove or defeat a particular claim and the amount of evidence necessary to accomplish that goal.

The burden of proof determines which party is responsible for putting forth evidence and the level of evidence they must provide in order to prevail. In most cases, the plaintiff (the party bringing the claim) has the burden of proof. As an initial matter, they must meet the burden of production. This requires the plaintiff to put forth evidence in the form of witness testimony, documents, or objects. After the plaintiff presents his or her case-in-chief, the burden of production shifts to the defendant, who then has the opportunity to provide evidence either rebutting the plaintiff’s evidence or supporting the defendant’s own arguments.

Evidentiary Standards in civil cases
Once the plaintiff has met the burden of production, they must meet the burden of persuasion. This burden involves the standard of proof the plaintiff must meet in presenting evidence to the judge or jury. A standard of proof determines the amount of evidence that the plaintiff or defendant needs to provide in order for the jury to reach a particular result. In most civil cases, the standard of proof is “a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the jury to return a judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is able to show that a particular fact or event was more likely than not to have occurred.

In some civil cases, the standard of proof is elevated to a higher standard called “clear and convincing evidence.” This standard of proof requires the plaintiff to prove that a particular fact is substantially more likely than not to be true. Some courts have described this standard as requiring the plaintiff to prove that there is a high probability that a particular fact is true. This standard sets a higher threshold than the preponderance of the evidence standard, but it does not quite rise to the widely recognized standard used in criminal cases, known as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

www.justia.com

Evidentiary Standards and Burdens of Proof in Legal Proceedings

Overview of how civil claims and criminal charges are proved when a judge or jury examines the evidence in a case, and how courts define these standards.
www.justia.com www.justia.com
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information!

In order for the judge to do sophisticated 'research' on the topic, it would seem logical to 'interview' the former employees since according to Wade and James "Jackson’s staff was complicit in Jackson’s alleged grooming and sexual abuse, and aided in covering it up". They were apparently there and part of it, so they should know, but I assume these people were already testifying in the '05 trial.

Unless they don't do this and only listen to Wade and James's story and 'evidence' and than the ability of the defense to refute it.
> But I don't now how these cases in detail work.

Besides, how on earth are Wade and James going to provide convincing enough evidence or 'beyond reseanable doubt' that their claims are true.

Right now, as far as I can tell, it should be pretty difficult was Wade and James, unless they can provide something significant for their claims. If the estate and the jurys take into account all inconsistencies, lies and changes in Wade's and James' stories, then I feel like we don't have much to be afraid off.
 
Agonum said:
Makes you wonder, really. Their credibility is down the drain. And wouldn’t it be something, to see Wade stand up for lying under oath?
Click to expand...
The perjury I'm interested in is the one from 2013. It's relevant to this current lawsuit, surely? Why is it apparently of no interest to the justice system? How come it seems to have no bearing on this case going to court? I'm so confused about this. I'm not saying this is the most important part of this whole thing. I'm just bewildered bc there have been no sanctions against WR, afaik.

Agonum said:
I don’t know the US justice apparatus, but I’d like to think there are merits to it.
Click to expand...
There are some differences between US and UK law. We don't have depositions, for example. The main difference is that UK law is all about case law and statutes. US law is all about the constitution and the Supreme Court. The systems are largely the same, though, as you would expect bc America based its legal system on UK common law. Which doesn't help me understand any of this, lol.

MJE on the legal side seem to be pretty good so I'm hopeful. Bewildered but hopeful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top