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

[InvincibleMJ]

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

They are destroying their own cases with every new filing.

Right! I guess it's a good thing. Isn't there any limit for how much you can twist your initial claim?

 

[SarahJ]

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

It's like Wade, James and their lawyers got stuck in a loop. That's what happens when you tell a lie, you have to tell more lies for it to sound logic and eventually there going to be huge holes when you put the whole story together. I really don't think they thought it through when they first filled the lawsuit. What we're witnessing now is them realizing they are doomed.

Or they never expected it to get this far where they'd have to explain it. They were anticipating a quick settlement.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

It never made any sense to me. Why would Michael tell that to someone he molested? Both of them would know he molested him, so what use there is in MJ telling Robson it was a lie that people make up about them?

Exactly. It's a private phone conversation. It's not like the police were listening on the other end. If MJ had really abused him for 7 years, he would have said something like "They're saying we did all these sexual stuff but we can't let them know it really happened, so I need you to come and testify for me. We have to fight them together". MJ would call it "disgusting lies" because they WERE "disgusting lies" and they were PROVED to be "disgusting lies" in court. Wade is an idiot.

 

[nikirox]

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

Who can take this dude seriously?

He is just speaking of the prototype of abuse... people who suffered any type of abuse tends to feel like they have the fault for what happened, you just have to search for experiences and you will see... it isn't like he is saying something different from usual experiences.

And what's the thing with that project he has with his wife?! I found it pretty dark because they are related to real abused children and he can totally construct a fake story from those kids...

 

[mjjmsc]

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

Wade is a joke, he is so twisted in his won lies, I really hope the judge will put an end to this soon!

 

[barbee0715]

Anybody know anything about this? This is an article that hit my inbox written by Thomas Mesereau-he apparently thinks the Jerry Sandusky case should have a second look. And feels like a lot of the victims (and witnesses) are coming forth because of Penn State's deep pockets.

http://www.centredaily.com/2015/03/31/4680643_their-view-michael-jacksons-lawyer.html?rh=1

I watched a lot of this-I'm not a football fan and honestly had never heard of Joe Paterno, before this started. But then I'm not the norm in America. But I did watch this case, since it seemed like a crazy witch hunt from the beginning-as I have other high profile child sex abuse cases. I saw differences immediately in the interview with Sandusky and the statement that Michael made from Neverland. HUGE DIFFERENCES.

But, was wondering what everybody else thought. Personally, I really don't like it when Mesereau uses Michael as a comparison. I really don't.
Maybe I'm being too defensive.

I don't believe this is a tabloid, but I'll try to copy it over, so no one has to click on it.


OPINION: THEIR VIEW: MICHAEL JACKSON LAWYER THINKS SANDUSKY CASE MERITS SECOND LOOK

When I agreed to take over the defense of Michael Jackson against charges of child molestation, people thought I had lost my mind. Much of the public and the vast majority of the news media presumed that Jackson was guilty and that his defense was a lost cause.
Jackson, like Jerry Sandusky, was charged with horrific acts. Prosecutors claimed Jackson gave alcohol to a cancer-ravaged child to prepare him for multiple acts of molestation. They also presented evidence that Jackson had allegedly molested other victims. To solidify their claims, prosecutors tried to prove that Jackson had falsely imprisoned the victim’s family, abducted their children and made extortionate threats to stop any police investigation. Like in Sandusky, witnesses testified to sex acts in the shower and bedroom.
As it turned out, at trial the case against Jackson fell apart. He was rightly found not guilty and the despondent news media begrudgingly admitted defeat while quickly moving on to their next story.
Real criminal defense lawyers are skeptics. We don’t blindly accept conventional beliefs or public opinion.
If we did, many of our freedoms and civil liberties wouldn’t exist.
As a college football fan, I was both shocked and captivated by the developments surrounding Penn State’s football team in late 2011. A native of New Jersey, I loved Joe Paterno. Within days of the arrest of Jerry Sandusky and a suspiciously leaked grand jury presentment, both Paterno and university president Graham Spanier were fired without a hearing. This seemed wrong.
To an outsider, this dramatic act by Penn Staters who presumably knew them best seemed like a sign that Sandusky was obviously guilty and that the leaders of the Penn State community had suffered a complete moral collapse (though in an interview with Bill O’Reilly on Fox News , I expressed reservations about coming to such conclusions based on only a leaked grand jury report). Sandusky’s rapid conviction and the ensuing Freeh report appeared to confirm those presumptions.
However, since then, evidence has been evaluated in its full context and without the emotion attached to the original rush for vengeance. The notion that Penn State would put football ahead of the safety and welfare of young men is horrendous, but in this new light, significant and valid problems have been raised about the entire narrative of which the news media was so certain back in 2011.
Recently, the NCAA revoked all sanctions against Penn State and restored Paterno’s all-time wins and record. There seems little doubt that the NCAA would not have done this if it thought there was a significant chance that the three former Penn State administrators (who, remarkably still haven’t come close to a trial almost three years after Sandusky’s conviction) would be found guilty of having purposely covered up these crimes.
Credible voices now view the Freeh report with disdain and see its conclusions as, at best, unproven and, at worst, ludicrous. If there really was no cover-up, how did Sandusky possibly get away with these horrendous crimes for so long?
This entire case appears to be an all or nothing proposition. Because the only non-victim eyewitness in the entire case against Sandusky (a then-graduate assistant coach named Mike McQueary) apparently claimed in the grand jury to have heard/seen a rape, there are only two reasonable scenarios: either there was indeed a cover-up at Penn State, or McQueary’s story is not true.
Due to the extreme lack of ambiguity in that heinous accusation, it is seems impossible to believe that there was a miscommunication among so many people of such stature and accomplishment.
While I am not an expert on the case against Sandusky, I am informed that no actual victim testified to the McQueary allegation. Given the extreme amount of publicity that the story generated and the other unique circumstances of the case, it seems highly suspicious that no actual victim was found or ever came forward.
In the Michael Jackson trial, the prosecution was permitted to call witnesses who claimed to have seen children being molested. I called three of the actual purported victims who claimed they weren’t touched! I am skeptical of unsubstantiated third-party allegations like McQueary’s.
I recently was informed that there was actually a man who credibly claimed to be the person McQueary saw with Sandusky and that on the day Paterno was fired he gave a statement seemingly discrediting McQueary’s testimony. However, he never testified, apparently because both the prosecution and the defense feared what he would say. He did, I am informed, collect a substantial settlement from Penn State after the trial, while being represented by a lawyer who, I am also told, began representing Sandusky victims after this man’s statement (and who apparently handled civil cases for at least nine accusers).
I don’t know what really happened that night in 2001 (McQueary originally testified to the wrong date, month and year of the episode). I do however believe that the entire story as it was portrayed in the media doesn’t make sense. Even the jury, which convicted Sandusky on 45 counts, found him not guilty on the McQueary rape allegation.
It cannot be overstated how much, if the McQueary story is not true, this dramatically destroys the case against Paterno and Penn State. It also is potentially devastating to the case against Sandusky.
While the media and public have accepted that the sheer number of accusers against Sandusky is certain proof that he is guilty, if the McQueary episode didn’t happen the way we were originally told, then the original foundation for why all those accusers were immediately believed could completely erode.
Without McQueary, there appears to be no direct non-victim witness against Sandusky. That is particularly important in a case with zero physical evidence and not even one shred of pornography.
Without McQueary, all that really remains would be inconsistent testimony from men who ended up receiving (or are still pursuing) millions of dollars from Penn State.
Judging from the dramatic increase in grand jury activity following McQueary’s testimony, it is almost certain that investigators used McQueary’s story to convince new accusers to come forward. The prospect of huge financial settlements from Penn State looming from very early on in the case could have easily incentivized testimony in a way few, if any, cases like this have ever seen.
The Michael Jackson trial was littered with the testimony of people who had a financial incentive to exaggerate, embellish or worse. It was an embarrassment.
Given what I learned about molestation cases in the Jackson situation, I know how easily logic can be overwhelmed by the tidal wave of emotion they provoke. While there is no way for me to know what really happened between Sandusky and those boys, it seems clear that there is a rational scenario that is different than the public perception.
With the damage that was done to so many people by these allegations, doesn’t it make sense that our judicial system at least check the circumstances that led to that rapid verdict of public opinion back in 2011 especially if the media’s narrative of this entire case just doesn’t add up? Now that I understand Sandusky’s legal team is in the process of filing a Post-Conviction Relief Petition, maybe we should all give this case a second look.
Thomas Mesereau is a criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2015/03/...chael-jacksons-lawyer.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

 

[HIStory]

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

Mesereau really does not do any favours to Michael with some of his recent actions. He can make legal commentary on the Sandusky case all he wants but he should not drag Michael's name into it. Look at that headline now! What people will take away from it is that "Michael Jackson's lawyer defends Sandusky" - it doesn't say "Thomas Mesereau", it says "Michael Jackson's lawyer". He even misrepresents the case he was involved in!

Like in Sandusky, witnesses testified to sex acts in the shower and bedroom.

No one ever testified about witnessing "sex acts" between Michael and children in the shower and the bedroom or anywhere. So why the heck he has to drag Michael's name into the Sandusky mess like that I don't know. Just because Michael was innocent of such allegations it does not mean everyone else is and Meserau actually acknowledges in this article that he does not know much about the Sandusky case. So maybe he should not comment it then, at least not compare Michael, who was innocent, to a man who was most likely guilty.

I'm not one of those people either who believes an allegation just because it is made, but we should not practice this other extreme either to think that every sexual abuse allegation is false.

I checked out the website: it seems to be a website operated by Penn State Univesrity so I guess Mesereau was asked to write an article in defense of Penn State there. Still he should leave Michael out of it. Comparing him to a man who was most likely guilty does not do him any favours. The things that went on in the courtroom at Michael's trial are not analogous at all to the things that went on in the courtroom at the Sandusky trial. It also seems to be a minor website, so let's hope the article will soon be forgotten.

 

[barbee0715]

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

Mesereau really does not do any favours to Michael with some of his recent actions. He can make legal commentary on the Sandusky case all he wants but he should not drag Michael's name into it. Look at that headline now! What people will take away from it is that "Michael Jackson's lawyer defends Sandusky" - it doesn't say "Thomas Mesereau", it says "Michael Jackson's lawyer". He even misrepresents the case he was involved in!

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was really afraid that I was overreacting, but I've been pretty upset over it the last couple of days.

 

[nikirox]

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

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was really afraid that I was overreacting, but I've been pretty upset over it the last couple of days.

I had the same reaction and I don't think we are overreacting... Tom is out of place with his analysis...
I am pretty upset right now.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

Mesereau really does not do any favours to Michael with some of his recent actions. He can make legal commentary on the Sandusky case all he wants but he should not drag Michael's name into it. Look at that headline now! What people will take away from it is that "Michael Jackson's lawyer defends Sandusky" - it doesn't say "Thomas Mesereau", it says "Michael Jackson's lawyer". He even misrepresents the case he was involved in!



No one ever testified about witnessing "sex acts" between Michael and children in the shower and the bedroom or anywhere. So why the heck he has to drag Michael's name into the Sandusky mess like that I don't know. Just because Michael was innocent of such allegations it does not mean everyone else is and Meserau actually acknowledges in this article that he does not know much about the Sandusky case. So maybe he should not comment it then, at least not compare Michael, who was innocent, to a man who was most likely guilty.

I'm not one of those people either who believes an allegation just because it is made, but we should not practice this other extreme either to think that every sexual abuse allegation is false.

I checked out the website: it seems to be a website operated by Penn State Univesrity so I guess Mesereau was asked to write an article in defense of Penn State there. Still he should leave Michael out of it. Comparing him to a man who was most likely guilty does not do him any favours. The things that went on in the courtroom at Michael's trial are not analogous at all to the things that went on in the courtroom at the Sandusky trial. It also seems to be a minor website, so let's hope the article will soon be forgotten.

A security guard testified that he saw MJ performing a sex act on Jordan Chandler in a shower at Neverland.

 

[HIStory]

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

I just hope fans won't do the job of spreading around this article. Just let it die.

I respect Mez, but his judgement has not been the best with some of the things recently (this article, Sullivan book, his whole anti-Estate stance etc.). I know his point is that we should not believe an allegation just because it is made and I wholeheartedly agree with that, but these two cases could not have been any more different, so no need to make impression they were similar. There were two alleged victims testifying against Michael - and both of them turned out to be non-credible. Not simply because the lack of third party witnesses, but because of massive changes in their stories and self-contradictions and basically the whole circumstances of how their allegations emerged. And if Jordan had testified it would have been the same with him.

 

[HIStory]

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

A security guard testified that he saw MJ performing a sex act on Jordan Chandler in a shower at Neverland.

You mean Ralph Chacon? I think he testified he saw MJ kiss Jordan on the mouth and put his hand on his private area. But he was totally destroyed on the stand. He turned out to be totally non-credible. Did McQueary ever went to tabloids to sell stories? Did he ever say on the stand when caught in a lie why he claimed such things if they weren't true "just to say it"? Did he previously lose a lawsuit against Sandusky and was ordered to pay him money? I mean literally nothing is comparable about the level of credibility of the witnesses in the two cases. Actually McQueary DID report to his boss immediately what he saw, which is the normal thing to do. Chacon however never made these claims until in 1994 he was promised a gun permit and money by the prosecutors for his services and until he decided to file a lawsuit for money against Michael and sell tabloid stories. Chacon never reported what he allegedly witnessed to anyone when it supposedly happened. Never even mentioned it to anyone either formally or informally. The whole story only popped up in 1994 - out of totally nowhere. That's a huge and very significant difference here. McQueary did report it when it happened as he was supposed to do (only Penn State did nothing), Chacon however only started to "remember" it when there was financial benefit in it for him and after the Chandler allegations went public. HUGE difference!

 

[barbee0715]

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

I just hope fans won't do the job of spreading around this article. Just let it die.

I respect Mez, but his judgement has not been the best with some of the things recently (this article, Sullivan book, his whole anti-Estate stance etc.). I know his point is that we should not believe an allegation just because it is made and I wholeheartedly agree with that, but these two cases could not have been any more different, so no need to make impression they were similar.

I wouldn't ever post or even talk about an article like this any place other than here. Hope it's OK I posted it-I am a firm believer in people posting stories here so we don't have to go to the source to read it. It just got to me so I had to have a place to rant about it.

 

[Lil]

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

:sigh:Well, this was unexpected.. These cases (and the people involved) aren't similar in any way imo, and he shouldn't have made that comparison to prove his point. It only hurts his own -and with that Michael's- credibility, at least in the eye of the general public. And that's the last thing we need right now.. :no:

 

[ivy]

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

I get his point is "we shouldn't believe an allegation just because it is made and people lie for money" but I prefer Michael's innocence argument based on evidence. Plus I don't think Sandusky is comparable to MJ.

First of all Sandusky choose vulnerable victims - kids from broken homes and low income. First complaint (victim 6) dated back to 1998. McQueary wasn't the only third party witness. A Janitor told other janitors witnessing sexual abuse (victim 8) 1-2 yrs before McQueary. McQueary immediately told what he believed to witness to other people. All of the other people confirmed this. Nothing happened. Only after another victim came forward 7-8 years later McQueary's allegations became relevant. McQueary allegations wasn't the starting point, victim 1 was the starting point by reporting sexual abuse to authorities. Plus there have been third party witnesses who claimed to see odd behavior between sandusky and victim 1. I don't think McQueary had any financial motives to lie. Nothing happened for years and he surely wasn't paid any money those years. Victim 2 (the kid McQueary alleged to see being abused) was actually found / came forward. He first denied abuse claims and then said he was abused. Prosecutor didn't make him testify as his credibility at issue. He later had a private settlement from Penn State. Yes jurors did not convict Sandusky for sexual abuse of Victim 2 - as it should- as victim 2 didn't testify/ was not consistent and McQueary only claimed to witness something "that looked/sounded like sex". Given in a criminal trial the requirement is "without reasonable doubt", there was doubt and McQueary never claimed otherwise.

 

[ivy]

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

note : media request turned out to be by TMZ for the April 10 hearing.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

^ that sucks.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

note : media request turned out to be by TMZ for the April 10 hearing.

They were trying to get TMZ involved?

 

[barbee0715]

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

They were trying to get TMZ involved?

No, the judge just denied a media request for the April 10th hearing and we didn't know who-they just figured out it was TMZ.

Hmmmph-

 

[ivy]

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

Yeah the media request has been denied, so there won't be a video stream of the hearing. It's just the document was added to the online system and I saw it was TMZ, that's all.

That being said, given TMZ made a request and the most recent news story about Robson, I'm thinking - but cannot be sure- this April 10 (or April 7 according to the media story) hearing is a significant one for the probate claim. It is probably the first probate summary judgment hearing that prompted an interest by TMZ.

 

[marc_vivien]

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

Stacy Brown wrote another story

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Edit delete

 

[passy001]

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

Stacy Brown wrote another story

Yuck! Another senseless story by a nut job whose career is reduced to smearing MJ. That's all he does pretty much for a living.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I hope TMZ did it because it's an important court day and not because they suddenly care.

 

[barbee0715]

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

Does Stacy actually make a living from this? I can't imagine them paying him for any old stories floating around the internet.

So Tuesday is the day to see if this gets thrown out or not!?

 

[LindavG]

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

There's a really disturbing article about Michael on the front page of the biggest newspaper here in the Netherlands, people were talking about it at work today. The headline is "Judge hears victims Michael Jackson" and the following bit (translated by me) was news to me:

"If it [the case] goes to court, the victims will be able to use evidence that was excluded during prior court cases, such as the amount of hush money (this is the actual term they use :smilerolleyes Jackson paid the boys and their families. According to lawyers, Michael Jackson paid over 200 million dollars in hush money to about twenty victims. Safechuck's father was said to have received one million dollars."

Is this in the court papers Robson or Safechuck filed? If this is true, nobody suspected anything when Safechuck's father was suddenly a millionaire? Nobody asked him where the money came from, or if he said it was from Michael, nobody wondered why Michael would give a man a million dollars for no apparent reason? I assume the "200 million dollars to twenty victims" comes from those fake FBI files that were debunked months ago.

It turns my stomach that hundreds of thousands of people are going to read this and jump to conclusions because they don't know what we know. It is impossible to clear Michael's name when the mainstream media are so intent on destroying it and the public don't care enough to disagree.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

It's Easter Sunday and I'm in no mood for trash. Good day

 

[barbee0715]

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

^^so this is a mainstream paper? They just took Stacy's story but that's sad it's a mainstream paper. The million dollar story part is back from LaToya's stories in 93.

I can't imagine that they would actually put this stuff in the new court papers when it has been debunked years and years ago.

 

[HIStory]

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

The 200 million dollars hush money is from Stacy Brown's current National Enquirer article and of course it's not true. No such evidence will be presented by Robson or Safechuck because there is no such evidence. That's actually clear from the papers they filed so far. No mention of any hush money. Such evidence would be badly needed for their complaint against the companies, but there is nothing. And Safechuck never claims in his complaint that his parents have been paid off. Actually such a story is not even consistent with his allegations. As usual Brown's simply throwing together a bunch of tabloid myths.

 

[marc_vivien]

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

A second article ? So, Brown is working for Tha national Enquirer ?

NYpost posted one today