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

[easter]

Re: [TMZ] New child molestation claim by Wade Robson

I don't understand it , Why they will hold hearing ?

 

[Tygger]

Respect77, you are again confusing an action of Robson/Safechuck’s legal team with my views which I did not express and I am not going to despite your demands. Interesting that you believe one can be wrong about a view they never expressed. I would say, one would be foolish to believe that Robson was not rehearsed and his wording chosen carefully by his legal team before the Today interview.

 

[HIStory]

Tygger, as for what you expressed here it is again:

You

Robson’s legal team has already laid the foundation that Robson’s memory was impaired which would be presented by his legal team as he did not fabricate his testimony. In other words: he believed his testimony at the time to be true and he currently believes differently.

Me (after talking about the whole thing with how it doesn't work with claims such as the one about the shower etc - I am not repeating that argument again):

In case of such specific questions as the above one (but there are many others) that is only possible if he had repressed memory which he does NOT claim.

You:

Not true; it can happen with impaired memory as well which is what Robson is claiming.

I hope you realize you simply saying "not true" is not sufficient in a debate. You will have to explain why in your view that is not true, which you repeatedly refused. But that's alright. I don't think you can explain it because it just doesn't make sense. That's it.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

 

[castor]

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

Castor, impairment means damaged. Damaged memory can occur from manipulation and brainwashing.

It's irrelevant what YOU mean by damaged memory because Robson does NOT claim to have damaged memory in any way.
In fact he stated that he remembered EVERYTHING.
Believing that rape is not wrong has nothing to do with memory, impared, damaged or otherwise.

You are correct in that the opposing legal strategies did not appear on the verdict form in the AEG civil trial.
However; I would suggest you review the opposing legal strategies as per the transcripts or other such source for clarification because coercion of the doctor was discussed at length in court.

Again, it's irrelevant what was discussed or what AEG wanted the jury to believe, we were talking about WHY the jury reached the not liable verdict and that had nothing to do with addiction or any kind of coercion, both of which remained unproven, by the way.
Coercion is the act of compelling by force of authority. What kind of force did MJ use? What kind of authority did he have? Murray wasn't even hired and paid by MJ but AEG
if anything AEG could have forced him to do things not MJ. MJ was completely powerless in the whole scheme, not to mention he was hardly an authoritative or forceful person.

 

[HIStory]

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

In Tygger's definition of "impaired memory" she includes Robson's claims of being manipulated into thinking the alleged actions were not wrong. I understand that. But what she fails to realize is that this does not lead to the logical conclusion that Robson "believed his testimony at the time (in 2005) to be true". Robson simply cannot make that argument or if he will then that is a logically impossible claim.
You can make that argument in case of a question like:

"Were you molested?"
"No."

In that case one can make an argument for Robson, saying that what allegedly happened to him he simply did not understand to be molestation at the time, so he technically did not lie. Simply to him at the time it was not molestation.

However, in 2005 on the stand it weren't only such questions asked but many very more straightforward ones, that one cannot just explain away this way, without either claiming repressed memory or having to admit that he knowingly "lied" on the stand. (I put "lie" in quotation marks simply because I do not believe he lied in 2005, I believe he is lying now that his claims are connected to a monetary demand.)

"Have you ever been in the shower with Mr. Jackson?" leaves no room for any other interpretation. That's a very straightforward question and the answer does not depend on Robson's ability of understanding if such an act would be wrong or right. The same with several other questions and the answers he gave in 2005. So in those cases he should claim either repressed memory (which he does not claim) or say that he "lied" under oath. There is no any other way out of it.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

The reality is his answers should have been yes to all those questions ask. If you didn't think it was wrong you should have said yes. Police and prosecutors know not to ask a kid if they were molested it's to vauge, and they know how easy kids are to manipulate. From the time he was questioned by police in 93 to his time on the stand I'm pretty sure he was never asked were you molested?

 

[HIStory]

Well, he was asked on the stand if he was molested, but then he was also asked a lot more specific questions:

Q. And are you aware, as you sit here today, that there’s been allegations that Mr. Jackson molested you?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever molest you at any time?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever touch you in a sexual way?

A. Never, no.
Q. Mr. Robson, has Mr. Jackson ever inappropriately touched any part of your body at any time?
A. No.

And

Q. Have you ever taken a shower with Mr. Jackson?
A. No. [4]
​

and

Q. Has anything inappropriate ever happened in any shower with you and Mr. Jackson?
A. No. Never been in a shower with him. [4]




​

And he was asked similarly exact and specific questions about being shown porn or being grabbed on the crotch while dancing and so on. The answers to these questions cannot be explained away with the "I did not understand it was wrong" narrative. You either showered with him or not. He either showed you such magazines or not. He either grabbed your crotch or not. The answers to those do not depend on your understanding of whether those actions are right or wrong.

And even with the question about molestation. While that can be interpreted as vauge, but the following question that I highlighted is more specific. "Has he ever touched you in any sexual way?" So what is it he did not understand about that question? He did not consider anal penetration, mutual masturbation and all the things he claims sexual? As a 23-year-old, sexually active man he did not understand what "sexual" was?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Tygger, what you don't seem to realize is the problem about your comments is not the discussion about the Chandler case and the strategy that should have been used against it. The problem is you bring up a fake evidence and then nobody can argue with that. When you ask what people here what they would do with Jordan's non existing "accurate" description it's the same thing like asking "What would be your strategy if the police found child porn in Michael's room". It's unfair because this could change the case entirely and then, yes, the Chandlers could have won the case. You're making up an incriminating evidence and call it hypothetical evidence. Now, if we're playing this game of make believe and call it hypothetical, then I'd like to introduce you to exhibit 123a which is a non existing video tape of Jordan Chandler saying "Michael Jackson never touched me, my father made me say he did and I got the description from MJ's former skin doctor after we paid him" with Evan sitting next to him & confirming it's true. That's my strategy and I'm pretty sure I win.

You did the same with Wade, you say he can win because he claims impaired\demaged\repressed memories. That's not what he said and even if he did it doesn't mean he could win this case easily.

A discussion about an hypothetical case should include the given evidences and or claims, not ones that never existed. If you wanna say Michael would have lost the case in 1993, we can only analyze the possibilities for it to happen with the facts that the judge and the jury would have been presented to. The hypothetical scenario here is that the case wasn't settled, not that there's a bunch of new evidences that suggest Michael actually did it, and then he lost the case. It seems to me the people you're arguing with here are very capable of discussing the Chandler case in other threads so it's not as touchy for them as you wish it was, because then it would mean we're just a group of cry babies that can't handle facts. That's not the case now I hope we can move on.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

She understands it. She is looking for more reasons to drag the estate

 

[castor]

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

Watching that PBS documentary again and seeing Weitzman's statements I'm absolutely convinced that he should NOT be the lawyer if this case goes to trial.
He comes across as the typical sleazy lawyer people usually hate, he is not passionate about MJ's innocence I'm pretty sure he doesn't know and doesn't understand why
MJ lived the way he did, why those kids wanted to stay with him day and night, why he allowed it, why the whole case against him doesn't make sense etc.
His wishy-washy statement about MJ on Fox News back in 2005 doesn't help either.

What do you think?

 

[Justthefacts]

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

It's not about if he understands the way Michael lived hislife, and that's not even the point. The reality is he and his law firm or not taken it to Wafe andUpchuck. Not backing down

 

[Bubs]

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

Isn't that question is little bit too premature?
As far as I'm concerned, MJ's attorneys replies and demurrers etc are brilliant to compare Wade's attorney's tabloid filled crap.

It doesn't matter what Weitzman said or did in the past, you need to look what he (they, as there are 3 legal companies involved in this case) is doing now.

Thirdly, we have no say who should or shouldn't be attorney in the case, so lets just hope they manage to take care of Wade and Safejunk without our input:cheeky:

 

[ivy]

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

A little mod hat on

While it is totally acceptable to discuss your agreement/disagreement with other members posts, please do not cross some boundaries. Some comparisons on this thread was both unnecessary and inappropriate. Thank you.

 

[jaydom7]

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

Isn't that question is little bit too premature?
As far as I'm concerned, MJ's attorneys replies and demurrers etc are brilliant to compare Wade's attorney's tabloid filled crap.

It doesn't matter what Weitzman said or did in the past, you need to look what he (they, as there are 3 legal companies involved in this case) is doing now.

Thirdly, we have no say who should or shouldn't be attorney in the case, so lets just hope they manage to take care of Wade and Safejunk without our input:cheeky:

I also agree that their replies and demurrers have been very good.

 

[jaydom7]

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

In Tygger's definition of "impaired memory" she includes Robson's claims of being manipulated into thinking the alleged actions were not wrong. I understand that. But what she fails to realize is that this does not lead to the logical conclusion that Robson "believed his testimony at the time (in 2005) to be true". Robson simply cannot make that argument or if he will then that is a logically impossible claim.
You can make that argument in case of a question like:

"Were you molested?"
"No."

In that case one can make an argument for Robson, saying that what allegedly happened to him he simply did not understand to be molestation at the time, so he technically did not lie. Simply to him at the time it was not molestation.

However, in 2005 on the stand it weren't only such questions asked but many very more straightforward ones, that one cannot just explain away this way, without either claiming repressed memory or having to admit that he knowingly "lied" on the stand. (I put "lie" in quotation marks simply because I do not believe he lied in 2005, I believe he is lying now that his claims are connected to a monetary demand.)

"Have you ever been in the shower with Mr. Jackson?" leaves no room for any other interpretation. That's a very straightforward question and the answer does not depend on Robson's ability of understanding if such an act would be wrong or right. The same with several other questions and the answers he gave in 2005. So in those cases he should claim either repressed memory (which he does not claim) or say that he "lied" under oath. There is no any other way out of it.

Exactly... Wade was asked specific questions and he gave specific answers.. Is he going to say he didn't know what taking a shower with MJ meant? :busted:

 

[castor]

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

Does the judge's decision to keep Doe 1 as a placeholder mean that if the probate claim is rejected Robson can sue
Branca and McClain?

Why the placeholder at all?


Also, dailymicheal says this about Safechuck

Civil case filed and probate case is listed as a related case.


He filed a civil suit against who? Does he want to sue the companies too?
On what grounds?

 

[ivy]

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

^^

Both Robson and Safechuck have filed a probate claim and a civil case.

What happens in probate is you file a creditor's claim against an Estate within a certain time limit. Estate can approve and pay the creditor claim, can negotiate and settle the claim or can deny the claim. If Estate denies the claim the party can pursue the claim in civil court.

Now both Robson and Safechuck are LATE in filing their creditor claims. So before any claim is even evaluated they need to convince the judge to allow them to file a LATE claim. This is what's been going on, trying to determine if the LATE claim will be allowed to go forward. Estate is already on record saying if the court allows the late claim, they would deny it. So that would mean the only way Robson/Safechuck is to pursue it with a civil trial. So that's why I think they also filed a civil trial and that's what the judge means as keeping Doe1 as a placeholder.

In other words:

- if the judge allows the late creditor claim, Estate will deny it, Robson/Safechuck will replace doe1 defendant or name Estate as a defendant and continue to pursue this at civil trial.
- if the judge does NOT allow the late creditor claim, that would mean Estate cannot be sued and the DOE1 defendant or civil cases against Estate will get dismissed.


Robson is also suing two of MJ's companies at civil trial. they aren't related to probate process but still under different statute of limitations. He is suing the companies for liability.

 

[Tygger]

Respectt77, you post is quite humorous in my view. It seems you have not realized I did not express my view; I expressed the actions of Robson/Safechuck’s legal team. Therefore, you have not realized we never had a debate, we do not have a debate, and we will not have a debate. Despite the demands in your posts – that mimic a child’s temper tantrum – I cannot and will not explain the actions of Robson/Safechuck’s legal team as they are not my actions.

Me (after talking about the whole thing with how it doesn't work with claims such as the one about the shower etc - I am not repeating that argument again):

Funny enough, you repeated the argument in your next posts.

In Tygger's definition of "impaired memory" she includes Robson's claims of being manipulated into thinking the alleged actions were not wrong.

You give me far too much credit as I did not author the definition of an impaired memory. Robson/Safechuck’s legal team instructed, rehearsed, and chose the wording Robson used in his Today interview. Maybe the legal team will lurk in this thread, will see your discussion with others about their actions, and decide if impaired memory will be a successful strategy in a possible trial.

Castor, as per the above, I did not author the definition of an impaired memory. You may want to review his Today interview to hear what he said.

Your comments about the AEG civil trial are confusing. Jurors review evidence to reach a decision. Testimonies that align with a particular side’s strategy are a form of evidence. What AEG wanted jurors to believe is quite relevant because it dictated a not liable verdict in their favor. I am unsure how much of the trial you reviewed however; addiction and coercion was discussed by the defense.

Coercion is the act of compelling by force of authority. What kind of force did MJ use? What kind of authority did he have? Murray wasn't even hired and paid by MJ but AEG if anything AEG could have forced him to do things not MJ. MJ was completely powerless in the whole scheme, not to mention he was hardly an authoritative or forceful person.

You should have been a juror!

InvincbleTal, yours and Justthefacts' posts are perfect examples of the three types of responses I summarized in my previous post. I was crystal clear in that post why I should not and will not continue this discussion with any member here so I will not respond to your first or your last paragraph as that would be a step backwards.

You did the same with Wade, you say he can win because he claims impaired\demaged\repressed memories. That's not what he said and even if he did it doesn't mean he could win this case easily.

Utterly ridiculous. You and no one in this thread read a post where I said Robson could be victorious in a civil trial based on impaired memories. If you actually watched the Today interview, read the transcript, or at the very least read an article summarizing the interview, you can see/hear what he said about his memories for yourself.

 

[HIStory]

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

Tygger, as always, everyone is free to read back and decide for themselves if my posts are really that "humorous" and if I am really throwing "childish temper tantrums". I think instead of such personal attacks it would have been nice if you had actually tried to answer my question, but I realize that you are now trying to back out from the things you said by telling us you never actually said them and by using straw-man arguments. You know, if people so regularly "misunderstand" you, maybe you should contemplate that it's not everyone else's fault.

 

[Tygger]

Respect77, I will update my post as I was discussing your posts and not you personally. (I do not know any member here personally and no member here knows me personally. We only know what others post.)

I have been quite consistent in stating I repeated the actions of Robson’s legal team which is not the definition of backtracking. Regardless of the countless times you repeat the actions of Robson’s legal team are my view, it simply was not, is not, and will not be my view. It will always be their actions.

 

[HIStory]

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

So what did you mean by this, Tygger?

Not true; it can happen with impaired memory as well which is what Robson is claiming.

 

[Tygger]

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

 

[easter]

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

'Repressed Memory have not fault' is so outdated and dangerous view.
I think that It's the similar Jordan Chandler case.
and also I think that 'Repressed Memory' have manipulating of possibility

 

[castor]

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

- if the judge does NOT allow the late creditor claim, that would mean Estate cannot be sued and the DOE1 defendant or civil cases against Estate will get dismissed.

If that's true why did Robson say that if the judge OR the Estate denies the late claim they will put the executors into his civil suit?
He wants to sue Branca and McClain personally?

I don't understand Robson's petition either.

On the one hand he claims that he didn't realize he was abused until May 2012 and he only learned about the Estate in March 2013.
On the other hand he wants e. estoppel to be applied because of what?
He didn't know about the administration of the Estate because he was abused? That doesn't make any sense.

If he indeed knew about the Estate - and he did - and if he indeed realized he was abused in May 2012 there is no law which supports his late claim.

Am I wrong?

 

[castor]

You give me far too much credit as I did not author the definition of an impaired memory. Robson/Safechuck’s legal team instructed, rehearsed, and chose the wording Robson used in his Today interview.

Castor, as per the above, I did not author the definition of an impaired memory. You may want to review his Today interview to hear what he said.

Nowhere in that interview did Robson mention "impaired memory". The only time he used the word memory was when he said this is not a case of repressed memory and that he never forgot what MJ did to him.
Again, his claim that he didn't believe he was abused, or didn't realize he was abused, or didn't think what MJ did was wrong has nothing to do with memory!
And we know what Robson's legal strategy is because it's in his complaint in black and white!
Nowhere did they mention impaired/damaged memory. They want everyone to believe that it's perfectly possible for a 23 year old mentally capable man to not understand that rape if child abuse and it's wrong not even if he is testifying during a child molestation trial.
And that argument does not explain why Robson denied being in the shower with MJ, watching porn with him or cuddling with him in bed, among other things.

Because if he didn't think being in a shower with MJ was wrong why the heck did he deny it?

I am unsure how much of the trial you reviewed however; addiction and coercion was discussed by the defense.

It was discussed but it was not relevant to the verdict. Once they answered the second question on the verdict form, which was about Murray's competence when he was hired
everything else was irrelevant.

Even if every juror had been convinced that MJ was not an addict and did not coerced Murray in any way AEG still would have been found not liable because
they answered YES to the question whether Murray was competent.

 

[HIStory]

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

I don't understand Robson's petition either.

On the one hand he claims that he didn't realize he was abused until May 2012 and he only learned about the Estate in March 2013.
On the other hand he wants e. estoppel to be applied because of what?
He didn't know about the administration of the Estate because he was abused? That doesn't make any sense.

If he indeed knew about the Estate - and he did - and if he indeed realized he was abused in May 2012 there is no law which supports his late claim.

Am I wrong?

We have discussed his estoppel argument a lot here and yes, I don't understand it either. Here is one post why I express my confusion about his argument: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tate/page570?p=4055063&viewfull=1#post4055063

 

[castor]

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

We have discussed his estoppel argument a lot here and yes, I don't understand it either.

The whole thing is nonsense.

The Estate claimed in their response that they have evidence that Robson in fact knew about the Estate long before March 2013 and that they want to cross-examine him.
Will that happened at the Apr 21 hearing?

Why does the judge entertain this bullshit at all?
The whole idea that Robson or anyone living in the US would not know that MJ had an Estate is beyond absurd.
Especially since he was MJ's long time friend.

How the bloody hell can they even make that "he didn't know about the Estate" argument?
It's a blatant lie.

Even if he had not known about the Estate he sure as hell knew about MJ's companies so why didn't he sue them
"after realizing he was abused"? Why did he wait more than a year?

 

[HIStory]

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

The whole thing is nonsense.

The Estate claimed in their response that they have evidence that Robson in fact knew about the Estate long before March 2013 and that they want to cross-examine him.
Will that happened at the Apr 21 hearing?

I think he was deposed last year. But we do not have any info on it except for one tidbit in an article (I think by TMZ) that supposedly the Estate managed to get him admit that he knew about the custody issues involving MJ's children and the Estate (I think the events surrounding granny gate perhaps?), so that means he knew about the Estate.

It's hard to know how they are standing with that argument re. him not knowing about the Estate because we do not see the documents from the probate case.

 

[castor]

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

I think he was deposed last year. But we do not have any info on it except for one tidbit in an article (I think by TMZ) that supposedly the Estate managed to get him admit that he knew about the custody issues involving MJ's children and the Estate (I think the events surrounding granny gate perhaps?), so that means he knew about the Estate.

He is also on the record talking about the MJ Immortal job he wanted. That show had to be approved by the Estate so he didn't know about the Estate. Right. :crazy