bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
I just listen to Tmez interview yesterday from the link provided by Seany , and took a few notes (it's a bit long, I think over an hour) . Not everything is relevant, so I took notes of what I think is relevant here.
link to the interview : http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jordan-king/2013/05/16/tom-meserau-defends-michael-jackson
direct link : http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/4/839/show_4839873.mp3
-in 05 did not have to put Robson on the stand, thought he had done enough on cross, Put him on the stand because Robson is intelligent, likeable, gave a very strong testimony, Robson subjected to harsh cross by Zonen, Zonen one of the best prosecutor TMEZ has worked against,
-TMEZ was wary of witnesses - he didn't want to share strategies- for fear the witnesses would share them with the press or other lawyers, Witnesses screened before meeting Tmez by other people -private investigators,
Robsons was adamant to defend Michael, Robson intelliegent, talented, precise then,
-no perjury : he told the truth in 2005, perjury will be when he says what he says now under oath,(if there is a trial)
- Brett Barnes gave up a very important job in Australia to testify for Michael
-could this filing go into the AEG trial ? :Tmez doesn't think so (his guess), maybe through an expert about "reputation dollar value" when expert is asked what he based their opinion on, so AEG lawyers might try that
- seald info in court / is robson free to talk about it : no gag order yet, so yes, he's free to talk about it. There has to be a reason for filing under seal, if you go around talking about what is sealed, , the media will ask to unseal : he's making it easier to unseal the claims.
- under seal filing : complaint is in a sealed envelope with the seal request indicating reason for seal (examples of reasons : right of privacy - attorney /client priviledge, doctors /patient priviledge)
-if the claim is thrown out can the estate go after him ? Tmez's sense is that the estate won't do that : you don't want to reopen the case, if it's thrown out
-libel : there is a law against libeling a business, that could apply here, since Michael is gone There is the possibility of libel against Wade, but doesn't think the Estate is going to do that , = you have to prove that it is malicious (intent) and false, it would not be easy, Michael is not here to defend himself, it makes it even more difficult, Robson would have an easy defense (my therapist convinced me, I believed it was true)
talks about the bouquet Michael sent to his sister when she was sick during 05 trial "bouquet bigger than the door + poem from Michael " She wasn't expecting that , he created a special moment for her, he did the same to a lot of people around the world,
-Settlement in 93 opened a pandora's box, 1000s of kids visited neverland, and only a handful of complaints, Open floodgates of suits (Hayvensurt, Neverland employees), Same thing would happen again if Wade wins this one,
-Sneddon worked with a lot of experts from Quantico Va (FBI), child abuse experts, Tmez prepared to cross examin them, Sneddon didn't even call them , Sneddon travelled to Canada and Australia in the mid 90s, maybe more places, Sneddon couldn't find anything,
- Was told that Stacy Brown was working for the Sneddon, Stacy brown said on Tv that he didn't understand Michael's acquittal,
- psych nurse callied during the interview (about repressed memories, interview was one yesterday) : usually you have long term problems BEFORE repressed memories come back, not just a brekdown, trouble would have appeared much earlier, She says there is no empyrical evidence of repressed memories in robson's case Compares repressed memory to deja vu : you don't remember but you feel there's something wrong : he would not have felt comfortable around Michael (I'm simplifying a little) , he would have felt something was wrong, but wouldn't know what,
-2 grand juries in 93/94 : 200 witnesses, Tmez not sure if Robson testified or was deposed for one or both grand juries,
I just listen to Tmez interview yesterday from the link provided by Seany , and took a few notes (it's a bit long, I think over an hour) . Not everything is relevant, so I took notes of what I think is relevant here.
link to the interview : http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jordan-king/2013/05/16/tom-meserau-defends-michael-jackson
direct link : http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/4/839/show_4839873.mp3
-in 05 did not have to put Robson on the stand, thought he had done enough on cross, Put him on the stand because Robson is intelligent, likeable, gave a very strong testimony, Robson subjected to harsh cross by Zonen, Zonen one of the best prosecutor TMEZ has worked against,
-TMEZ was wary of witnesses - he didn't want to share strategies- for fear the witnesses would share them with the press or other lawyers, Witnesses screened before meeting Tmez by other people -private investigators,
Robsons was adamant to defend Michael, Robson intelliegent, talented, precise then,
-no perjury : he told the truth in 2005, perjury will be when he says what he says now under oath,(if there is a trial)
- Brett Barnes gave up a very important job in Australia to testify for Michael
-could this filing go into the AEG trial ? :Tmez doesn't think so (his guess), maybe through an expert about "reputation dollar value" when expert is asked what he based their opinion on, so AEG lawyers might try that
- seald info in court / is robson free to talk about it : no gag order yet, so yes, he's free to talk about it. There has to be a reason for filing under seal, if you go around talking about what is sealed, , the media will ask to unseal : he's making it easier to unseal the claims.
- under seal filing : complaint is in a sealed envelope with the seal request indicating reason for seal (examples of reasons : right of privacy - attorney /client priviledge, doctors /patient priviledge)
-if the claim is thrown out can the estate go after him ? Tmez's sense is that the estate won't do that : you don't want to reopen the case, if it's thrown out
-libel : there is a law against libeling a business, that could apply here, since Michael is gone There is the possibility of libel against Wade, but doesn't think the Estate is going to do that , = you have to prove that it is malicious (intent) and false, it would not be easy, Michael is not here to defend himself, it makes it even more difficult, Robson would have an easy defense (my therapist convinced me, I believed it was true)
talks about the bouquet Michael sent to his sister when she was sick during 05 trial "bouquet bigger than the door + poem from Michael " She wasn't expecting that , he created a special moment for her, he did the same to a lot of people around the world,
-Settlement in 93 opened a pandora's box, 1000s of kids visited neverland, and only a handful of complaints, Open floodgates of suits (Hayvensurt, Neverland employees), Same thing would happen again if Wade wins this one,
-Sneddon worked with a lot of experts from Quantico Va (FBI), child abuse experts, Tmez prepared to cross examin them, Sneddon didn't even call them , Sneddon travelled to Canada and Australia in the mid 90s, maybe more places, Sneddon couldn't find anything,
- Was told that Stacy Brown was working for the Sneddon, Stacy brown said on Tv that he didn't understand Michael's acquittal,
- psych nurse callied during the interview (about repressed memories, interview was one yesterday) : usually you have long term problems BEFORE repressed memories come back, not just a brekdown, trouble would have appeared much earlier, She says there is no empyrical evidence of repressed memories in robson's case Compares repressed memory to deja vu : you don't remember but you feel there's something wrong : he would not have felt comfortable around Michael (I'm simplifying a little) , he would have felt something was wrong, but wouldn't know what,
-2 grand juries in 93/94 : 200 witnesses, Tmez not sure if Robson testified or was deposed for one or both grand juries,