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

[SoCav]

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

How did he threaten him ? he told him he would go to juvenile jail ? or he said his going to ruin his career in showbiz ?

Maybe he threatened to file for divorce. :doh:

The ridiculous stories that are seemingly coming out daily at the moment might indeed do more good than harm in the bigger picture, because it does seem like it makes most people more sceptical about any claims ever made against MJ (better late than never I guess... sigh). Does not make it any less aggrevating, however... Where do these people even get these ideas from? They seriously expect people to believe that Michael Jackson would just casually drop his pants whenever he felt the urge and would pee all over his house, had a soiled diaper as his most prized possession, and would lead kids in anti-semitic chants while throwing darts at a picture of Steven Spielberg? Stacy Brown is one sick man. For Rebbie to be friends with this guy is just absolutely indefensible.

 

[Soundmind]

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

Rebbie needs Stacy , for Katherine is not going to live forever and Prince would not be so willing to support her for the rest of her life. She needs someone "creative" to help her write her explosive biography.

 

[Bubs]

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

It doesn't sound like Brian is ready to spill on beans of MJ just yet:
http://bsbf.com/pages/brian-friedman

You just don't go around showing off your resume that you worked with MJ, and next minute accusing him being pedo.

 

[HIStory]

I found an interesting article about insight orinented therapy (Wade claims to have been in insight oriented therapy when he claims to have "understood" he was allegedly abused): http://www.weiterbildung.uzh.ch/programme/weisheit/programm2012/unterlagen/WWJopling2001JCP.pdf

18 pages, worth reading. Some quotes from the article:

To cast light on these questions, and to coax them into a more
manageable format, I focus on one specific question which has an obvious bearing on the
scientific status of the insight-oriented psychotherapies: Does truth matter in the insight-
oriented psychotherapies—and if so, to what extent? In other words, is it the case in the
insight-oriented psychotherapies that clients’ explorations, discoveries, and insights, as
well as psychotherapists’ interpretations of their clients, must be true in order to be ther-
apeutically effective? To what degree are pseudo-insights, confabulations, and false-
hoods—in short, explanatory fictions—tolerated as therapeutically beneficial?

Despite disagreement about the nature and accessibility of truth, most of the insight-
oriented psychotherapies defend
some
form of commitment to the ideal of truth; more
primitively, most of them defend some form of
distinction
between truth and falsity. It is
these two commitments that (in their own view) help to distinguish what they do from
charlatanism and pseudo-science. If they were to give up these commitments, and thereby
allow that their treatment methods and the theoretical frameworks in which they are
imbedded were not instrumental in getting at the truth, and not thereby instrumental in
occasioning therapeutic change, then there would be no way of telling them apart from
bogus methods and bogus theoretical frameworks that make similar-sounding claims. It
is commitment to truth that is one of the crucial planks in the insight-oriented psycho-
therapies’ project to be scientific.

But these two commitments are jeopardized by a number of unwarranted inferential
leaps in both the first-order practices and the second-order theories of the insight-oriented
psychotherapies.

According to the principle of interpretive agency, which is a variant of the principle
of therapeutic specificity, one of the high points of the therapeutic process (from the
therapist’s point of view) is the development of an interpretation which uncovers, or at
least points to, the truth about the client’s psyche and target disorders. Interpretations are
regarded as powerful instruments of therapeutic change. They serve to guide, challenge,
or reframe clients’ explorations in a manner that is ostensibly nonsuggestive and non-
manipulative; they render otherwise puzzling experiences intelligible and coherent; and,
most importantly, they assist clients in acquiring veridical insight.

What makes one interpretation true and another false? In practice, a number of singly
necessary and jointly sufficient truth conditions are called upon.An interpretation is con-
sidered to be true if (a) it tallies with the facts of the client’s psyche, target disorders, and
lifeprocesses; (b) it is followedbysignificant changes intheclient’s conduct; (c) the client
accepts it as true; (d) it moves the process of exploration forward by triggering new dis-
coveries and opening up new topics; (e) it is analogous to and consistent with a sufficiently
robust number of other case histories; and (f) it makes previously unintelligible experi-
ences in the client’s life intelligible. There are, obviously, problems with each of these cri-
teria and with their compatibility with one another, but these will not be addressed here.

Naturally, the achievement of insight is an intense experience (or series of experi-
ences) that comes after months of struggle and hard work. It is all the more intense be-
cause it occasions a certain disenchantment with pretherapeutic self-understandings, which,
from the therapeutic and post-therapeutic point of view, appear to be superficial or mis-
leading. The intensity of the experience is often enough to convince clients that the truth
has finally been achieved—but this is clearly an unworkable criterion of truth: Intense
feelings also can be generated by illusions and importantly false beliefs that mimic gen-
uine insight.

First, the mere acquisition of insight is not a guarantee that the insight is true. This is
the case even if the acquisition of insight is the culmination of months of hard work and
struggle in a setting that constantly reinforces the image of insight-oriented psychother-
apy as a legitimate venue for exploration and authentic discovery.

For example, what might appear to the client to be verid-
ical insight may in fact be the product of a pervasive and undetected strategy of self-
deception that finds support within the therapeutic setting, or it may be a false realization
which becomes apparent with further (post-therapeutic) self-inquiry and further (post-
therapeutic) consideration of the evidence.

Second, the client’s level of conviction about the validity and authenticity of a newly
won insight is not a guarantee that the insight is true. The client may be deeply convinced
about—even form strong identifications with—an insight that is in fact psychologically
and historically false. The client’s level of conviction simply may be a function of a
temporary lapse of judgment that is the result of systematically distorted epistemic and
interpretive standards brought about by prolonged exposure to the epistemic and inter-
pretive standards of the therapy.

Naturally, this is not to deny the methodological signif-
icance of emotional arousal as a key ingredient in the acquisition of insight; but the fact
that clients become emotionally aroused in certain stages in the therapy, during which
they appear to arrive at an understanding of issues in their lives that they would not
otherwise have understood, is not a guarantee that what they have understood in the
emotionally aroused state is true.

Third, the therapist’s conviction about the authenticity of the client’s explorations,
and the truth-value of the client’s insight, is not a guarantee of the truth of the insight.
Therapists have neither privileged nor authoritative access to their clients’ life histories
and psychologies, even when their therapeutic interventions have all the marks of being
carried out correctly according to the standards of the therapeutic theory and the clinical
norms of the community of practitioners. Nor do therapists occupy the point of view of unbiased and impartial observers: They have vested interests in seeing their work suc-
ceed, they operate with theoretical orientations that have the potential to blind them to
salient psychological and behavioral evidence, and they have only a finite amount of
clinical material with which to work.

Fourth, the occurrence of therapeutic change following the acquisition of insight is
not a guarantee of the insight’s truth. To assume otherwise is to commit the fallacy of post
hoc ergo propter hoc. There are a number of plausible alternative explanations that would
have to be ruled out before accepting that therapeutic change was directly or indirectly a
function of the truth of the insight. The change, for example, may have occurred because
of factors less related to the truth-value of the insight than to its capacity to persuade the
client with its
apparent
coherence, elegance, and explanatory power. One of the factors
common to all forms of psychotherapy is that clients are supplied with a coherent ratio-
nale that explains their problems, gives otherwise puzzling symptoms a name (Torrey,
1986), and provides a socially sanctioned method of treatment. But even if the rationale
is false, and the symptomatology and nosology unsubstantiated, the therapy may still be
effective. In these cases, therapeutic agency rests on the client’s
belief
in the rationale’s
validity and veridicality—actual truth value notwithstanding (Frank, 1989; Frank & Frank,
1991)

Here, I will explore only one alternative explanation of the phenomena that occur
in the insight-oriented psychotherapies: the therapeuticity of insight-mimicking explan-
atory fictions and therapy-induced self-deceptions and illusions. In some respects, this
explanation is at once the most obvious and the most easily overlooked. This is because
it is so clearly at odds with the standard view. Rather than beginning with the obvious
assumption that the insight-oriented psychotherapies are likely to generate veridical
insight, and that any failures to do so are to be explained as failures in the application
of the treatment methods (rather than failures in the methods themselves and the
theories that explain them), I will begin with the opposite assumption: that the insight-
oriented psychotherapies are likely to generate illusions, deceptions, pseudo-insights,
and adaptive self-misunderstandings that convincingly mimic bona fide insight; and
that their failures to generate bona fide insight are not merely failures in the applica-
tion of the treatment methods but failures in the methods and the therapeutic theories
themselves.

The second guiding assumption is that it may be more socially and psychologically
adaptive to remain deceived, ignorant, or deluded about oneself than to be knowledge-
able; that is, to live with an understanding of self that is shaped by misinformation,
fabrication, false theories, and benign fictions.

Pseudo-
interpretations of human experience, behavior, and the self nonetheless serve the function
of interpreting suffering, unexplained natural forces, and puzzling behaviors, thereby
making them more bearable than they would be otherwise, and supplying for them socially
sanctioned remedies

Placebo insights carry a degree of coherence and
plausibility that is marginally greater than the pretherapeutic interpretation of the target
disorders that serves as the baseline against which they are compared. They appear to
effect therapeutically beneficial symptom relief or intrapsychic personality change, and
thus appear to display genuine causal agency. But the effectiveness of placebo insights is
unrelated to their content and truth-value. They are effective only to the extent that (a)
they are subjectively pleasing to the clients who have struggled to acquire them,
and
who expect their struggles to pay off; (b) they receive consensual support, and are con-
sistent with the existing knowledge structure that is supplied by the therapeutic theory;
and (c) they appear to refer to the salient aspects of the client’s psychological make-up
and behavior, as these are identified under the therapeutic theory’s postulated hypothet-
ical constructs. The therapeutic effectiveness that placebo insights appear to manifest can
be explained adequately in terms of factors that have little to do with truth value.

Placebo insights are a direct function of the highly volatile nature of the therapeutic
encounter in exploratory psychotherapy. Given the psychological and cognitive pressures
generated by the therapeutic encounter (Calestro, 1972; Strupp, 1972), including the
wide range of expectancy effects, and the occurrence of doctrinal compliance (Grün-
baum, 1986, 1993), there is a permanent risk that clients may be persuaded to accept from
their therapists as true certain putatively truth-tracking interpretations that are in fact
psychologically and historically incorrect (Mendel, 1964; Schmideberg, 1939). Episte-
mically, this leads to a downward spiral. Under the influence of false or inexact interpre-
tations, leading questions (Fish, 1986), and subtle cues, clients will make false discoveries,
and will come to formulate for themselves false insights on the basis of evidentiary and
interpretive criteria that have been progressively weakened by continued exposure to the
pressures of the therapeutic situation and the therapist’s theoretical orientation.

Placebo insights,
unlike insights constituted by simple-minded psychological jargon, are characterized by
a certain level of psychological robustness and complexity; and they are influenced by
the therapist’s technical terminology, which has the power to seduce clients who are
psychologically minded and mystify those who are not.

It also would be a mistake to think that the acquisition of placebo insights leaves
clients unchanged in all but their
beliefs
about themselves and their disorders. Placebo
insights are not without psychological and behavioral consequences. They are not false in
the way that false beliefs about states of affairs in the world are false. False beliefs about
the chemical composition of a brick of gold, for example, do not alter the gold itself or the
kinds of evidence it yields. By contrast, importantly false beliefs about one’s own psy-
chology, behavior, or life history have the potential to alter one’s actual self. With suffi-
cient reinforcement, importantly false beliefs can become just as powerful a determinant
of behavior, attitude, and character as veridical beliefs.

While clients interpret the changes they experience
as a matter of coming to a clearer awareness of certain salient and antecedently given
facts about their psychology, behavior, and life history, what is really happening is that
the therapeutically driven changes in their lives are making their forms of self-awareness
clearer and more determinate than they would otherwise have been, by generating the
very objects of that self-awareness.
The metaphor of insight-oriented psychotherapy as a kind of mirror of the soul, or as
a kind of archaeology, is therefore misleading. Clients are less like archaeologists of the
soul and more like explorers in a strange land whose every step forward alters the land-
scape which they are exploring.

It would be mistaken to conclude, therefore, that placebo insights are always and
necessarily bad for the insight-oriented psychotherapies, and ought to be eradicated at all
costs if psychotherapy is not to be reduced to the level of charlatanism or pseudoscience.
Placebo insights help clients
feel
that they are more insightful, more coherent, and more
in touch with themselves than they would otherwise have had occasion to be, even if
there is a clear sense in which they are significantly
less
in touch with themselves than
they believe themselves to be. Moreover, placebo insights have the potential to serve the
purely instrumentalist function of offering up useful guides or tools for post-therapeutic
self-inquiry, which might ultimately lead to genuinely truth-tracking insights—or to fur-
ther insight-mimicking illusions and deceptions.

But if placebo insights can be said to
“work” for clients, they do not work for the reasons that clients and therapists think they
work, that is, because they get at the truth, and because they supply accurate explanations
of the client’s target disorders and psychological make-up. Rather, they work to the extent
that they bring about a more fictionalized contact with reality, including the reality of the
self. Because how things
seem
to the client and the therapist and how things
are
are quite
distinct, the scientific explanation of how the insight-oriented psychotherapies work is
significantly different from that provided by therapists in their theoretical accounts of
their practices and from that provided by clients in their first-person reports about their
newly won insights and newly changed behaviors.

First, if placebo insights are admitted into therapeutic practice as useful, then it
becomes difficult to see how the legitimate uses of insight-oriented psychotherapy can be
demarcated from the illegitimate uses. The criterion for demarcating insight-oriented
psychotherapies that trade in fiction and fantasy from those that track the truth—and, a
fortiori, for demarcating pseudoscientific from scientific psychotherapies—is much less
clear and much less comprehensive that what defenders of the standard model would like.

Second, the benefits of placebo insights always must be weighed against the undesir-
able interpersonal consequences that may follow from their cultivation (Jopling, 1996). If
one of the central functions of placebo insights is to mediate the harsh impact of reality
through explanatory fictions, then one of the potential consequences is the editing or
filtering out of negative social feedback—that is, the criticisms, advice, disapprovals, and
hurt feelings of other persons. But while this may be beneficial from a strictly self-
regarding standpoint, it can result in a kind of “other-blindness:” that is, a systematic
misrecognition or misinterpretation of the effects of one’s actions upon others. If thera-
peutically induced illusions and deceptions leave clients less responsive to negative social
feedback, then they are less capable of experiencing the kinds of moral and personal
growth that are only possible in contexts of interpersonal relations unencumbered by
illusions and deceptions.

Finally, embracing explanatory fictions and therapy-induced self-deceptions for their
therapeutic value runs into conflict with some of our deeper convictions about what it is
to be a fully developed and fully self-aware human being. Generally, knowledge is pref-
erable to ignorance. Self-knowledge is widely regarded as one of the goods of human life
while self-ignorance and self-deception are regarded as moral failings. Part of our con-
ception of what it is to be a responsible moral agent is that we place a high value on being
cognizant of who we are, where we are going in our lives, what moves us to action, how
we affect others, and how others regard us. This amounts to more than a superficial
awareness of self. We ascribe genuine self-knowledge to those who have raised the ques-
tion “Who am I?” in a searching and fundamental manner; who have assumed a stance of
reflective self-evaluation and self-criticism toward core desires, beliefs, motives, emo-
tions, and character traits; and who have achieved a significantly greater degree of action-
guiding insight with respect to their motives and values than they would otherwise have
had occasion to achieve (Jopling, 2000). With this increased awareness comes a greater
degree of responsibility. Any attempt to reduce this level of awareness of self, and the
self’s relation to others, through the mediation of explanatory fictions and therapy-
induced illusions is like an act of disconnection that severs the self from itself. Embracing
placebo insights uncritically for their therapeutic value carries with it the implication that
it is better to see the world (and oneself) through a veil of illusion or fantasy for the
deluded contentment it delivers, than it is to see the world as it is.

 

[Bubs]

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

Taj is on twitter now. I'm glad to see it. He's one person who I know won't let this rest until justice is done

As nice as it is that Taj is posting about media abuse MJ is receiving at the moment, but his sentiments is lost with me when he is buddies and working with one woman who went on media telling MJ being rudest person she ever met. To me his words are empty without meaning if his actions speaks against his message. To me he says Stacy B and other crooks cannot speak badly of his uncle, but it is not too bad if somebody he works with says something bad about MJ.

Sometimes I just cannot understand these Jacksons. One moment they are whining about bad press about them, next moment they give an exclusive interview the very same media outlet that started bad press.
Family sues AEG, but J4 does mind working on them.
Taj moans in twitter about media treatment towards MJ, but works with woman who fuelled bad press about MJ.

:bugeyed

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

I believe since radar has been wades mouth piece since day one . his "supporters" who are mainly mj's haters are dominating it .You should not expect to find objective people there.

Radaronline is sick. I've seen 3 articles on wade (thanks for posting on the forums as i'm never going to click on that site) and in each one they repeat the most vile act wade describes, for no necessary reason. Who does that, it conjures up disturbing pedo imagery. It's more than just being salacious, it's really disturbing. They need to get a grip as they're looking as if they're getting a thrill out of all this.

 

[HIStory]

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

It doesn't sound like Brian is ready to spill on beans of MJ just yet:
http://bsbf.com/pages/brian-friedman

You just don't go around showing off your resume that you worked with MJ, and next minute accusing him being pedo.

They are all the same. Charles Klapow, another friend of Wade (also represented by the same entertainment lawyer as Wade - Helen Yu), showed support to Wade, but it did not stop him from putting a video and bragging about an encounter with MJ on his Instagram on this last death anniversary of MJ.

According to Chantal MJ was a horrible person, but she's been selling MJ memorabilia shortly before Wade came public with his allegations. Sorry, but if I found out my brother was raped for 7 years by that person I would not sell his memorabilia to other people to appreciate it, but I would burn it. I would not want to feed other people's fandom for that person in any way.

And it's the same with friends and family of past accusers. When it's convenient they are gonna name-drop Michael. Like Sonnet Simmons in her official bio on her website:

For this pivotal project, she enlisted a preeminent team of producers, mixers and composers who have all worked with such musical megastars as Michael Jackson, Adele, Beyonce, and Josh Groban.

http://sonnetmusic.tumblr.com/bio

 

[Bonnie Blue]

What makes one interpretation true and another false? In practice, a number of singly
necessary and jointly sufficient truth conditions are called upon.An interpretation is con-
sidered to be true if (a) it tallies with the facts of the client’s psyche, target disorders, and
lifeprocesses; (b) it is followedbysignificant changes intheclient’s conduct; (c) the client
accepts it as true; (d) it moves the process of exploration forward by triggering new dis-
coveries and opening up new topics; (e) it is analogous to and consistent with a sufficiently
robust number of other case histories; and (f) it makes previously unintelligible experi-
ences in the client’s life intelligible.

And (g)it results in a possible lawsuit claiming $millions and millions in damages.

Thats interesting article respect. All a bit over my head, but it seems to boil down to if you've got a psychological problem then blaming abuse by mj seems a good way to go.

 

[Bubs]

Radaronline is sick. I've seen 3 articles on wade (thanks for posting on the forums as i'm never going to click on that site) and in each one they repeat the most vile act wade describes, for no necessary reason. Who does that, it conjures up disturbing pedo imagery. It's more than just being salacious, it's really disturbing. They need to get a grip as they're looking as if they're getting a thrill out of all this.

Jen Heger has entered into same disturbing place than Demon D has been lived a few decades
https://twitter.com/jenheger/with_replies

When she was thanked by Wade ally's, she replied this:
jen hutton heger @jenheger · Aug 8
@waderobsonallys only fair to report both sides.

What both sides? I have seen many articles where Radar have given time and space for Wade, but only 1 article about Weitzman denying settlement talks.

Diane D has that very same twisted way of reasoning in her post about MJ.

Somebody replied to Jen:
@jenheger You say you support from both sides but what you retweet says otherwise. You are a biased piece of shit

I wouldn't be surprised if Jen Heger hold Diane Demon as her mentor as she follows her twitter
jen hutton heger @jenheger · Aug 9
@DiDimond spot on!

 

[HIStory]

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

^^ RadarOnline has clearly been hijacked by haters.

But the thing is most journalists, esp. the tabloid type will side with the party which keeps feeding them with info. Haters obviously send them all kind of crap all the time. I'm sure it was haters too who gave them a heads up about that document containing Robson's graphic allegations.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

This is a full attack. The estate is not doing what they wanted them to do and this how they react. No money no money

 

[Bubs]

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

Jen Heger seems to be a little too invested on this case as seemingly she follows some heaters site
I found this from her twitter

XSCAPE ?@MJJTrends Aug 8
@jenheger Why are you following @RealMJFacts, one of the biggest most obsessed MJ haters online? Getting tips for more stories? Shameful.

?@jenheger
@MJJTrends @RealMJFacts i folo a variety of people, organizations, etc.

2:36 PM - 8 Aug 2014
XSCAPE ?@MJJTrends Aug 8
@jenheger @RealMJFacts Bullshit. This person is known online for being obsessed with MJ being a pedophile & you following them is shameful.

XSCAPE ?@MJJTrends Aug 8
@jenheger Do you follow any MJ innocent accounts like @SaneMJFan, @MJTruthNow, or @MJJRepository? Or is the truth too boring for your site?


I cannot check who JH is following in her twitter, but I would be interested to know whether she follows sites mentioned in that convo above. Or maybe she has other reason to follow (UN)RealMJfacts

 

[myosotis]

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

^^Respect77: Thank you for that extract. I especially liked the conclusion:

Embracing placebo insights uncritically for their therapeutic value carries with it the implication that
it is better to see the world (and oneself) through a veil of illusion or fantasy for the deluded contentment it delivers, than it is to see the world as it is.

 

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

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

This is a full attack. The estate is not doing what they wanted them to do and this how they react. No money no money

I wish the Estate could go to Washington and start a law allowing lawsuits to protect the reputations of dead celebrities. Michael broke down barriers in music. The Estate could break down barriers for court challenges to media messes like this. Otherwise they (and Michael along with others) will be constantly under attack forever. The Estate needs to do something. That's all there is to it.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

^^ RadarOnline has clearly been hijacked by haters.

But the thing is most journalists, esp. the tabloid type will side with the party which keeps feeding them with info. Haters obviously send them all kind of crap all the time. I'm sure it was haters too who gave them a heads up about that document containing Robson's graphic allegations.

The strange thing was she was not always like this. Jen Hegar that is. Plenty of fans followed her and even tipped her off about stories. Sounds like she made a deal with the devil

 

[dannyboy72]

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

Wade's story would sound more believable if he claimed that the abuse started at the age of 9 because that is when he and his family moved to the united states and got closer to MJ. This would also give MJ time for grooming--expensive gifts, trips, etc..But he claims the abuse immediately started on the second night he stayed at neverland. Hopefully his case will get thrown exactly where it belongs--out the window.

 

[Bubs]

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

The strange thing was she was not always like this. Jen Hegar that is. Plenty of fans followed her and even tipped her off about stories. Sounds like she made a deal with the devil

Yeah, I think she stepped too close to Demon D and got herself infected with same decease than Demon has.

Anyway, regarding to Stacy B bs story. In the past he didn't have problems to name maid (Francia or what ever was her name)in his articles, but this time he just calls them maid 1,2,and 3. I guess he and NY post run out the money to pay for Francia so they made up the latest bs, and to make it more scandalous they added 2 extra maids:doh:

 

[seany]

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

I cannot find that, can you post a screen shot or something Brian replying to her?

Brian credits MJ to be his idol, and has photos of him on Immortal red carpet, he danced with Janet on VMA tribute to MJ, and now he agrees with Wade!

How do I send a screen shot using a phone? I can email it to you.

 

[seany]

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

Jamie King

Sorry... Jamie King is a threat? Sorry I'm a bit lost. What do you mean? To MJ?

 

[Soundmind]

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

Sorry... Jamie King is a threat? Sorry I'm a bit lost. What do you mean? To MJ?

To all those losers. From Wade to Friedman .

 

[angelofhope]

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

Morality and telling the truth seems to have gone out of fashion. WR and Chucky as I shall now refer to him call him are lying cowards. They didn't have the guts to tell their lies when Michael was alive and break his heart so they wait till he dies and breaks Michaels childrens hearts instead.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

The strange thing was she was not always like this. Jen Hegar that is. Plenty of fans followed her and even tipped her off about stories. Sounds like she made a deal with the devil

Not always like what though? You mean in the aeg trial and the grannynapping? - because she writes articles anti-jackson family that somehow makes her pro-mj? Couldn't understand why fans saw her as being on 'their' side - she's tabloid. They're the 'enemy',like roger - he can write articles helpful to mj one minute and can trash him the next. You never, ever trust them, just use them if it suits your own agenda.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Now it all makes sense

 

[ILoveHIStory]

What amazises me endlessly.... is this most importatnt thing of WDs idiotic claims... that ... IF Wade claims he was supposed to be - abused - during the period from 1993-1997=4 years since in 1993 investigation of Jordy Chandler´s dad accusations came up... and after the megahuge investigation, including the photos of MJ´s private parts that humiliated MJ taken in 1993... yeah... Michael was to - willingly - risk the time of the worldwide media frenzy as well as the Sneddon overzealous attempt to get MJ and MJ continued with molesting Wade... in 1993-1994-1995-1996-1997 ???????????????
(hey, and including the time of his marriage with Lisa Marie, and HIStory promo era and HIStory tour....)

Hello????

At least this totally destroys his whole case... to be believable.

Why nobody on discussions ever poited put to this fact?

 

[J5master]

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

^^^ haters just love to say that once a child molester always a child molester - and that they can't stop even if they're at risk. That's usually how they explain away the idiocy.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

^^^ haters just love to say that once a child molester always a child molester - and that they can't stop even if they're at risk. That's usually how they explain away the idiocy.

Pedophilia is a mental illness. Though pedophiles cannot control how they feel, they can however control whether or not they act on their urges. So even if a person is a pedophile, that doesn't mean they molested children.

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

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

Stacy Brown tweeted this reply to King Jordan. And this is the POS Rebbie has been publicly showing support for since 2004

@StacyBrownMedia
@MrKingJordan @nypost And, tell me how am I supposed to care what Messeareu thinks or feels. He contributed to pedophilia in my opinion

It was in response to this video

 

[Victory22]

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

Stacy Brown tweeted this reply to King Jordan. And this is the POS Rebbie has been publicly showing support for since 2004

@StacyBrownMedia
@MrKingJordan @nypost And, tell me how am I supposed to care what Messeareu thinks or feels. He contributed to pedophilia in my opinion

It was in response to this video

WOW! Rebbie's support makes her worse then Brown is.

 

[GreenEyes]

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

Stacy Brown tweeted this reply to King Jordan. And this is the POS Rebbie has been publicly showing support for since 2004

@StacyBrownMedia
@MrKingJordan @nypost And, tell me how am I supposed to care what Messeareu thinks or feels. He contributed to pedophilia in my opinion

It was in response to this video

Thank God for Tom! Telling it like it is.

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

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

WOW! Rebbie's support makes her worse then Brown is.

Brown started off supporting MJ, until early 2004 there were reports MJ wasn't taking Katherine's calls, Stacy was on one of the news shows saying MJ needs to call his mother, then MJ sent a open letter to a few people, Stacy was one of them, saying to STFU, that he doesn't know him, and he doesn't speak for MJ and his family, thats when Rebbie came out and said, that Stacy speaks for her, and that is when Stacy turned on MJ. On Rebbie's last tour he managed her and she thanked him during every show. What a loving, caring sister she was.