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

[Bonnie Blue]

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

I believe MJ's side must've thought that the Chandler's side was far too messed up to want to make it public, as they'd just be screwing themselves. But he hadn't understood that the Chandler's didn't care how bad they'd make themselves look to get any money.

I think pellicano's 'filleting' of jordan at mj's century city apartment was a key issue as well. That's what pellicano's known for, to assess risks to celebs, and after his interview with jordan he was very confident that the chandlers had no case as jordan was robust in saying he hadn't been molested which encouraged them to reject negotiations with the chandlers. There was no case without jordan's cooperation. (although i think redmaryflint's point about the negotiations being arranged that way so to get an extortion on tape would work too.) It's a real pity pellicano didn't get jordan's interview on tape. It could have really ruined their credibility but maybe the chandlers wd just introduce a kidnap, child abduction and conspiracy claim, lol.

Same thing with Melville in 05. People said (T Mez for one) that that case never should have gone to trial b/c there was no evidence other than Arizos' word (same as in 93--no evidence except Jordan's word) in spite of the 100 search warrants. But Melville let it happen.

To be fair, the judge doesn't have that power - it went to grand jury and they were the ones who okayed it for trial. I suppose the decision to have a grand jury which are pro-prosecutor rather than prelim hearings wd be prejudicial against mj but not sure if that was down to sneddon or melville. That's the reason tmez says he doesn't believe in a prosecutorial misconduct action against sneddon - because the decision to take it to trial rested nominally with the grand jury.

 

[jamba]

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

Re Pellicano and Fields--Fields brought in Pellicano--yes, they both made some big mistakes IMO. One of the worst was to allow Evan to take Jordan for a week (June had custody and so she had to agree and Fields and MJ urged her to do so, thinking it would calm Evan down--wrong!). June never got Jordan back after that. The other decision was not to tape Jordan when Pellicano questioned him (another mistake). I agree that as a civil lawyer Fields was not the right person to handle this, as the threat Evan made was clearly to take this to the authorites, namely Child Protection Services, and that would automatically trigger a criminal investigation. As it was, Dr. Abrams as a Mandated Reporter was required by law to report the allegations once Jordan came to see him on Aug. 17th. So Pellicano trying to get Rothmam to talk openly about an extortion attempt on tape was a total and complete waste of time IMO as Rothman could see it a mile away and was not going to fall into that trap.

I think Ray is wrong about delaying the trial til Jordan was 14 would mean no expedited trial (120 days or 3 months to trial date). I believe what is important is the age of the child when the case was filed--in September 09 Jordan was 13. So he had a right to an expeditated trial as someone under 14.

I think Feldman's role in this has been hugely under-investigated (he was inolved in all 3 accusations--Chandler, Francia, Arvizo). He was the first witness before the Grand Jury in Arvizo case. He leaked Jordan's Declaration to the press before the judge sealed it in 94 and then it was published at the same time as the Bashir interview aired on TV--coincidence? I think not.

Re whether Melville could have thrown it out even after the Grand Jury--I am not sure. I thought there was a motion made by TMez to that effect ? Maybe someone who is a lawyer or has more legal knowledge can comment (not that I don't believe you, Bonnie, just wondering if there are more details, more info available on this). I am sure that Feldman and Sneddon planned this whole thing--how best to get a conviction--they both wanted it bad. Feldman then could have filed a civil suit. They had to have been cooperating a lot. Feldman's testimony in 05 was pathetic--he looked like a liar and conman. He wouldn't even concede that a guilty verdict in a criminal case would help him in a civil suit for the same charge.

 

[jamba]

Here is some good info from Wikipedia on the Grand Jury system and how it is subject to abuse. The USA is the only country in the world that uses this way to get indicments (unbelievable).

The United States is the only common law jurisdiction in the world that continues to use the grand jury to screen criminal indictments.

Criticism

Jury makeup


The most persistent criticism of grand juries is that jurors are not a representative sampling of the community, and are not qualified for jury service, in that they do not possess a satisfactory ability to ask pertinent questions, or sufficient understanding of local government and the concept of due process. Unlike potential jurors in regular trials, grand jurors are not screened for bias or other improper factors. They are rarely read any instruction on the law, as this is not a requirement; their job is only to judge on what the prosecutor produced. The prosecutor drafts the charges and decides which witnesses to call.


Limited constitutional rights

The prosecutor is not obliged to present evidence in favor of those being investigated.
Individuals subject to grand jury proceedings do not have a Sixth Amendment constitutional right to counsel in the grand jury room, nor do they have a Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Additionally, individuals in grand jury proceedings can be charged with holding the court in contempt (punishable with incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury) if they refuse to appear before the jury. Furthermore, all evidence is presented by a prosecutor in a cloak of secrecy, as the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding.
In 1974 the Supreme Court of the United States held in U.S. v. Calandra that "the exclusionary rule in search-and-seizure cases does not apply to grand jury proceedings because the principal objective of the rule is ‘to deter future unlawful police conduct,’ [. . .] and ‘it is unrealistic to assume that application of the rule to grand jury proceedings would significantly further that goal.’" Illegally obtained evidence, therefore, is admissible in grand jury proceedings, and the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule does not apply.


Intimidation tactic

After a grand jury was commissioned to investigate whistleblowers organization WikiLeaks, grand juries have been accused of being used as an intimidation and persecution mechanism against whistleblowers who have been accused of stealing classified information.

Rubber stamp for the prosecution

According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the grand jury has come under increasing criticism for being a mere "rubber stamp" for the prosecution without adequate procedural safeguards. Critics argue that the grand jury has largely lost its historic role as an independent bulwark protecting citizens from unfounded accusations by the government. Grand juries provide little protection to accused suspects and are much more useful to prosecutors. Grand juries have such broad subpoena power that they can investigate alleged crimes very thoroughly and often assist the prosecutor in his job. Grand juries sometimes compel witnesses to testify without the presence of their attorneys. Evidence uncovered during the grand jury investigation can be used by the prosecutor in a later trial. Grand jurors also often lack the ability and knowledge to judge sophisticated cases and complicated federal laws. This puts them at the mercy of very well trained and experienced federal prosecutors. Grand jurors often hear only the prosecutor's side of the case and are usually persuaded by them. Grand juries almost always indict people on the prosecutor's recommendation. A chief judge of New York State’s highest court, Sol Wachtler, once said that grand juries were so pliable that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” And William J. Campbell, a former federal district judge in Chicago, noted: “[T]oday, the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury.”


Reform of federal grand jury system

Due to the criticism against the federal grand jury system there are some reform proposals which include the following proposals:

Better instructions from judges to jurors about the grand jury's powers and its independence from prosecutors

Increased access to grand jury transcripts for suspects who are eventually indicted

Expanded safeguards against abuse of witnesses, including education about their rights and the presence of their attorneys

Notification of targets of investigations that they are targets

Optional rather than mandatory appearances by targets of investigations

An end to the requirement that prosecutors present defense evidence, and replacement with a requirement that grand jurors be informed that the defense was not represented in the hearing.

Besides the above stated reform proposals, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) established The Commission to Reform the Federal Grand Jury, a bi-partisan, blue-ribbon panel that included current and former prosecutors, as well as academics and defense attorneys. The unanimous conclusions and proposals of this diverse group were contained in the publication Federal Grand Jury Reform Report & 'Bill of Rights'. Among the reforms detailed in that report were the right to counsel for grand jury witnesses who are not receiving immunity, an obligation to present evidence which may exonerate the target or subject of the offense, and the right for targets or subjects to testify.

Researchers Erin Crites, Jon Gould and Colleen Shepard of the Center for Justice, Law & Society at George Mason University studied the experiences of prosecutors, defense lawyers, and retired judges in New York and Colorado. Four key reform recommendations emerged from their Evaluating Grand Jury Reform in Two States: The Case for Reform research study are:

Defense representation in the grand jury room,

production of witness transcripts for the defense,

advance notice for witnesses to appear, and

the presentation of exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.

The Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C., presented a report, A Grand Facade: How the Grand Jury was Captured by Government which addresses the history of, problems with, and reforms for the grand jury system."



And of course, as we know, the Grand Jury testimony was leaked to the press in Arvizo case (even tho'it was supposed to be secret). Looks like MJ learned all the ways the 'justice' system was broken.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

I think Ray is wrong about delaying the trial til Jordan was 14 would mean no expedited trial (120 days or 3 months to trial date). I believe what is important is the age of the child when the case was filed--in September 09 Jordan was 13. So he had a right to an expeditated trial as someone under 14.

That's interesting, is there a legal code for that.

Re whether Melville could have thrown it out even after the Grand Jury--I am not sure. I thought there was a motion made by TMez to that effect ? Maybe someone who is a lawyer or has more legal knowledge can comment (not that I don't believe you, Bonnie, just wondering if there are more details, more info available on this).

I do remember reading a motion by tmez about how biassed sneddon's grand jury was (sorry don't have link)and how unfair to mj. Re motions to throw it out, isn't that the norm for defence to make those type of motions (summary judgements?) whatever the merits of the case and the norm for judges to reject - it wd cause alot of controversy i think if a judge threw out such a high profile child abuse case if a grand jury had indicted. What i think was unfair was the use of the grand jury in this case (which always favours prosecutors), whether that was down to melville or sneddon idk. Mj was already charged, so it was unusual to go down that route as opposed to a prelim hearing.

 

[la_cienega]

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

I think pellicano's 'filleting' of jordan at mj's century city apartment was a key issue as well. That's what pellicano's known for, to assess risks to celebs, and after his interview with jordan he was very confident that the chandlers had no case as jordan was robust in saying he hadn't been molested which encouraged them to reject negotiations with the chandlers. There was no case without jordan's cooperation. (although i think redmaryflint's point about the negotiations being arranged that way so to get an extortion on tape would work too.) It's a real pity pellicano didn't get jordan's interview on tape. It could have really ruined their credibility but maybe the chandlers wd just introduce a kidnap, child abduction and conspiracy claim, lol.

Pellicano was asked about that and he said it was just a chance thing.

I'm guessing he hadn't known what Jordan could say - which just proves MJ's innocence once again.

Also contradicts the Chandler narrative where they claim a) Jordan was coached b) Pellicano knew MJ sexually abused him and other kids already so the entire interview was pointless. But if it were pointless and Jordan had been told to lie, then surely he should have taped it?


The American legal system is incredible to me as a Brit. It's so utterly set up to be exploited by the wrong people for the wrong things. I can't even believe it's acceptable.

 

[HIStory]

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

The American legal system is incredible to me as a Brit. It's so utterly set up to be exploited by the wrong people for the wrong things. I can't even believe it's acceptable.

I don't think this witch hunt (because it was a witch hunt) against MJ could have happened in Europe. I really don't.

 

[la_cienega]

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

Evan would've had no incentive to do it in most of Europe. If his son accused MJ of molesting him it would mean a criminal trial and it would be a useless situation for him. Seeking financial compensation for any kind of sexual abuse is also rare here.

 

[analogue]

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

post deleted

 

[AliCat]

So if Bert was that good MJ would have never let him go, now would he?!

Hollywood Lawyers in Love
How two arch-enemies went from killing each other to kissing up

If you see a porky pixie whiz by your window, don’t panic: It’s just pigs flying in Hollywood now that two ruthless litigators with a decade-long history of bad blood between them have agreed to hold hands, sing "Kumbaya" and partner in the same firm.

Bert vs. Howie was one of the longest-running feuds in entertainment legal circles, yet the vast majority of moguls, agents, managers and even other attorneys were unaware it was even raging. Nor were journalists, judging from the shocking lack of coverage by the mainstream media outlets. The New York Times’ new Hollywood correspondent David Halbfinger broke the news of the supposed pairing of Howard Weitzman with Bert Fields but failed to explain what made the development so interesting or even the true nature of the relationship. (We won’t mention that Fields-is-cooking-chicken-fajitas-in-Malibu laugh-riot in Sunday’s NYT timed to the release of his latest book about Shakespeare.) Halbfinger is new to the Hollywood scene so he can’t be expected to have a stored-up memory of who did what to whom and why. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal, not to mention the feeble-minded trades, are missing-in-action on this story altogether. And that is the problem: For media who purport to cover Hollywood, they largely ignore the scandal-du-jour of the entertainment super-lawyer set.

Let’s review the videotape, going back to 1993 when Weitzman and Fields were both stars of the media maelstrom — defending Michael Jackson as the pop singer faced a civil lawsuit brought by a 13-year-old boy who alleged the entertainer sexually molested him. Things got good fast. First there was a courtroom blunder, followed by a behind-the-scenes he-said/he-said battle, complicated by the overarching ambition of Weitzman, a USC-trained legal upstart, to score points against Harvard-educated legal legend Fields. The result was two gladiators who suddenly turned Century City into their own private Coliseum.

A few weeks ago, Greenberg Glusker partner Dale Kinsella gingerly approached the firm’s principal rainmaker, Fields, for permission to rescue Weitzman from Proskauer Rose, which in entertainment legal circles is deemed the equivalent of Siberia. "Dale knew there had been some problem in the past. So he wouldn’t have considered making a deal with Howard without asking me," Fields told me this week.

Fields gave his okay. "I’m a forgiving guy. You can’t go through life hating people. You’ve got to let these things go," he said. Contrary to the NYT report making it appear as if the two attorneys will be lawyering hand-in-glove, Fields will not be working directly with Weitzman. "He’ll have his own cases," Fields emphasized.

Weitzman did not return L.A. Weekly’s phone calls.

It’s yet another example of the business of Hollywood making for strange bedfellows when there’s money to be made. But it’s also a story of the importance of relationships in Hollywood: making them, severing them and repairing them.

To understand the genesis and gravitas of the Fields-Weitzman feud, go back all the way to 1990 when Michael Jackson was still the not-yet-dethroned king of pop. A sudden break with his longtime attorney and adviser, Ziffren Brittenham’s John Branca, had the music world agog. Though nobody ever went public to explain what happened, Branca privately blamed the loss of his most important client on David Geffen because of a power struggle between the two men that also involved volatile music exec Walter Yetnikoff. Shortly after leaving Branca, Jackson changed his legal representation: The singer signed with Geffen’s attorney Bert Fields for litigation and with Geffen insider Alan Grubman for record-label work.

Fast-forward to 1993. Fields had been batting back a bunch of real and threatened allegations against Jackson on a laundry list of matters when, all of a sudden, a child-molestation lawsuit was filed in a Santa Monica court by the Westside family of a young boy who’d spent time with the singer. Although the charges were civil, not criminal, authorities in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties were also investigating Jackson. The singer declared his innocence, but he needed to assemble a legal Dream Team.

It was Fields’ decision to bring onboard Howard Weitzman (then of Katten Muchin Zavis) to handle the pending criminal aspects. Weitzman, of course, had gained national notoriety successfully defending auto impresario John DeLorean against drug-trafficking charges. Since then, he’d made a name in Hollywood as the pal of celebrities in trouble with the law. Together, Field and Weitzman skillfully parried with the press on behalf of Michael Jackson at news conference after news conference.

All was well and good, until they appeared in a Santa Monica court for a civil-suit-related proceeding. Fields made a motion to delay any trial by telling the judge that a Santa Barbara grand jury, whose activities are normally secret, had convened to investigate Jackson and was on the verge of probably indicting his client. Weitzman interrupted, telling the judge he didn’t really know if an indictment was near, only that witnesses had been subpoenaed to testify before a Santa Barbara grand jury. Minutes later, on the court steps, Fields tried to retract the statement. "I was mistaken. All I know is that a grand jury has been subpoenaed. I do not know how far along they have got." Weitzmanleft Fields out to dry, saying, "We made a statement in court based on wrong information. It was a misunderstanding." One made worse after Santa Barbara County announced that no grand jury had yet been called in the case. All of a sudden, to Jackson and his family and the media, Fields looked to have committed a huge gaffe.

Sources close to the case at the time told me Fields blamed Weitzman for the blunder because the wrong information had come to Fields directly from Weitzman. And that’s not all: Fields privately told friends he felt Weitzman, tired of toiling in Fields’ imposing shadow as a Hollywood litigator, may have gone so far as to sabotage Fields’ involvement in Jackson’s defense. Wait, there’s more. There was even a behind-the-scenes battle over Fields' subsequent departure from Jackson’s defense: Did he jump or was he pushed? Weitzman quietly told reporters that Fields was fired from the team for mishandling that court hearing. Then Jackson’s family, reportedly furious at Fields, issued a statement that they could "sleep better at night" with Johnnie Cochran onboard.

But, Fields went so far as to publicly dispute any notion that he’d been let go by the Jacksons or anyone; he said he’d resigned on November 23 but had not put it in writing until 10 days later so as not to distract from Jackson’s defense efforts. Privately, Fields explained his reason for exiting was because he no longer wanted to work with Weitzman.

Fields appeared little hurt by the bad publicity. Weitzman eventually found himself in one uncomfortable predicament after another. Though he also had many successes, Weitzman received a lot of flak when he initially lost the Boxing Helena lawsuit defending Kim Basinger since Hollywood had perceived it as a slam dunk for the actress. Not long after, Weitzman, who’d earlier defended O.J. Simpson following a wife-beating arrest, was the first lawyer called by the football star to defend himself against murder charges. Weitzman’s involvement with O.J. made him a Hollywood pariah.

This article goes into detail of why Bert Fields, who Anthony Pelicano worked for, was let go.

Fields took great pleasure in any Weitzman setback. When Weitzman was going to MCA/Universal in 1995 to assist newly appointed president and COO Ron Meyer, I asked if Weitzman’s hiring was to shore up any Meyer shortcomings. "Which are made shorter by Howard," Fields shot back.

After being forced out of MCA/Universal in 1998, Weitzman pitched several show-biz projects, but eventually beat a retreat back to lawyering.

Fields, meanwhile, was more successful than ever, earning a nickname as "The Exterminator" for the way that he seemed to be suing the Walt Disney Co. 24/7. Since Fields works in isolation from the rest of his firm, and even other lawyers at Greenberg Glusker don’t know his cases until they hit the headlines, he and Weitzman will be able to keep at arm’s length rather easily. On the other hand, Weitzman, 60, likes to say, "I’m the logical successor to Bert Fields."

Told about that, Fields, 76, chuckled, "That may turn out to be true. But people in my family live a long time. I’m not going anywhere so fast."

http://www.laweekly.com/2005-05-19/news/hollywood-lawyers-in-love/

 

[shelly_webster]

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

Evan would've had no incentive to do it in most of Europe. If his son accused MJ of molesting him it would mean a criminal trial and it would be a useless situation for him. Seeking financial compensation for any kind of sexual abuse is also rare here.

Agreed. In France, if you want to sue someone you need to win your criminal trial first. You can't just take the money and run, it's either extortion or obstruction of justice depending of the case and what you believe.

 

[Soundmind]

Hollywood Lawyers in Love
How two arch-enemies went from killing each other to kissing up

If you see a porky pixie whiz by your window, don’t panic: It’s just pigs flying in Hollywood now that two ruthless litigators with a decade-long history of bad blood between them have agreed to hold hands, sing "Kumbaya" and partner in the same firm.

Bert vs. Howie was one of the longest-running feuds in entertainment legal circles, yet the vast majority of moguls, agents, managers and even other attorneys were unaware it was even raging. Nor were journalists, judging from the shocking lack of coverage by the mainstream media outlets. The New York Times’ new Hollywood correspondent David Halbfinger broke the news of the supposed pairing of Howard Weitzman with Bert Fields but failed to explain what made the development so interesting or even the true nature of the relationship. (We won’t mention that Fields-is-cooking-chicken-fajitas-in-Malibu laugh-riot in Sunday’s NYT timed to the release of his latest book about Shakespeare.) Halbfinger is new to the Hollywood scene so he can’t be expected to have a stored-up memory of who did what to whom and why. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal, not to mention the feeble-minded trades, are missing-in-action on this story altogether. And that is the problem: For media who purport to cover Hollywood, they largely ignore the scandal-du-jour of the entertainment super-lawyer set.

Let’s review the videotape, going back to 1993 when Weitzman and Fields were both stars of the media maelstrom — defending Michael Jackson as the pop singer faced a civil lawsuit brought by a 13-year-old boy who alleged the entertainer sexually molested him. Things got good fast. First there was a courtroom blunder, followed by a behind-the-scenes he-said/he-said battle, complicated by the overarching ambition of Weitzman, a USC-trained legal upstart, to score points against Harvard-educated legal legend Fields. The result was two gladiators who suddenly turned Century City into their own private Coliseum.

A few weeks ago, Greenberg Glusker partner Dale Kinsella gingerly approached the firm’s principal rainmaker, Fields, for permission to rescue Weitzman from Proskauer Rose, which in entertainment legal circles is deemed the equivalent of Siberia. "Dale knew there had been some problem in the past. So he wouldn’t have considered making a deal with Howard without asking me," Fields told me this week.

Fields gave his okay. "I’m a forgiving guy. You can’t go through life hating people. You’ve got to let these things go," he said. Contrary to the NYT report making it appear as if the two attorneys will be lawyering hand-in-glove, Fields will not be working directly with Weitzman. "He’ll have his own cases," Fields emphasized.

Weitzman did not return L.A. Weekly’s phone calls.

It’s yet another example of the business of Hollywood making for strange bedfellows when there’s money to be made. But it’s also a story of the importance of relationships in Hollywood: making them, severing them and repairing them.

To understand the genesis and gravitas of the Fields-Weitzman feud, go back all the way to 1990 when Michael Jackson was still the not-yet-dethroned king of pop. A sudden break with his longtime attorney and adviser, Ziffren Brittenham’s John Branca, had the music world agog. Though nobody ever went public to explain what happened, Branca privately blamed the loss of his most important client on David Geffen because of a power struggle between the two men that also involved volatile music exec Walter Yetnikoff. Shortly after leaving Branca, Jackson changed his legal representation: The singer signed with Geffen’s attorney Bert Fields for litigation and with Geffen insider Alan Grubman for record-label work.

Fast-forward to 1993. Fields had been batting back a bunch of real and threatened allegations against Jackson on a laundry list of matters when, all of a sudden, a child-molestation lawsuit was filed in a Santa Monica court by the Westside family of a young boy who’d spent time with the singer. Although the charges were civil, not criminal, authorities in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties were also investigating Jackson. The singer declared his innocence, but he needed to assemble a legal Dream Team.

It was Fields’ decision to bring onboard Howard Weitzman (then of Katten Muchin Zavis) to handle the pending criminal aspects. Weitzman, of course, had gained national notoriety successfully defending auto impresario John DeLorean against drug-trafficking charges. Since then, he’d made a name in Hollywood as the pal of celebrities in trouble with the law. Together, Field and Weitzman skillfully parried with the press on behalf of Michael Jackson at news conference after news conference.

All was well and good, until they appeared in a Santa Monica court for a civil-suit-related proceeding. Fields made a motion to delay any trial by telling the judge that a Santa Barbara grand jury, whose activities are normally secret, had convened to investigate Jackson and was on the verge of probably indicting his client. Weitzman interrupted, telling the judge he didn’t really know if an indictment was near, only that witnesses had been subpoenaed to testify before a Santa Barbara grand jury. Minutes later, on the court steps, Fields tried to retract the statement. "I was mistaken. All I know is that a grand jury has been subpoenaed. I do not know how far along they have got." Weitzmanleft Fields out to dry, saying, "We made a statement in court based on wrong information. It was a misunderstanding." One made worse after Santa Barbara County announced that no grand jury had yet been called in the case. All of a sudden, to Jackson and his family and the media, Fields looked to have committed a huge gaffe.

Sources close to the case at the time told me Fields blamed Weitzman for the blunder because the wrong information had come to Fields directly from Weitzman. And that’s not all: Fields privately told friends he felt Weitzman, tired of toiling in Fields’ imposing shadow as a Hollywood litigator, may have gone so far as to sabotage Fields’ involvement in Jackson’s defense. Wait, there’s more. There was even a behind-the-scenes battle over Fields' subsequent departure from Jackson’s defense: Did he jump or was he pushed? Weitzman quietly told reporters that Fields was fired from the team for mishandling that court hearing. Then Jackson’s family, reportedly furious at Fields, issued a statement that they could "sleep better at night" with Johnnie Cochran onboard.

But, Fields went so far as to publicly dispute any notion that he’d been let go by the Jacksons or anyone; he said he’d resigned on November 23 but had not put it in writing until 10 days later so as not to distract from Jackson’s defense efforts. Privately, Fields explained his reason for exiting was because he no longer wanted to work with Weitzman.

Fields appeared little hurt by the bad publicity. Weitzman eventually found himself in one uncomfortable predicament after another. Though he also had many successes, Weitzman received a lot of flak when he initially lost the Boxing Helena lawsuit defending Kim Basinger since Hollywood had perceived it as a slam dunk for the actress. Not long after, Weitzman, who’d earlier defended O.J. Simpson following a wife-beating arrest, was the first lawyer called by the football star to defend himself against murder charges. Weitzman’s involvement with O.J. made him a Hollywood pariah.

This article goes into detail of why Bert Fields, who Anthony Pelicano worked for, was let go.

Fields took great pleasure in any Weitzman setback. When Weitzman was going to MCA/Universal in 1995 to assist newly appointed president and COO Ron Meyer, I asked if Weitzman’s hiring was to shore up any Meyer shortcomings. "Which are made shorter by Howard," Fields shot back.

After being forced out of MCA/Universal in 1998, Weitzman pitched several show-biz projects, but eventually beat a retreat back to lawyering.

Fields, meanwhile, was more successful than ever, earning a nickname as "The Exterminator" for the way that he seemed to be suing the Walt Disney Co. 24/7. Since Fields works in isolation from the rest of his firm, and even other lawyers at Greenberg Glusker don’t know his cases until they hit the headlines, he and Weitzman will be able to keep at arm’s length rather easily. On the other hand, Weitzman, 60, likes to say, "I’m the logical successor to Bert Fields."

Told about that, Fields, 76, chuckled, "That may turn out to be true. But people in my family live a long time. I’m not going anywhere so fast."

http://www.laweekly.com/2005-05-19/news/hollywood-lawyers-in-love/

Bret, Weizman and Cochran are equally responsible for the 1993 disaster.

 

[wendijane]

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

So has he buggered off yet ??
Selfish prick. You selfish fool you.

 

[MJJ Fan4321]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCio7gIKkYc

 

[twinklEE]

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

They are never going to leave him alone, the only way Michael will be left alone is when 100 years have passed and ALL the people has had associations with are long dead. That's the only time when he will be left alone, otherwise forget it.

 

[twinklEE]

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

That money didn't pay off for Evan did it? he blew his brains out and is suffering in hell where he belongs. No one even attended his funeral..

I wish someone else had blown his brain off, he took the easy way out. Evan Chandler is a big reason why Michael is dead.

 

[marebear]

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

I want this finished once and for all. I was on People magazine site and they showed the Ohio Marching band tribute. There were a lot of nice comments but then there was these comments: "Wow but why are they using music of a pedophile?" and " That was amazing but why that music? People turning the other cheek?". It's like no matter how good something is that people don't want to think they are wrong about Michael. They have to ruin it with those types of comments. It just brings me down all the time. I want people for once to see that the accusers are the ones lying. This whole the reeks of lies and it's disgusting. The only person that gets punished is Michael and he did nothing wrong but help these people. Where is the justice?

 

[HIStory]

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

I want this finished once and for all. I was on People magazine site and they showed the Ohio Marching band tribute. There were a lot of nice comments but then there was these comments: "Wow but why are they using music of a pedophile?" and " That was amazing but why that music? People turning the other cheek?". It's like no matter how good something is that people don't want to think they are wrong about Michael. They have to ruin it with those types of comments. It just brings me down all the time. I want people for once to see that the accusers are the ones lying. This whole the reeks of lies and it's disgusting. The only person that gets punished is Michael and he did nothing wrong but help these people. Where is the justice?

This world is not a just and fair world. Never was. People got lynched, people got burnt as witches. People got killed because they were different. This has not changed a lot, only the means are different now.

Also most people are too lazy to look behind the headlines or behind a claim or story, but at the same time they are too quick to judge. They think if they read an article or a prosecution document they know all about the case when in reality their judgement is based on superficial things. That too is human nature unfortunately.

I think this generation has been brainwashed so much by the media that it will take this generation to pass for people to re-examine MJ's case in a fair manner without all the sensationalism.

 

[MJJ Fan4321]

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

Sorry if someone has already posted this

I'm going with the dead guy!!!!

 

[analogue]

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

This world is not a just and fair world. Never was. People got lynched, people got burnt as witches. People got killed because they were different. This has not changed a lot, only the means are different now.

Also most people are too lazy to look behind the headlines or behind a claim or story, but at the same time they are too quick to judge. They think if they read an article or a prosecution document they know all about the case when in reality their judgement is based on superficial things. That too is human nature unfortunately.

I think this generation has been brainwashed so much by the media that it will take this generation to pass for people to re-examine MJ's case in a fair manner without all the sensationalism.

People also let their emotions get the better of them in these situations. The media always says ''Do you think it's appropriate for a man in his 40's to share his bedroom with young boys'' and that's not pointing out the truth. That's just playing with people's emotions

 

[xosweetseducingsighsxo]

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

People also let their emotions get the better of them in these situations. The media always says ''Do you think it's appropriate for a man in his 40's to share his bedroom with young boys'' and that's not pointing out the truth. That's just playing with people's emotions

Exactly. But they never ask, "Do you think it's right that we (the media) are nothing more than lying douchebags that leave out important information proving Michael's innocence, and make a complete fool of the public?"

 

[Krshna28]

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

This world is not a just and fair world. Never was. People got lynched, people got burnt as witches. People got killed because they were different. This has not changed a lot, only the means are different now.

Also most people are too lazy to look behind the headlines or behind a claim or story, but at the same time they are too quick to judge. They think if they read an article or a prosecution document they know all about the case when in reality their judgement is based on superficial things. That too is human nature unfortunately.

I think this generation has been brainwashed so much by the media that it will take this generation to pass for people to re-examine MJ's case in a fair manner without all the sensationalism.

It's the disease called Ignorance. It's one of two diseases that's destroying humanity and the natural World (the other is Greed/Want).

 

[MJJ Fan4321]

This was not written by me, attributed to Daniel Hernandez @Myster_D

"Wade robson is telling the truth. Understand victims r brainwashed and humiliated. He has his own money and when his son born he realized!"
“PREACH! As an educator the way ppl are reacting to this man galls me! Their vitriol is why victims don't tell!”
"I agree.. To tell the truth is humiliating& taxing.The birth of his son helped him overcome this trauma. He has my support!"
“He has mine also. i refuse to shame a rape survivor. Which is what he is”

@dailyark, @TeacherLady83, perhaps you need to be enlightened on a few things concerning Mr. Wade Robson. @dailyark, you claim that Wade has his own money, but perhaps you are unaware of the fact that he hasn’t been getting much work and, by his own admission, is living off his savings which are sure to eventually run out. Now one would think that an out of work man with a wife and child to provide for would likely jump at a chance to make a large sum of money, wouldn’t you say? And of course, we can’t forget that he was employed by AEG, the same company that Katherine Jackson is currently suing, nor can we forget that Wade broke this story right when the AEG trial began and that AEG’s lawyer said that “ugly stuff” would come out. Now as you may or may not be aware of, Wade adamantly denied being sexually abused by Michael Jackson when questioned by journalists and law enforcement in 1993 and testified (of his own volition) in Michael Jackson's defense in 2005 in a court of law where he, under oath, again denied being abused and did so unwaveringly despite rigorous cross examination. Now ask yourself, if you were Michael Jackson and you were on trial for your life, would you allow somebody you allegedly molested for seven years testify for you in a child molestation trial? After all, no amount of “brainwashing” or “rehearsing” can guarantee that an alleged victim won’t slip up or breakdown when put under pressure when being interviewed by law enforcement or testifying under oath in a court of law.

Wade’s mother and sister, both of whom were also friends with Michael and were also questioned in 1993 and testified (under their own volition as well) under oath in Michael's defense in 2005, reaffirmed this and even went so far as to say that in all of the years that they had known Michael and had been around him and Wade, they had never once seen or suspected that anything inappropriate ever happened between the two (or anyone else). This is important to note since Wade was living with his mother and sister, and thus was constantly around them, throughout the seven years he claims he was being abused. Could they, despite their close relationship and proximity to both parties, have been so oblivious to Wade's alleged abuse for all that time? Why then would they, like Wade, have adamantly denied any wrongdoing on Michael's part if they weren't completely sure? One might argue that they may have been given incentives for their support, but they denied this as well.

Now to address Wade. When his legal team first put out this story, it was stated that he suffered from repressed memories that resurfaced after a mental breakdown early in March of 2011. Almost immediately people found the claim of repressed memories questionable and several videos were found of Wade speaking positively about Michael (even saying how he was looking forward to working on the Michael Jackson Cirque Du Soleil show) during and after that time. Then the story was changed so that the breakdown occurred early in March of 2012. Even with this new date, there is still a video of Wade from July of 2012 where he again speaks positively about Michael. There is also another video from mid March of 2012, not long after his alleged breakdown, where he is dancing to Michael's music. Now before you attribute this changing of dates to a simple typo, ask yourself, how could such a glaring mistake be made about such a sensitive issue with the potential to destroy either Michael's or Wade's reputation and legacy.

The story was changed yet again when Wade went on the Today Show and stated that it wasn't a case of repressed memories and that he always remembered the alleged abuse but didn’t recognize it as abuse. He also claimed to have suffered not one, but two mental breakdowns within the first 18 months of his son’s life. Being that his son was born in November of 2010, that would be anywhere from late 2010 to early 2012. However, as we established, Wade continued to sing Michael praises within that time span. He also claimed that Michael brainwashed him by telling him that the alleged abuse was an "expression of love" and that he would rehearse with him over the phone about what he would say to the authorities back in 1993 and to the court in 2005 during the trial. In addition, in his official court documents filed in June of this year, Wade again changes the story to say that he didn’t realize he was abused until May of 2012 and claims that the abuse started when he was five after previously saying it started when he was seven. This is a lie in any event since Wade had only briefly met Michael at a meet and greet during the Australian leg of the Bad Tour when he was five and didn’t spend any personal time with him until he was seven. Now if Wade is telling the truth, then why does he keep on changing his story? This to me is not indicative of someone who being truthful.

Now it is important to remember that in 1993 and in 2003 to 2005, and the years in between, Michael was under intense investigation by the LAPD, the FBI, Interpol, the DCFS, and etc. due to the other allegations (and after all that investigating, none of them found a single shred of evidence that Michael was a child abuser). Now what kind of fool would Michael have been to have done what Wade is alleging he did when he was under investigation like that? Wade alleges that he was abused from 1990 to 1997, so from 1993 to 1997, that is five years that he expects us to believe that Michael would be bold, foolish, or stupid enough to abuse him with so many eyes on him. He also expects us to believe that Michael would rehearse with him on the phone when the likelihood that their conversations were being monitored was extremely high and in fact this turned out to be the case during the 2003-2005 investigation and no such calls between Wade and Michael were ever recorded.

As for him saying that he didn’t realize what Michael allegedly did to him was sexual abuse until recently, and that his breakdowns triggered this realization, I have only the following to say. In 1993, the Jordan Chandler scandal broke out and Wade, and his family, were approached and questioned by various parties including journalists and law enforcement (who made the seriousness of the allegations made against Michael abundantly clear) where he defended Michael and adamantly denied having been abused by him. Are we to believe that Wade would defend Michael and deny being abused by him in spite of constant and probing questions about the nature of their relationship by journalists and law enforcement (which in and of itself is often an intimidating prospect for a child) while he was actually being abused and not break down or waver in the slightest as most children who have been abused tend to do (and something that those who interview children in matters such as these are trained to pick up on)? Are we to believe that the same was true in 2005 when Wade was constantly probed about his relationship with Michael by the prosecution? Are we also to believe that he didn’t know or understand what sexual abuse was when he testified in 2005, despite the fact that he was a 22 year old adult? Keep in mind that Wade was engaged to his current wife at the time he testified in 2005 which would strongly suggest, along with his sexual liaison with Britney Spears (which resulted in the end of her relationship with Justin Timberlake), that he was a sexually active adult and thus should’ve been able to know what sex and, by extension, sexual abuse is. It is also important to remember that Wade has had a long career in the entertainment industry which, unlike your average occupation, is often far from innocent and is notorious for many of its shadier aspects, one of which is sexual abuse. I therefore find it even more unlikely that he didn't realize what Michael allegedly did to him was sexual abuse if it actually happened.

It is even more important to note that when Wade testified, he was asked very specific questions about his relationship with Michael including what kind of physical contact occurred between them. Not once, despite the prosecutor’s best attempts to make him slip up, did he say that anything inappropriate ever happened between them. Also, if he said that he always remembered the alleged abuse but didn't see it as abuse until now, then why when asked specific questions about what kind of physical contact he had with Michael did he deny that there was ever any kind of intimate contact between them (which there would have to have been if Wade’s allegations are true) instead of saying that he had indeed been intimately touched but that he didn't see it as sexual abuse? What reason would he have had to say anything else if he truly believed there was nothing wrong about what he alleges happened between him and Michael until now? After all, in 2005, and even in his interview on the Today Show, he maintained that nobody forced him or paid him to lie. To me this is proof positive that he either knowingly lied back then or is knowingly lying right now. I’ll go with the latter.

Now as you may or may not be aware of, a British tabloid called The Sunday People and The Mirror came out with a story about FBI files that showed that Michael paid off 24 boys that he molested. In actuality, these so called “FBI” files were nothing of the sort. They were transcripts of interviews compiled by a tabloid journalist, a former porn star, in the 1990’s who paid his sources and even made one up. These transcripts were acquired by a private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, working for the Jackson defense team. 10 years later, Pellicano was prosecuted for wiretapping and is now in jail. The FBI seized all of his files of which these were a small part. The allegations noted in the Sunday People and Mirror article were from an interview of the LeMarques (ex-employees of Neverland). They were willing to sell their alleged story about Jackson to the tabloids. As the price tag went up (possibly as high as $500,000), they continued to embellish their outlandish tale. Investigators in the 1990’s found the couple to lack credibility. In desperation, when his case was on the skids, Santa Barbara DA Tom Sneddon put the LeMarques on the witness stand in Jackson's 2005 trial. Their testimony was destroyed under cross examination and a very conservative jury rejected their testimony. This “FBI file” story was quickly debunked by a variety of news sources including the following; http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/03/showbiz/michael-jackson-files/index.html, http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2...reau-never-paid-millions-silence-abused-kids/, http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/06/3...les-are-from-people-discredited-long-time-ago, http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/06/3...-british-press-heres-the-real-story-from-2005
Michael’s actual FBI files were released in 2009, which you can see online on the FBI’s website, and they vindicate him more than anything else. It is interesting, however, that when this story first came out, Wade proclaimed that those so called “FBI” files proved his allegations and asked his lawyers to get a hold of them. After the story was disproven, however, he was suddenly silent. Now for him to say that this “FBI” file story is proof that he’s telling the truth only tells me the opposite and shows how desperate he is, and shows the lack of substance his case has. Wade also tried to reach out to a maid who worked at Neverland, Blanca Francia, who claimed to have seen him showering with Michael. Wade himself denied this in 2005, but her story was discredited regardless because she admitted that she had been paid for her story and admitted to have only seen and heard one person, Michael, in the shower in a deposition in 1993. The fact that he is trying to use this person to bolster his case is, to me, another sign of desperation on his part. He also claimed that his father killed himself over the thought that Michael had molested Wade. It is important to note that Wade’s father died in 2002. That’s three years before Wade (and his sister and mother) testified in Michael’s defense, and eleven years before Wade suddenly realized that he’d allegedly been abused, and let’s not forget all the positive things Wade (and his family) said about Michael in the years before, in between, and after. His claim about his father is therefore nonsensical and further proof of his desperation in my opinion.

I also want to bring up how Wade claimed on the Today Show that he wasn’t doing any of this for money, and yet he filed BOTH a creditors claim and a civil lawsuit against Michael’s estate. This is not indicative of somebody who is not after money. In his civil lawsuit, Wade is suing the executors of Michael’s estate (John Branca and John McClain), MJJ Productions (Michael's record label which hired Wade when he was 11), and MJJ Ventures (which produced Michael's music videos) and 46 other defendants associated with these entities who have yet to be identified. Wade filed this lawsuit against the aforementioned parties on the grounds that they were responsible for protecting him and should therefore answer for the alleged sexual abuse he says he suffered at the hands of Michael Jackson. Now my question is this; if Wade is telling the truth about his alleged abuse and is now out to make the parties that were responsible for his protection answer for their failure to keep him safe, and not to collect money, then why does he not appear to have taken any action against his mother considering that she was more responsible for his safety than any of the other parties being sued? After all, Wade was a minor at the time this alleged abuse occurred, and thus his mother was legally responsible for his well being. His mother also testified in Michael’s defense and said that she trusted him completely and that she never saw or suspected that he harmed her son or anyone for that matter. She, like Wade, continuously defended him for years and approved of Michael’s relationship with her son. If Wade is to be believed, that would mean that Joy’s continuous approval, trust, and defense of Michael and his relationship with her son (even after Michael was accused of and investigated for child molestation, because what responsible parent would allow their child to associate with someone accused of child molestation unless they knew for sure that that person was innocent) helped make it possible for any alleged abuse to occur thus showing her to be an unfit parent and thus making her culpable, if not liable (considering that Wade is now an adult), for Wade's alleged abuse. My other question in this case would be that if Wade's mother isn’t being held accountable for his alleged abuse, why can parties like MJJ Ventures and MJJ Productions be held responsible considering that it was through Wade's decision (with his mother's approval and acceptance) to personally associate with Michael outside of the confines of his business relationship with the pre-mentioned parties that he was allowed to be made vulnerable to any alleged abuse by him? Now if Wade truly wants to make those who were responsible for protecting him answer for their alleged failure to do so, would it not make sense for him to take at least some kind of action against his mother? I can only speculate at this point, but could it be that perhaps there is more money to be had for Wade by suing these other parties rather than his mother? In my opinion, if Wade is being completely truthful about not making his accusations for money, then the fact that he's willing to play the blame game and point the finger at these other parties and yet not place blame where blame is due in regards to his mother tells me just the opposite. What do you think? Taking all of this into account, is it any wonder why most people don’t believe him?

 

[jamba]

This is not written by me, attributed to Daniel Hernandez @Myster_D

"Wade robson is telling the truth. Understand victims r brainwashed and humiliated. He has his own money and when his son born he realized!"
“PREACH! As an educator the way ppl are reacting to this man galls me! Their vitriol is why victims don't tell!”
"I agree.. To tell the truth is humiliating& taxing.The birth of his son helped him overcome this trauma. He has my support!"
“He has mine also. i refuse to shame a rape survivor. Which is what he is”

@dailyark, @TeacherLady83, perhaps you need to be enlightened on a few things concerning Mr. Wade Robson. @dailyark, you claim that Wade has his own money, but perhaps you are unaware of the fact that he hasn’t been getting much work and, by his own admission, is living off his savings which are sure to eventually run out. Now one would think that an out of work man with a wife and child to provide for would likely jump at a chance to make a large sum of money, wouldn’t you say? And of course, we can’t forget that he was employed by AEG, the same company that Katherine Jackson is currently suing, nor can we forget that Wade broke this story right when the AEG trial began and that AEG’s lawyer said that “ugly stuff” would come out. Now as you may or may not be aware of, Wade adamantly denied being sexually abused by Michael Jackson when questioned by journalists and law enforcement in 1993 and testified (of his own volition) in Michael Jackson's defense in 2005 in a court of law where he, under oath, again denied being abused and did so unwaveringly despite rigorous cross examination. Now ask yourself, if you were Michael Jackson and you were on trial for your life, would you allow somebody you allegedly molested for seven years testify for you in a child molestation trial? After all, no amount of “brainwashing” or “rehearsing” can guarantee that an alleged victim won’t slip up or breakdown when put under pressure when being interviewed by law enforcement or testifying under oath in a court of law.

Wade’s mother and sister, both of whom were also friends with Michael and were also questioned in 1993 and testified (under their own volition as well) under oath in Michael's defense in 2005, reaffirmed this and even went so far as to say that in all of the years that they had known Michael and had been around him and Wade, they had never once seen or suspected that anything inappropriate ever happened between the two (or anyone else). This is important to note since Wade was living with his mother and sister, and thus was constantly around them, throughout the seven years he claims he was being abused. Could they, despite their close relationship and proximity to both parties, have been so oblivious to Wade's alleged abuse for all that time? Why then would they, like Wade, have adamantly denied any wrongdoing on Michael's part if they weren't completely sure? One might argue that they may have been given incentives for their support, but they denied this as well.

Now to address Wade. When his legal team first put out this story, it was stated that he suffered from repressed memories that resurfaced after a mental breakdown early in March of 2011. Almost immediately people found the claim of repressed memories questionable and several videos were found of Wade speaking positively about Michael (even saying how he was looking forward to working on the Michael Jackson Cirque Du Soleil show) during and after that time. Then the story was changed so that the breakdown occurred early in March of 2012. Even with this new date, there is still a video of Wade from July of 2012 where he again speaks positively about Michael. There is also another video from mid March of 2012, not long after his alleged breakdown, where he is dancing to Michael's music. Now before you attribute this changing of dates to a simple typo, ask yourself, how could such a glaring mistake be made about such a sensitive issue with the potential to destroy either Michael's or Wade's reputation and legacy.

The story was changed yet again when Wade went on the Today Show and stated that it wasn't a case of repressed memories and that he always remembered the alleged abuse but didn’t recognize it as abuse. He also claimed to have suffered not one, but two mental breakdowns within the first 18 months of his son’s life. Being that his son was born in November of 2010, that would be anywhere from late 2010 to early 2012. However, as we established, Wade continued to sing Michael praises within that time span. He also claimed that Michael brainwashed him by telling him that the alleged abuse was an "expression of love" and that he would rehearse with him over the phone about what he would say to the authorities back in 1993 and to the court in 2005 during the trial. In addition, in his official court documents filed in June of this year, Wade again changes the story to say that he didn’t realize he was abused until May of 2012 and claims that the abuse started when he was five after previously saying it started when he was seven. This is a lie in any event since Wade had only briefly met Michael at a meet and greet during the Australian leg of the Bad Tour when he was five and didn’t spend any personal time with him until he was seven. Now if Wade is telling the truth, then why does he keep on changing his story? This to me is not indicative of someone who being truthful.

Now it is important to remember that in 1993 and in 2003 to 2005, and the years in between, Michael was under intense investigation by the LAPD, the FBI, Interpol, the DCFS, and etc. due to the other allegations (and after all that investigating, none of them found a single shred of evidence that Michael was a child abuser). Now what kind of fool would Michael have been to have done what Wade is alleging he did when he was under investigation like that? Wade alleges that he was abused from 1990 to 1997, so from 1993 to 1997, that is five years that he expects us to believe that Michael would be bold, foolish, or stupid enough to abuse him with so many eyes on him. He also expects us to believe that Michael would rehearse with him on the phone when the likelihood that their conversations were being monitored was extremely high and in fact this turned out to be the case during the 2003-2005 investigation and no such calls between Wade and Michael were ever recorded.

As for him saying that he didn’t realize what Michael allegedly did to him was sexual abuse until recently, and that his breakdowns triggered this realization, I have only the following to say. In 1993, the Jordan Chandler scandal broke out and Wade, and his family, were approached and questioned by various parties including journalists and law enforcement (who made the seriousness of the allegations made against Michael abundantly clear) where he defended Michael and adamantly denied having been abused by him. Are we to believe that Wade would defend Michael and deny being abused by him in spite of constant and probing questions about the nature of their relationship by journalists and law enforcement (which in and of itself is often an intimidating prospect for a child) while he was actually being abused and not break down or waver in the slightest as most children who have been abused tend to do (and something that those who interview children in matters such as these are trained to pick up on)? Are we to believe that the same was true in 2005 when Wade was constantly probed about his relationship with Michael by the prosecution? Are we also to believe that he didn’t know or understand what sexual abuse was when he testified in 2005, despite the fact that he was a 22 year old adult? Keep in mind that Wade was engaged to his current wife at the time he testified in 2005 which would strongly suggest, along with his sexual liaison with Britney Spears (which resulted in the end of her relationship with Justin Timberlake), that he was a sexually active adult and thus should’ve been able to know what sex and, by extension, sexual abuse is. It is also important to remember that Wade has had a long career in the entertainment industry which, unlike your average occupation, is often far from innocent and is notorious for many of its shadier aspects, one of which is sexual abuse. I therefore find it even more unlikely that he didn't realize what Michael allegedly did to him was sexual abuse if it actually happened.

It is even more important to note that when Wade testified, he was asked very specific questions about his relationship with Michael including what kind of physical contact occurred between them. Not once, despite the prosecutor’s best attempts to make him slip up, did he say that anything inappropriate ever happened between them. Also, if he said that he always remembered the alleged abuse but didn't see it as abuse until now, then why when asked specific questions about what kind of physical contact he had with Michael did he deny that there was ever any kind of intimate contact between them (which there would have to have been if Wade’s allegations are true) instead of saying that he had indeed been intimately touched but that he didn't see it as sexual abuse? What reason would he have had to say anything else if he truly believed there was nothing wrong about what he alleges happened between him and Michael until now? After all, in 2005, and even in his interview on the Today Show, he maintained that nobody forced him or paid him to lie. To me this is proof positive that he either knowingly lied back then or is knowingly lying right now. I’ll go with the latter.

Now as you may or may not be aware of, a British tabloid called The Sunday People and The Mirror came out with a story about FBI files that showed that Michael paid off 24 boys that he molested. In actuality, these so called “FBI” files were nothing of the sort. They were transcripts of interviews compiled by a tabloid journalist, a former porn star, in the 1990’s who paid his sources and even made one up. These transcripts were acquired by a private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, working for the Jackson defense team. 10 years later, Pellicano was prosecuted for wiretapping and is now in jail. The FBI seized all of his files of which these were a small part. The allegations noted in the Sunday People and Mirror article were from an interview of the LeMarques (ex-employees of Neverland). They were willing to sell their alleged story about Jackson to the tabloids. As the price tag went up (possibly as high as $500,000), they continued to embellish their outlandish tale. Investigators in the 1990’s found the couple to lack credibility. In desperation, when his case was on the skids, Santa Barbara DA Tom Sneddon put the LeMarques on the witness stand in Jackson's 2005 trial. Their testimony was destroyed under cross examination and a very conservative jury rejected their testimony. This “FBI file” story was quickly debunked by a variety of news sources including the following; http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/03/showbiz/michael-jackson-files/index.html, http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2...reau-never-paid-millions-silence-abused-kids/, http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/06/3...les-are-from-people-discredited-long-time-ago, http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/06/3...-british-press-heres-the-real-story-from-2005
Michael’s actual FBI files were released in 2009, which you can see online on the FBI’s website, and they vindicate him more than anything else. It is interesting, however, that when this story first came out, Wade proclaimed that those so called “FBI” files proved his allegations and asked his lawyers to get a hold of them. After the story was disproven, however, he was suddenly silent. Now for him to say that this “FBI” file story is proof that he’s telling the truth only tells me the opposite and shows how desperate he is, and shows the lack of substance his case has. Wade also tried to reach out to a maid who worked at Neverland, Blanca Francia, who claimed to have seen him showering with Michael. Wade himself denied this in 2005, but her story was discredited regardless because she admitted that she had been paid for her story and admitted to have only seen and heard one person, Michael, in the shower in a deposition in 1993. The fact that he is trying to use this person to bolster his case is, to me, another sign of desperation on his part. He also claimed that his father killed himself over the thought that Michael had molested Wade. It is important to note that Wade’s father died in 2002. That’s three years before Wade (and his sister and mother) testified in Michael’s defense, and eleven years before Wade suddenly realized that he’d allegedly been abused, and let’s not forget all the positive things Wade (and his family) said about Michael in the years before, in between, and after. His claim about his father is therefore nonsensical and further proof of his desperation in my opinion.

I also want to bring up how Wade claimed on the Today Show that he wasn’t doing any of this for money, and yet he filed BOTH a creditors claim and a civil lawsuit against Michael’s estate. This is not indicative of somebody who is not after money. In his civil lawsuit, Wade is suing the executors of Michael’s estate (John Branca and John McClain), MJJ Productions (Michael's record label which hired Wade when he was 11), and MJJ Ventures (which produced Michael's music videos) and 46 other defendants associated with these entities who have yet to be identified. Wade filed this lawsuit against the aforementioned parties on the grounds that they were responsible for protecting him and should therefore answer for the alleged sexual abuse he says he suffered at the hands of Michael Jackson. Now my question is this; if Wade is telling the truth about his alleged abuse and is now out to make the parties that were responsible for his protection answer for their failure to keep him safe, and not to collect money, then why does he not appear to have taken any action against his mother considering that she was more responsible for his safety than any of the other parties being sued? After all, Wade was a minor at the time this alleged abuse occurred, and thus his mother was legally responsible for his well being. His mother also testified in Michael’s defense and said that she trusted him completely and that she never saw or suspected that he harmed her son or anyone for that matter. She, like Wade, continuously defended him for years and approved of Michael’s relationship with her son. If Wade is to be believed, that would mean that Joy’s continuous approval, trust, and defense of Michael and his relationship with her son (even after Michael was accused of and investigated for child molestation, because what responsible parent would allow their child to associate with someone accused of child molestation unless they knew for sure that that person was innocent) helped make it possible for any alleged abuse to occur thus showing her to be an unfit parent and thus making her culpable, if not liable (considering that Wade is now an adult), for Wade's alleged abuse. My other question in this case would be that if Wade's mother isn’t being held accountable for his alleged abuse, why can parties like MJJ Ventures and MJJ Productions be held responsible considering that it was through Wade's decision (with his mother's approval and acceptance) to personally associate with Michael outside of the confines of his business relationship with the pre-mentioned parties that he was allowed to be made vulnerable to any alleged abuse by him? Now if Wade truly wants to make those who were responsible for protecting him answer for their alleged failure to do so, would it not make sense for him to take at least some kind of action against his mother? I can only speculate at this point, but could it be that perhaps there is more money to be had for Wade by suing these other parties rather than his mother? In my opinion, if Wade is being completely truthful about not making his accusations for money, then the fact that he's willing to play the blame game and point the finger at these other parties and yet not place blame where blame is due in regards to his mother tells me just the opposite. What do you think? Taking all of this into account, is it any wonder why most people don’t believe him?

Beautiful!!! Thanks so much--this is very clear and complete.

 

[twinklEE]

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

I'm sick and tired of all this.. to the point of being exhausted (as I am sure many others are). But then again if ''I''/'We'' give up now who is going to care? Who is going to fight for Michael? Certainly not his family and friends. That is why 'I', 'WE' the FANS are so important. We have to keep on fighting, no matter what, not matter how exhausted we are, no matter how draining the reoccuring battles are. We have to do it for Michael, because he is not here to defend himself anymore

 

[MJJ Fan4321]

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

 

[8701girl]

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

Cant belive this whole thing is still going on , its ridiclous! it never ends

 

[xosweetseducingsighsxo]

This is not written by me, attributed to Daniel Hernandez @Myster_D

"Wade robson is telling the truth. Understand victims r brainwashed and humiliated. He has his own money and when his son born he realized!"
“PREACH! As an educator the way ppl are reacting to this man galls me! Their vitriol is why victims don't tell!”
"I agree.. To tell the truth is humiliating& taxing.The birth of his son helped him overcome this trauma. He has my support!"
“He has mine also. i refuse to shame a rape survivor. Which is what he is”

@dailyark, @TeacherLady83, perhaps you need to be enlightened on a few things concerning Mr. Wade Robson. @dailyark, you claim that Wade has his own money, but perhaps you are unaware of the fact that he hasn’t been getting much work and, by his own admission, is living off his savings which are sure to eventually run out. Now one would think that an out of work man with a wife and child to provide for would likely jump at a chance to make a large sum of money, wouldn’t you say? And of course, we can’t forget that he was employed by AEG, the same company that Katherine Jackson is currently suing, nor can we forget that Wade broke this story right when the AEG trial began and that AEG’s lawyer said that “ugly stuff” would come out. Now as you may or may not be aware of, Wade adamantly denied being sexually abused by Michael Jackson when questioned by journalists and law enforcement in 1993 and testified (of his own volition) in Michael Jackson's defense in 2005 in a court of law where he, under oath, again denied being abused and did so unwaveringly despite rigorous cross examination. Now ask yourself, if you were Michael Jackson and you were on trial for your life, would you allow somebody you allegedly molested for seven years testify for you in a child molestation trial? After all, no amount of “brainwashing” or “rehearsing” can guarantee that an alleged victim won’t slip up or breakdown when put under pressure when being interviewed by law enforcement or testifying under oath in a court of law.

Wade’s mother and sister, both of whom were also friends with Michael and were also questioned in 1993 and testified (under their own volition as well) under oath in Michael's defense in 2005, reaffirmed this and even went so far as to say that in all of the years that they had known Michael and had been around him and Wade, they had never once seen or suspected that anything inappropriate ever happened between the two (or anyone else). This is important to note since Wade was living with his mother and sister, and thus was constantly around them, throughout the seven years he claims he was being abused. Could they, despite their close relationship and proximity to both parties, have been so oblivious to Wade's alleged abuse for all that time? Why then would they, like Wade, have adamantly denied any wrongdoing on Michael's part if they weren't completely sure? One might argue that they may have been given incentives for their support, but they denied this as well.

Now to address Wade. When his legal team first put out this story, it was stated that he suffered from repressed memories that resurfaced after a mental breakdown early in March of 2011. Almost immediately people found the claim of repressed memories questionable and several videos were found of Wade speaking positively about Michael (even saying how he was looking forward to working on the Michael Jackson Cirque Du Soleil show) during and after that time. Then the story was changed so that the breakdown occurred early in March of 2012. Even with this new date, there is still a video of Wade from July of 2012 where he again speaks positively about Michael. There is also another video from mid March of 2012, not long after his alleged breakdown, where he is dancing to Michael's music. Now before you attribute this changing of dates to a simple typo, ask yourself, how could such a glaring mistake be made about such a sensitive issue with the potential to destroy either Michael's or Wade's reputation and legacy.

The story was changed yet again when Wade went on the Today Show and stated that it wasn't a case of repressed memories and that he always remembered the alleged abuse but didn’t recognize it as abuse. He also claimed to have suffered not one, but two mental breakdowns within the first 18 months of his son’s life. Being that his son was born in November of 2010, that would be anywhere from late 2010 to early 2012. However, as we established, Wade continued to sing Michael praises within that time span. He also claimed that Michael brainwashed him by telling him that the alleged abuse was an "expression of love" and that he would rehearse with him over the phone about what he would say to the authorities back in 1993 and to the court in 2005 during the trial. In addition, in his official court documents filed in June of this year, Wade again changes the story to say that he didn’t realize he was abused until May of 2012 and claims that the abuse started when he was five after previously saying it started when he was seven. This is a lie in any event since Wade had only briefly met Michael at a meet and greet during the Australian leg of the Bad Tour when he was five and didn’t spend any personal time with him until he was seven. Now if Wade is telling the truth, then why does he keep on changing his story? This to me is not indicative of someone who being truthful.

Now it is important to remember that in 1993 and in 2003 to 2005, and the years in between, Michael was under intense investigation by the LAPD, the FBI, Interpol, the DCFS, and etc. due to the other allegations (and after all that investigating, none of them found a single shred of evidence that Michael was a child abuser). Now what kind of fool would Michael have been to have done what Wade is alleging he did when he was under investigation like that? Wade alleges that he was abused from 1990 to 1997, so from 1993 to 1997, that is five years that he expects us to believe that Michael would be bold, foolish, or stupid enough to abuse him with so many eyes on him. He also expects us to believe that Michael would rehearse with him on the phone when the likelihood that their conversations were being monitored was extremely high and in fact this turned out to be the case during the 2003-2005 investigation and no such calls between Wade and Michael were ever recorded.

As for him saying that he didn’t realize what Michael allegedly did to him was sexual abuse until recently, and that his breakdowns triggered this realization, I have only the following to say. In 1993, the Jordan Chandler scandal broke out and Wade, and his family, were approached and questioned by various parties including journalists and law enforcement (who made the seriousness of the allegations made against Michael abundantly clear) where he defended Michael and adamantly denied having been abused by him. Are we to believe that Wade would defend Michael and deny being abused by him in spite of constant and probing questions about the nature of their relationship by journalists and law enforcement (which in and of itself is often an intimidating prospect for a child) while he was actually being abused and not break down or waver in the slightest as most children who have been abused tend to do (and something that those who interview children in matters such as these are trained to pick up on)? Are we to believe that the same was true in 2005 when Wade was constantly probed about his relationship with Michael by the prosecution? Are we also to believe that he didn’t know or understand what sexual abuse was when he testified in 2005, despite the fact that he was a 22 year old adult? Keep in mind that Wade was engaged to his current wife at the time he testified in 2005 which would strongly suggest, along with his sexual liaison with Britney Spears (which resulted in the end of her relationship with Justin Timberlake), that he was a sexually active adult and thus should’ve been able to know what sex and, by extension, sexual abuse is. It is also important to remember that Wade has had a long career in the entertainment industry which, unlike your average occupation, is often far from innocent and is notorious for many of its shadier aspects, one of which is sexual abuse. I therefore find it even more unlikely that he didn't realize what Michael allegedly did to him was sexual abuse if it actually happened.

It is even more important to note that when Wade testified, he was asked very specific questions about his relationship with Michael including what kind of physical contact occurred between them. Not once, despite the prosecutor’s best attempts to make him slip up, did he say that anything inappropriate ever happened between them. Also, if he said that he always remembered the alleged abuse but didn't see it as abuse until now, then why when asked specific questions about what kind of physical contact he had with Michael did he deny that there was ever any kind of intimate contact between them (which there would have to have been if Wade’s allegations are true) instead of saying that he had indeed been intimately touched but that he didn't see it as sexual abuse? What reason would he have had to say anything else if he truly believed there was nothing wrong about what he alleges happened between him and Michael until now? After all, in 2005, and even in his interview on the Today Show, he maintained that nobody forced him or paid him to lie. To me this is proof positive that he either knowingly lied back then or is knowingly lying right now. I’ll go with the latter.

Now as you may or may not be aware of, a British tabloid called The Sunday People and The Mirror came out with a story about FBI files that showed that Michael paid off 24 boys that he molested. In actuality, these so called “FBI” files were nothing of the sort. They were transcripts of interviews compiled by a tabloid journalist, a former porn star, in the 1990’s who paid his sources and even made one up. These transcripts were acquired by a private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, working for the Jackson defense team. 10 years later, Pellicano was prosecuted for wiretapping and is now in jail. The FBI seized all of his files of which these were a small part. The allegations noted in the Sunday People and Mirror article were from an interview of the LeMarques (ex-employees of Neverland). They were willing to sell their alleged story about Jackson to the tabloids. As the price tag went up (possibly as high as $500,000), they continued to embellish their outlandish tale. Investigators in the 1990’s found the couple to lack credibility. In desperation, when his case was on the skids, Santa Barbara DA Tom Sneddon put the LeMarques on the witness stand in Jackson's 2005 trial. Their testimony was destroyed under cross examination and a very conservative jury rejected their testimony. This “FBI file” story was quickly debunked by a variety of news sources including the following; http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/03/showbiz/michael-jackson-files/index.html, http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2...reau-never-paid-millions-silence-abused-kids/, http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/06/3...les-are-from-people-discredited-long-time-ago, http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/06/3...-british-press-heres-the-real-story-from-2005
Michael’s actual FBI files were released in 2009, which you can see online on the FBI’s website, and they vindicate him more than anything else. It is interesting, however, that when this story first came out, Wade proclaimed that those so called “FBI” files proved his allegations and asked his lawyers to get a hold of them. After the story was disproven, however, he was suddenly silent. Now for him to say that this “FBI” file story is proof that he’s telling the truth only tells me the opposite and shows how desperate he is, and shows the lack of substance his case has. Wade also tried to reach out to a maid who worked at Neverland, Blanca Francia, who claimed to have seen him showering with Michael. Wade himself denied this in 2005, but her story was discredited regardless because she admitted that she had been paid for her story and admitted to have only seen and heard one person, Michael, in the shower in a deposition in 1993. The fact that he is trying to use this person to bolster his case is, to me, another sign of desperation on his part. He also claimed that his father killed himself over the thought that Michael had molested Wade. It is important to note that Wade’s father died in 2002. That’s three years before Wade (and his sister and mother) testified in Michael’s defense, and eleven years before Wade suddenly realized that he’d allegedly been abused, and let’s not forget all the positive things Wade (and his family) said about Michael in the years before, in between, and after. His claim about his father is therefore nonsensical and further proof of his desperation in my opinion.

I also want to bring up how Wade claimed on the Today Show that he wasn’t doing any of this for money, and yet he filed BOTH a creditors claim and a civil lawsuit against Michael’s estate. This is not indicative of somebody who is not after money. In his civil lawsuit, Wade is suing the executors of Michael’s estate (John Branca and John McClain), MJJ Productions (Michael's record label which hired Wade when he was 11), and MJJ Ventures (which produced Michael's music videos) and 46 other defendants associated with these entities who have yet to be identified. Wade filed this lawsuit against the aforementioned parties on the grounds that they were responsible for protecting him and should therefore answer for the alleged sexual abuse he says he suffered at the hands of Michael Jackson. Now my question is this; if Wade is telling the truth about his alleged abuse and is now out to make the parties that were responsible for his protection answer for their failure to keep him safe, and not to collect money, then why does he not appear to have taken any action against his mother considering that she was more responsible for his safety than any of the other parties being sued? After all, Wade was a minor at the time this alleged abuse occurred, and thus his mother was legally responsible for his well being. His mother also testified in Michael’s defense and said that she trusted him completely and that she never saw or suspected that he harmed her son or anyone for that matter. She, like Wade, continuously defended him for years and approved of Michael’s relationship with her son. If Wade is to be believed, that would mean that Joy’s continuous approval, trust, and defense of Michael and his relationship with her son (even after Michael was accused of and investigated for child molestation, because what responsible parent would allow their child to associate with someone accused of child molestation unless they knew for sure that that person was innocent) helped make it possible for any alleged abuse to occur thus showing her to be an unfit parent and thus making her culpable, if not liable (considering that Wade is now an adult), for Wade's alleged abuse. My other question in this case would be that if Wade's mother isn’t being held accountable for his alleged abuse, why can parties like MJJ Ventures and MJJ Productions be held responsible considering that it was through Wade's decision (with his mother's approval and acceptance) to personally associate with Michael outside of the confines of his business relationship with the pre-mentioned parties that he was allowed to be made vulnerable to any alleged abuse by him? Now if Wade truly wants to make those who were responsible for protecting him answer for their alleged failure to do so, would it not make sense for him to take at least some kind of action against his mother? I can only speculate at this point, but could it be that perhaps there is more money to be had for Wade by suing these other parties rather than his mother? In my opinion, if Wade is being completely truthful about not making his accusations for money, then the fact that he's willing to play the blame game and point the finger at these other parties and yet not place blame where blame is due in regards to his mother tells me just the opposite. What do you think? Taking all of this into account, is it any wonder why most people don’t believe him?

Yassssss! I'm getting everlasting life from posts like these! Thank you very much for posting this! :heart:

I'm sick and tired of all this.. to the point of being exhausted (as I am sure many others are). But then again if ''I''/'We'' give up now who is going to care? Who is going to fight for Michael? Certainly not his family and friends. That is why 'I', 'WE' the FANS are so important. We have to keep on fighting, no matter what, not matter how exhausted we are, no matter how draining the reoccuring battles are. We have to do it for Michael, because he is not here to defend himself anymore

Amen. We are basically the only loyal people besides the kids that Michael has. and that's sad, because family is supposed to have your back. We see how THAT one went. It breaks my heart to know they've abandoned him like that, for real.

Now, back to this allegations mess. I've come to realize that people actually give all the people who have shady backgrounds, were caught in a lie, and lack credibility a FREE pass and every single piece of evidence proving Mike's innocence is denied. That's what I hate--these people literally WANT him to be guilty, and quite frankly prove to me and anyone with at least half a brain that.

The sadder part is though, that I'm in my early teens and I have more knowledge and common sense than these guys. Now that's a serious shame right there.

 

[Kerry Hennigan]

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

The summation of Wade's claims and history of association with MJ is excellent in encapsulating the facts of the matter as we are aware of them and useful ammunition for refuting those who believe Robson just because they don't like Michael. Nothing has changed in the media since 2005, in fact it has only gotten worse, so yes, there are plenty who would like to see Michael's reputation blackened again/still. It gives them headlines, it gives the gossip lovers more rubbish to read/believe, it helps the cheerfully ignorant stay ignorant.

I despair for the planet the way the media continues to manipulate and fabricate, and for the people willing to use it to satisfy their personal greed without considering the damage to others.

As MJ fans we must find the strength to weather the storm - most of you have done it before (I'm a 2009 newbie, I have to admit) and I know you/we will do it again. Of course, even if exposed as fraudulent, Robson's claims will not be forgotten and will resurface at any given opportunity to add fuel to any story about Michael, same as the 1993 and 2005 allegations/charges.

But, we have lots of intelligent fact collectors and checkers amongst our numbers who have all the information at hand to expose the untruths said about the man we love. Thank you to Daniel Hernandez @Myster_D for his original post. Thank you MJJ Fan4321 for posting it here!

 

[MJJ Fan4321]

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

https://www.facebook.com/chantal.l.robson?fref=ts

https://www.facebook.com/joeyrobsonagent

https://www.facebook.com/wade.robson.10

 

[AliCat]

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

Sandusky molested 26 young men during a 15 year period. That's why it's hard to believe that Michael Jackson molested anyone, there just weren't enough victim's in the short time that Michael was first accused.

I highly doubt a one of the victim's even used the excuse of looking at their first born and deciding that would be a motivating factor of coming forward. It's the innocence of a child that young that impugn's one's motives.

Ever since Vincent Bugliosi capitalized upon Charles Manson and his "family," you just wonder about law enforcement and if they are more interested in making money when they go about prosecuting folk as writing a book and making a movie for your theory of what went down.

Charles Manson and those who lived with him were all about drug deal's. When drug deal's go bad, innocent people die and cover up's begin. Thomas Sneddon reminds me of Vincent Bugliosi too much, in this respect. Thomas Sneddon wanted to prove his theory and unlike Vincent Bugliosi, Thomas Sneddon wasn't able to capitalize upon his theory of Michael's criminal behavior. Then you get folk coming out of the woodwork who may or may not be a part of a highly publicized case, who want their 15 minutes of fame!