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

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

More irony.

Bob Jones

Clipboard01.jpg


By entering this girl in the picture they have MJ's so called "pedophile profile" all over the place now. Was he into pre-pubescent boys and lost interest as soon as they started puberty and hated girls? Or was he into pubescent girls - which is quite a different category. Pedophiles who are in pre-pubescent kids would have younger girls than boys, not older. There is no consistency in this so called "profile" at all. Neither in modus operandi, or the age of the kids, or the things he allegedly did to them - nothing. It is all over the place.
 
Last edited:

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Oh the irony. This is from the Chandlers' book:
Which comes back to an earlier post in this thread that pointed out that age-wise (as in many other ways) this doesn't make sense. They simply took what they claimed about boys - ie. that he molested 12-15 year olds and applied to this girl. But 12-15 year old girls are a lot different to boys of that age. A lot more mature, their bodies are more developed. Puberty starts much earlier. The claim about boys is that he lost interest in them when they started puberty at 14. Girls however do not start puberty at 15 (they claimed about her that he lost interest in her when she started puberty at 15). In fact they start it years earlier than boys and by the pic this wasn't some tiny little, underdeveloped girl at the age 12-13. She seems pretty normal.

And let's not forget that she was molested during the very years while MJ supposedly had a taste for Safechuck and Francia!

A postcard was sent from Paris during the Bad tour just when and where he got the hots for Safechuck.
The girl was 14 then and not very likely that she looked like a pre-pubescent boy.

Such a mess.

More irony.

Bob Jones

Clipboard01.jpg

Is this from a Sneddon motion?
No wenches, bitches, heifers and hoes line is in Gutierrez's book too.

Page 77

In addition to this advice, Jordie learned from Jackson to repeat six wishes three times a day
so that they would come true:

1. No wenches, bitches, heifers or hoes
2. Never give up your bliss (sex acts)
3. Live with me in Neverland forever
4. No conditioning
5. Never grow up
6. Be better than best friends forever (lovers)

The inspiration for this came probably from this list:
Gutierrez's twisted mind rewrote the "rules":


So what about the typed list of rules found in the storage bin?
They included requiring members to be
"idiots and act crazy at all times";
be vegetarians who fast on Sundays and avoid drugs;
watch two episodes of "The Three Stooges" daily;
know the Peter Pan story by heart;
and when seeing another member, "give the peace sign, and then half of it."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/05/03/*****-pal-tv-webster-coined-rubbaheads.html


More evidence that Stacy Brown had either read his book or had talked to him
or got Gutierrez's BS from Dimond. Bob Jones got this from Brown no doubt.
In 1996 Bob Jones was not yet a traitor so no way Gutierrez got this line from him.

There is another connection between Gutierrez's and the Brown-Jones book.
Both include a story about MJ drawing the outline of a naked boy on a sheet.
Gutierrez's names Bob Jones as the source but Jones didn't talk about boy
stories in 1996 or before so Gutierrez simply attributed it to him then Stacy
Brown loved the story and included it his own trash book.
 
Last edited:

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yes, it is from Sneddon's motion and it is obvious that a lot of these so called "witnesses" used Victor Gutierrez's stories. As well as the prosecution itself.
 

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
On Ivy's page

""Case summary of the Robson case shows that people related to Jordan Chandler including his sister was recently deposed. "

The case summary always shows the names who were deposed?
Who else was deposed?

Do you have the full transcript for this interview?


Host: Was he (Robson) paid off to not spill the story?

Finaldi: Absolutely not. He was not paid for example you go and say no and then I’ll give you x amount of money. That did not happen.


In a CBS LA interview....

Was this asshole on TV? Or this was just on their website?


The other two ($130,000 and $600,000) are cashier’s checks with no remitter information. (Remitter is the person/entity paying for the check). Cashier’s checks are written and signed by the banks. While those checks show Jane Doe as the person receiving the checks

The names are blacked out the checks as presented in the complaint do not show the name of the recipient.
Why are you sure it's her? Could be anyone.
 
Last edited:

elusive moonwalker

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

Just thinking off the top of my head but has anyone asked karen faye (yeah i know ppl have issues with her but she was around alot) if she recognises the pic.
 

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Just thinking off the top of my head but has anyone asked karen faye (yeah i know ppl have issues with her but she was around alot) if she recognises the pic.

She was asked. She doesn't know.
Her response is stupid BTW. One could remember the place, the T-shirt, MJ's clothes the whole situation
if she had been there. No need to see her face to remember her.

karen.jpg



Found this on twitter. The the shirts and ties are clearly different but
that hand looks very odd and it just doesn't look like MJ's hand.
Compare it to his hand on Whoopie's shoulder.


Cv1lvmiVIAAFdKV.jpg:large



And what do you think that is? Doesn't look hair to me.

girl.jpg
 
Last edited:

Allusio

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
580
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Sometimes I have absolutely different feelings about it.

Sometimes I just want it to be over soon. But sometimes I want the Estate not just to fight back but to go after these people!
 

elusive moonwalker

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

Thanks redfrog
 

Lil

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
1,527
Points
0
Location
the Netherlands
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Found this on twitter. The the shirts and ties are clearly different but
that hand looks very odd and it just doesn't look like MJ's hand.
Compare it to his hand on Whoopie's shoulder.


Cv1lvmiVIAAFdKV.jpg:large



And what do you think that is? Doesn't look hair to me.

girl.jpg

I really don't get the fuss about the hand. Personally, I see a normal hand with 5 fingers, his thumb being under the black box.
But also when you think about it, it doesn't really make sense for it to be photoshopped. Nobody said she had to add in a picture, especially not with all the notes she already provided. Why go through the trouble and take the risk to forge something (that is not even incriminating btw, just a regular fan-meets-idol-type of picture)? Why then photoshop it 'badly' like people say it is.. and why not just put a bigger black box over her head that also covered the hand if it was such an issue.
If it will be revealed who she is or the original picture is found eventually, it will only make everyone who used the argument 'it's fake' look stupid. The picture isn't even important, it doesn't prove or disprove anything regarding abuse. I think it's better to focus on facts like the contradictions in her complaint, the timing of her 'coming forward' etc.
 
Last edited:

Justthefacts

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4,072
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

On Ivy's page

""Case summary of the Robson case shows that people related to Jordan Chandler including his sister was recently deposed. "

The case summary always shows the names who were deposed?
Who else was deposed?

Do you have the full transcript for this interview?





In a CBS LA interview....

Was this asshole on TV? Or this was just on their website?




The names are blacked out the checks as presented in the complaint do not show the name of the recipient.
Why are you sure it's her? Could be anyone.

Lilly Chandler was deposed?
 

Allusio

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
580
Points
0
Lil, IDK if it will make me look stupid later or not but the problem with the hand IS that there’s one more hand under Michael’s but there’s no one behind the girl.
I'm looking at the picture and see two hands! IDK what it means, if it’s really a prove of it being fake or not. But there was some editing, I have no idea for what reasons.

There’s no much logic in anything these people do! They don’t try hard in more serious things.
 

Soundmind

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,667
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

can we know by which party Lilly Chandler was deposed? why no one deposes the asshole Jordan himself. Not that it would make any difference, but at least he will have to go through the "hazard" of having to read the despicable claims he made in order for his broke ass to become a millionaire. It would be a reminder of the low immoral person he was and continue to be; Evan Charmatz contribution to humanity.
 
Last edited:

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,224
Points
48
Allusio;4172276 said:
Lil, IDK if it will make me look stupid later or not but the problem with the hand IS that there’s one more hand under Michael’s but there’s no one behind the girl.
I'm looking at the picture and see two hands! IDK what it means, if it’s really a prove of it being fake or not. But there was some editing, I have no idea for what reasons.

There’s no much logic in anything these people do! They don’t try hard in more serious things.

I agree completely with Lil (and Ivy)....I originally thought that there seemed to be two hands, but when you magnify the relevant part of the image, there are just 4 finger ends there...MJ has his hand curled round and there is just one hand.
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,224
Points
48
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Does anyone know how long this female complainant can remain anonymous? Will it be potentially as far as trial decision? That would seem to preclude members of the public coming forward to give any evidence about her before then?

I guess she may have changed her name eg on marriage (she is 42 now). I presume her attys. will have to disclose her current and any former names...
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^I found this like
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/filing-a-lawsuit-anonymously.html

Why Would a Defendant Oppose an Anonymous Lawsuit?
The biggest reason that defendants and judges oppose anonymous lawsuits is that defendants have the constitutional right to confront their accusers in a court of law. A large part of confronting an accuser is knowing exactly who the accusers are. Judges may also oppose anonymous lawsuits because technically anonymous lawsuits are a violation of procedural law, which exists to enforce the right to due process.

This one is interesting
http://www.espn.com/espnw/voices/ar...-allowing-use-jane-doe-name-derrick-rose-case
 

Lil

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
1,527
Points
0
Location
the Netherlands
Allusio;4172276 said:
Lil, IDK if it will make me look stupid later or not but the problem with the hand IS that there’s one more hand under Michael’s but there’s no one behind the girl.
I'm looking at the picture and see two hands!

There isn't tho, it really is only Michael's hand. His thumb is under the black box, and he's touching it with his middle finger. It's hard to explain with words so I traced it quickly just to show how I see it. I'm 100% sure that's his fingers and no one else's

FswOmro.png
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,224
Points
48
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^I found this like
http://www.legalmatch.com/law This...er.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/923/LOHE4k.png[/IMG]"]http:// [/URL]


2. Have the atty's done another copy / paste on the inclusion of sodomy as an offence?? The girl claims digital penetration (of where is not specified), but this doesn't seem to be covered by the sodomy law?


3. As evidence of a 'minor lie' I can't believe that MJ wouldn't have invited her father into the house...MJ was always famously polite to guests and visitors. I can understand that the father might have wanted to let the girl (and her mother) spend some time with MJ as fans, without him hanging around feeling awkward.

http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/pmC4O0jhp] [/URL]
 
Last edited:

Allusio

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
580
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate


Special thanks for this tracing part. It would take forever for me to understand, lol.

It all comes down to the quality of the photo then.
 

jaydom7

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4,244
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

can we know by which party Lilly Chandler was deposed? why no one deposes the asshole Jordan himself. Not that it would make any difference, but at least he will have to go through the "hazard" of having to read the despicable claims he made in order for his broke ass to become a millionaire. It would be a reminder of the low immoral person he was and continue to be; Evan Charmatz contribution to humanity.


yeah I would like to know which side deposed her too.
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

On Ivy's page

""Case summary of the Robson case shows that people related to Jordan Chandler including his sister was recently deposed. "

The case summary always shows the names who were deposed?

no it doesn't. However they filed a motion for a protective order. They want the deposition to be sealed and that's how and why their name have shown on the case summary.

Who else was deposed?

Chandler's sister and current girlfriend.

Do you have the full transcript for this interview?

Soon to be posted as I said. We were working on it when the Jane Doe accusations happened.

In a CBS LA interview....

Was this asshole on TV? Or this was just on their website?

TV but it's a local channel which means only people in LA saw it.

The names are blacked out the checks as presented in the complaint do not show the name of the recipient.
Why are you sure it's her? Could be anyone.

True but I assumed it was her for the argument sake. 3 checks show either MJ or Company name. The ones that are most questionable are the cashiers checks. They don't show the remitter information.

Lilly Chandler was deposed?

Yes

can we know by which party Lilly Chandler was deposed? why no one deposes the asshole Jordan himself.

No we don't know which party deposed her. Jordan might have been deposed as well. Like I said case summary doesn't show a list of the people deposed. It only shows Lilly and Jordan's GF asking for a protective order. There is also a declaration by a lawyer. Jordan might have been deposed and his deposition might have already been classified as confidential by any party which means there would be no need for a such motion for him. Or he might be deposed later. Discovery is still ongoing I think.
 

elusive moonwalker

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

Can they refuse to do a depo or is it under subpoena. yoi all find this abit strange? What do they have to do with a company lawsuit? Straw grasping if its the otherside.really cant see the estate doing this
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Can they refuse to do a depo or is it under subpoena.

technically speaking once you get a subpoena, you should sit down for a deposition. But there are ways to avoid a deposition, even a subpoena.

yoi all find this abit strange? What do they have to do with a company lawsuit? Straw grasping if its the otherside.really cant see the estate doing this

yes I find it strange. I thought it might be Wade's lawyers. Because they need to show that companies knew or had a reason to know about the abuse and did nothing. Opposite is also possible - That Estate might want to show Chandler had nothing to do with the companies hence they had no reason to know. That might make Chandlers relevant to the case. But then they also deposed Jordan's current girlfriend which makes no sense to me. What could she ever testify about?
 

#MJforever57

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
3,050
Points
48
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

You can't sue a dead man Michael is not here to defend himself and i don't think this later claim should be allow this Jan Doe should have came forward when Michael was alive if this happen. This claims make no sense at all it is just a butch of lies.


Ivy how would this judge deal with this new claim and will it effect the summary judgement that is going on now?
 
Last edited:

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Ivy's blog post about this case is up, check it out - as usual very rational:clapping:

I was wondering if the Jane Doe's identity is kept under the wrap, certainly the estate attorneys knows her name, details evidence etc?

I was thinking that Jane Does' attorneys tactic (keeping her name Jane Doe) won't work as they want this case out in the media and tried there, but as in the link I posted earlier, Derrick Rose case Jane Doe went to media and gave interviews anonymously. There is no reason to hide behind Jane Doe because MJ is dead and cannot harm her. MJ fans have never attacked on people who has accused MJ this or that, and given that CM is still walking and talking after killing MJ, I would say Jane is safe from fans. I put my money on the judge will order her name out, or plaintiff decides to come out in exclusive to Radar.
 

Soundmind

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,667
Points
0
ivy;4172296 said:
technically speaking once you get a subpoena, you should sit down for a deposition. But there are ways to avoid a deposition, even a subpoena.



yes I find it strange. I thought it might be Wade's lawyers. Because they need to show that companies knew or had a reason to know about the abuse and did nothing. Opposite is also possible - That Estate might want to show Chandler had nothing to do with the companies hence they had no reason to know. That might make Chandlers relevant to the case. But then they also deposed Jordan's current girlfriend which makes no sense to me. What could she ever testify about?

Mez was prepared to use Jordan’s ex friends to impeach him in 2005 had he decided to testify against MJ. Maybe they believe he told his current girlfriend something that might be of use to them. Jordan has never been cross-examined before. The estate has nothing to lose. If that man crumbles under cross like Jason, that would be very good to them.
 

elusive moonwalker

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

Lilly was very young in 93 so she has no direct knowledge imo. And his girlfriend well i guess if jc told her something. Its all getting abit ? when their names have been brought into this
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13,017
Points
83
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

If Jordans former friends would testify against allegations, I am so much very for it.. THAT should make some news!
 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Does anyone know how long this female complainant can remain anonymous? Will it be potentially as far as trial decision? That would seem to preclude members of the public coming forward to give any evidence about her before then?

I guess she may have changed her name eg on marriage (she is 42 now). I presume her attys. will have to disclose her current and any former names...

^^I found this like
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/filing-a-lawsuit-anonymously.html

Why Would a Defendant Oppose an Anonymous Lawsuit?
The biggest reason that defendants and judges oppose anonymous lawsuits is that defendants have the constitutional right to confront their accusers in a court of law. A large part of confronting an accuser is knowing exactly who the accusers are. Judges may also oppose anonymous lawsuits because technically anonymous lawsuits are a violation of procedural law, which exists to enforce the right to due process.

This one is interesting
http://www.espn.com/espnw/voices/ar...-allowing-use-jane-doe-name-derrick-rose-case

Thank you, that second one is very interesting indeed....so she could potentially remain anonymous right up to trial! That doesn't seem 'fair' especially as MJ is no longer here to defend himself, and so the testimony of third parties will be even more important. These third parties might not even know to come forward!

Defendants indeed have a right to confront their accusers - and of course, that includes knowing them and having the opportunity of replying to them. In this case this is already violated by the mere fact that MJ is dead. He never had and never will have the opportunity to reply to Robson, Safechuck or "Jane Doe's" allegations. This is actually the reason why you cannot bring lawsuits against dead people. But they are trying to circumvent that by suing the companies. But it is MJ who is really on trial here, moreover being tried on what is a criminal matter in a civil trial. So this is already an extremely unfair situation for the defendant. And it is not like these people did not have all the opportunities in the world to accuse him while he was here. With two public rounds of allegations and a criminal trial when ALL of these people were adults, there is no good excuse for allowing this unfair situation. And no good reason for adding insult to the injury by sealing Jane Doe's name. Eventually the Estate will have to know to be able to defend MJ. They have to know who the hell they should even do discovery on. And I don't think there is any good reason for hiding her name from the public either. Robson and Safechuck aren't in danger by anyone so why would this woman be? And if she is trashing and smearing MJ's name and reputation in public the public has a right to know her name and identity.

I think they are hiding her because there may be people who know her and know her interactions with MJ and may come out and offer to testify against her for the Estate.

In the estoppel, the girl mentions Frank DiLeo; I don't know if she is implying that he made threats against her, as well as allegedly MJ. I haven't been able to find the relevant bits of the Robson/ Safechuck complaints to see if they mention DiLeo too??

I don't think DiLeo is mentioned by either. I think she possibly met him and decided to include him in her story - which is another convenient thing since DiLeo too is dead and cannot reply to these claims and cannot refute her.

2. Have the atty's done another copy / paste on the inclusion of sodomy as an offence?? The girl claims digital penetration (of where is not specified), but this doesn't seem to be covered by the sodomy law?

Yes, copy&paste job again. They basically took Wade's Penal Codes and copied them here, even though Wade's allegations (and thus his Penal Codes) include anal rape and this girl's allegations do not include that, however her Penal Codes do. That's how you know it is another copy&paste job by Finaldi and Manly. That and the "he"-s left in it while referring to the alleged "victim". They are sloppy. Their strenght is in "victim" shopping and media whoring.

BTW, they filed this new lawsuit in Los Angeles, so it will have a different Judge, not Beckloff.
 
Last edited:

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,224
Points
48
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

And it is not like these people did not have all the opportunities in the world to accuse him while he was here. With two public rounds of allegations and a criminal trial when ALL of these people were adults, there is no good excuse for allowing this unfair situation. And no good reason for adding insult to the injury by sealing Jane Doe's name. Eventually the Estate will have to know to be able to defend MJ. They have to know who the hell they should even do discovery on. And I don't think there is any good reason for hiding her name from the public either. Robson and Safechuck aren't in danger by anyone so why would this woman be? And if she is trashing and smearing MJ's name and reputation in public the public has a right to know her name and identity.

I think they are hiding her because there may be people who know her and know her interactions with MJ and may come out and offer to testify against her for the Estate.

I don't think DiLeo is mentioned by either. I think she possibly met him and decided to include him in her story - which is another convenient thing since DiLeo too is dead and cannot reply to these claims and cannot refute her.

Yes, copy&paste job again. They basically took Wade's Penal Codes and copied them here, even though Wade's allegations (and thus his Penal Codes) include anal rape and this girl's allegations do not include that, however her Penal Codes do. That's how you know it is another copy&paste job by Finaldi and Manly. That and the "he"-s left in it while referring to the alleged "victim". They are sloppy. Their strenght is in "victim" shopping and media whoring.

BTW, they filed this new lawsuit in Los Angeles, so it will have a different Judge, not Beckloff.

Thank you...that's very helpful.

I wonder..can the Estate ask to have the trial moved back to 'Beckloff' territory. It makes no sense to have these heard by different judges, as all are claiming 'prior knowledge' by the companies. Does the complainant have a deciding 'say' as to where it is heard, eg in her geographic area? For the prosecuting atty's, this is like having two attempts (2 different area judges) at winning the lottery. It would be stupid if the two judges decided differently about the theoretical 'liability' of the 2 companies, ie that the companies = MJ... If that point is conceded however, I do understand that the different complainants may have different relationships with those companies.
Also I imagine that it would be a nightmare (for the Estate and potentially prosecution atty's...not that they would care) to schedule all the hearings for all 3 cases between two courts.
 
Last edited:
Top