Latest on MJJC

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

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

No, I posted on a different post, the one where the guy is asking people's opinions because he's debating with MJ fans. I'm just reading the thread you mentioned now. It would look too suspicious if I also posted on that one. I understand James' anger and emotional outburst, I've done that too but I'll be trying hard not to do that myself or I'll lose credibility. I'm glad to see a few people defending MJ, it's better than the usual where everyone agrees or there's only one person defending and being attacked on a personal level.

For now I'll refrain from liking people's comments in defense of MJ, or anyone's comments about it in general or people will find me out lol.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Do you all have the documents, transcripts and other information you'll need to defend MJ? It's much more convincing to post that rather than just comments with no link or proof of what you're saying, it makes it too easy for people to dismiss what you've told them otherwise.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Snow White luvs Peter Pan said:
People in general haven't heard about those liars, backstabbers and I don't even want to remind them. But some people's judgement regarding the previous allegations are poor and ridiculously idiotic.

I'm a member of an atheist group on fb, even though we mostly discuss about the inconsistencies of religion, atheism and science, sometimes we like to be off topic because it'd be boring to talk about the same. Anyway, an MJ fan posted the Xscape album cover to discuss the record. Us the fans were so happy to talk about our favorite tracks, the improvement of the Estate with the album, etc but it always has to appear the typical, closeminded haters who believe in all or most of the bullshit published or said by the media. It didn't surprise me they made emphasis on the settlement even though we pointed out how Evan blackmailed Michael way before he reported the alledge abuse to the police. It didn't surprised me either they delusionally believe he could "got away with murder" because of his star power and because he was rich, despite pointing out the inconsistencies of the testimonies, the lack/absence of legit evidence because some of it was falsified . But it makes me cringe those people think Michael had a criminal behavior just because of the sleepovers. :rant: And the only "evidence" they provide, "it's inappropriate for an adult man in his 30's, 40's having sleepovers with random minor children" and I made emphasis how Oprah bragged about in 2005, if I remember correctly how nice and fun was having sleepovers at her house with girls of her school and no one chastised or called her pervert. I don't think at all that mere action is against the law or wrong, it angers me deeply many people call Michael names and judge him, including that fat hag but with her it's appropriate and not criminal because it's Oprah! :mat:

It thought me a lesson even some atheists refuse to see the truth, evidence and thinking logically in some cases just like some believers would do when people point them out there's no legit evidence for their beliefs.

Sorry for the rant, I had to vent...
Click to expand...

I know the feeling.

People are people, no matter if they are atheists or religious, they do have their biases, prejudices and fallacious ways of thinking. Being an atheist myself I have a similar experience. The forum I was on was not specifically an atheist forum, but an ex-Christian forum. Many ex-Christians end up being atheists, some do not, but go to another religion. So it's not a strictly atheist forum, but there are many atheist there. So someone started a topic about whether MJ was a child molester. There was one person who was a truly vile anti, spouting all kind of untrue and fallacious crap. It turns out that she was a relative of someone who worked for the Santa Barbara police (at least that's what she said), so you could see that's where the bias came from. She claimed that her cousin (I think it was a cousin she claimed worked at the SB police) told her there were "tons of evidence" against MJ. I simply asked her if that is the case then how come all that evidence was not introduced to court in 2005? Should we believe SB authorities just hid evidence? Tom Sneddon of all people doing such a favor for MJ? LOL. She could not really say anything to that, just relied on fallacies such as seeing Gavin putting his head on MJ's shoulder in the Bashir docu was enough for her to conclude that boy was molested because "he was so submissive" to MJ. Then I informed her that it is an interesting conclusion to make, because according to the timeline in the allegations MJ had not molested Gavin yet at that point. LOL. It was going back and forth like this, she did not have anything, just the usual fallacies and uninformed opinions. At the end she tried to suggest that because I obviously knew a lot about these cases, that I have some kind of religious mindset about it - being on an ex-Christian forum it was meant to be an ad-hominem way of trying to discredit me, of course - and she said something along the lines that these allegations are like the Bible - eventually, it's a matter of faith what you believe. LOL! How can you say such a stupid thing while trying to pose as rational? Or better to say, in a way, I actually can see the parrallel - just not the way she meant. What she meant was that eventually it's unknowable if these allegations were true or not and it's a matter of belief, just like the Bible. But she was wrong on both accounts. Both about the allegations and the Bible there are facts which can be researched. It's true that most people do not care to do that research. Either because they do not care that much or they are too lazy or they just have certain biases and prejudices that they want to hold on to, no matter what. But that does not mean that it's not researchable and not knowable. You just have to put a bit of time and energy into it. Unfortunately most are unwilling to put that time and energy into it, but they are very much willing to judge. So often those judgements end up being based on superficial soundbites that they find in the media.

It's just not possible to convince people who are not open-mindend. I posted a lot of facts in that discussion, and I think there were people who were open-minded enough to consider them. I got support from some of them. But then there was this woman and there were some other idiots who did not add much to the conversation, just gave idiotic and emotional responses, such as posting MJ's mug shot and idiotic, childish things like that.

The irony of the whole thing is that if you do research these cases and have deep knowledge about them, you will be called out for being "religious about it". Of course, it requires a certain level of "fanatism" to put your time and energy into researching such a case - I admit that. Just like it requires dedication and a certain level of "fanatism" to acquire deep knowledge about almost anything. That's the only way you can have a well-founded knowledge about anything, after all - if you put energy and time into learning. It's pretty ironic that you are being called out for that thoroughnes, while it's ignorance and superficiality that are celebrated as "sane"...
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

MJresearcher said:
Do you all have the documents, transcripts and other information you'll need to defend MJ? It's much more convincing to post that rather than just comments with no link or proof of what you're saying, it makes it too easy for people to dismiss what you've told them otherwise.
Click to expand...

Take a look at this website to see if there is something you can use from there: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/


If it is the Settlement that is most being debated about, these are the recommended articles:

About the Settlement itself: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-settlement/

The Chandler's monetary demands - to emphasize the fact if Michael had wanted to stop them from going to authorities and public he could have done so by paying them off when they demanded to be paid off: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/

This also goes against the notion that MJ must have secretly paid of dozens of boys. How come then that he refused to pay off the Chandlers when they wanted nothing more than to be paid off?

I'd also ask them other than soundbites what they actually know about these cases? Do they even know what was alleged exactly? Do they know who these families were? How these allegations emerged? (See this article: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/how-did-the-allegations-of-the-chandlers-emerge/ )

You can use the Chandlers own words against them from Ray's book - you will find those quotes in the above mentioned articles.

Also, against the argument that Michael's wealth somehow got him off, tell them that no evidence ever came out about Michael paying off anyone to avoid investigations or anything like that. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence about the media paying big money to people to make up slanderous lies about him (a practice that continues until this day) - and many of the prosecution's witnesses in 2005 were people who only came up with their allegations after the media paid them big bucks for them.

Here is an article about the media's role: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-medias-role-in-the-allegations-against-michael-jackson/

These payments by the media are not conspiracy theories but proven facts - unlike the conspiracy theory on the other side about MJ paying for people's silence, of which no evidence ever came out after more than 20 years of investigation.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Thanks, I was looking on that site before. I'm not expecting to get a rational discussion from this man who posted the thread, or another man who was posting there but there are other who were more fair about it. This man calls fans blind and uses bad arguments as "proof" and complains about fans being biased but he is no different. It's actually quite funny as well as sad. Maybe I should start another thread so you can all see what's going on with it. I do like to sharpen my debating skills now and then :)

I'm much happier knowing that I'll have backup on this, I can get very stressed while defending MJ, I care about him deeply and it hurts to read such nasty things, people might as well be saying it about a member of my family.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^Hey MJresercher, could you please pass me the link where you posted? I don't think I posted there and if you started a new one. Yeah, that Peter guy is a biased idiot, I don't think that just because for him Michael was guilty but because he doesn't even know what a proof means and his "arguments" make no sense. I also have argued with Paul before for the same issue about the sleepovers but on that occasion I was alone defending MJ.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

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

This might be off topic a little, but probably the most appropriate place to discuss it. Michael has a Wilkipedia page that is locked, which is as it should be, but I periodically go back and read it just to see if any information is updated-for example, about Xscape and the hologram, etc.
And last week, I noticed that there was a lot of information regarding the Chandler/Arvizo case and "evidence" that was collected from one of the searches at Neverland. It's always been there, but I don't remember it like this.
They wrote that "according to court documents" there multiple books of children in various states of undress, etc. And some other things that I really took exception to-including that Jordan Chandler's description of Michael's private area was accurate.
Now I have always read that the only thing that could be misconstrued as child porn were TWO art books given to him by fans-and that Jordan's description was totally incorrect-circumcision thing.

I know Wilkipedia isn't supposed to be the end all encyclopedia or anything since anyone can contribute to it, BUT common sense tells me that it's really the main source for wanting to know anything about anything-there aren't that many encyclopedias around anymore and I look at it all the time. I know kids do-and I really dislike the fact that this is in his bio as FACT and kids and anybody can look this up and take it as truth.

Am I incorrect in what I am saying about this evidence? I looked at the sources of the article and there are hundreds-but they also reference a lot of tabloids, Diane's book, other trashy books so they've culled a lot of resources.
I'm not that knowledgeable about trying to get something changed-I wanted to check here first and then see if I could write a letter or email to them.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

barbee0715 said:
This might be off topic a little, but probably the most appropriate place to discuss it. Michael has a Wilkipedia page that is locked, which is as it should be, but I periodically go back and read it just to see if any information is updated-for example, about Xscape and the hologram, etc.
And last week, I noticed that there was a lot of information regarding the Chandler/Arvizo case and "evidence" that was collected from one of the searches at Neverland. It's always been there, but I don't remember it like this.
They wrote that "according to court documents" there multiple books of children in various states of undress, etc. And some other things that I really took exception to-including that Jordan Chandler's description of Michael's private area was accurate.
Now I have always read that the only thing that could be misconstrued as child porn were TWO art books given to him by fans-and that Jordan's description was totally incorrect-circumcision thing.

I know Wilkipedia isn't supposed to be the end all encyclopedia or anything since anyone can contribute to it, BUT common sense tells me that it's really the main source for wanting to know anything about anything-there aren't that many encyclopedias around anymore and I look at it all the time. I know kids do-and I really dislike the fact that this is in his bio as FACT and kids and anybody can look this up and take it as truth.

Am I incorrect in what I am saying about this evidence? I looked at the sources of the article and there are hundreds-but they also reference a lot of tabloids, Diane's book, other trashy books so they've culled a lot of resources.
I'm not that knowledgeable about trying to get something changed-I wanted to check here first and then see if I could write a letter or email to them.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like people are trying to set things up to give the accusations more credibility. I believe anyone can edit a Wiki page, but I think being a registered user gives more perks. Someone should really edit those bits and clarify that the description did not match, and that the two books were not considered pornographic in any way. All of these should be made using sources, of course, like that USA Today article, the autopsy, and I believe there was a police report that said those books were not porn.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Respect about the person posting the mugshot: when Muarry went into court to plead not guilty, fans wanted the police to release the mugshot. Didn't we find out from the police that they don't publish the mugshots and what people claim was Michael's mugshot was not? Then, some fans said it made sense because the clothes Michael had when he went in was not the same clothes on that photo that people claim is the mugshot. I think I remember something like that.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Snow White luvs Peter Pan said:
^^Hey MJresercher, could you please pass me the link where you posted? I don't think I posted there and if you started a new one. Yeah, that Peter guy is a biased idiot, I don't think that just because for him Michael was guilty but because he doesn't even know what a proof means and his "arguments" make no sense. I also have argued with Paul before for the same issue about the sleepovers but on that occasion I was alone defending MJ.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to get the link, I just scrolled down the page to find it which was a pain, it's a fair way down now. This is the post I commented on, you should be able to find it by scrolling even though its annoying:

14393565792_fb9e3da3fd_o.jpg


Might start a separate thread on it so we don't get in trouble. :giggle:
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

barbee0715 said:
This might be off topic a little, but probably the most appropriate place to discuss it. Michael has a Wilkipedia page that is locked, which is as it should be, but I periodically go back and read it just to see if any information is updated-for example, about Xscape and the hologram, etc.
And last week, I noticed that there was a lot of information regarding the Chandler/Arvizo case and "evidence" that was collected from one of the searches at Neverland. It's always been there, but I don't remember it like this.
They wrote that "according to court documents" there multiple books of children in various states of undress, etc. And some other things that I really took exception to-including that Jordan Chandler's description of Michael's private area was accurate.
Now I have always read that the only thing that could be misconstrued as child porn were TWO art books given to him by fans-and that Jordan's description was totally incorrect-circumcision thing.

I know Wilkipedia isn't supposed to be the end all encyclopedia or anything since anyone can contribute to it, BUT common sense tells me that it's really the main source for wanting to know anything about anything-there aren't that many encyclopedias around anymore and I look at it all the time. I know kids do-and I really dislike the fact that this is in his bio as FACT and kids and anybody can look this up and take it as truth.

Am I incorrect in what I am saying about this evidence? I looked at the sources of the article and there are hundreds-but they also reference a lot of tabloids, Diane's book, other trashy books so they've culled a lot of resources.
I'm not that knowledgeable about trying to get something changed-I wanted to check here first and then see if I could write a letter or email to them.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately haters managed to hijack the narrative about MJ on Wikipedia and there is a lot of untrue crap on that page.

The possession of child porn is a crime in itself and if there was child porn found in his possession he would have been charged with that. He was not. Yes, haters try to turn two art books into "multiple books" that contained child porn. They also take it out of context, not mentioning the fact that Michael was interested in art photography and these books were found in that context, plus those two books were a gift by fans. Here is a full survey and context of what was found: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/category/2005-allegations/porn-as-listed-by-the-prosecution/

I see what you mean about the description:

In August 1993, Jackson's home was raided by the police who, according to court documents, found books, and photographs in his bedroom featuring young boys with little or no clothing.[SUP][171][/SUP] In December 1993, Jackson was strip searched.[SUP][172][/SUP] Jordan Chandler had reportedly given police a description of Jackson's intimate parts, and the strip search revealed that Jordan had correctly claimed Jackson had patchy-colored buttocks, short pubic hair, and pink and brown marked testicles.[SUP][172][/SUP] Reportedly, Jordan had also previously drawn accurate pictures of a dark spot on Jackson's penis only visible when his penis was lifted.[SUP][173][/SUP] This dark spot was corroborated by the sheriff's photographer[SUP][174][/SUP] and the District Attorney in affidavits.[SUP][175][/SUP]
Click to expand...

The sources used are Taraborelli (172), Maureen Orth (173), Diane Dimond (174) and Sneddon's motion from 2005 (175). All biased against MJ. (This is why I never understood how fans can be supportive of Taraborelli's crap. His book is extremely harmful, especially because many take it as the Bible on MJ's life and is extensively used in MJ's Wiki article as a source, for example.)

I once had a conversation with a Wikipedia editor and he told me that the criteria to put something on Wiki is not whether it's true or not as Wikipedia does not take it on itself to determine if a claim is true or not. The criteria is "verifiability". Verifiability means to them that you can provide sources to a claim which comply with Wikipedia requirements. Now Wikipedia requirements for a source are that it's not a blog, but a book or an article published on some official website. There are also requirements for what books you are allowed to use: you are only allowed to use books which are not self-published. It's a stupid, stupid rule, because just because a book is not self-published it does not mean it's more reliable than a self-published book, but that's their rules are. So for that reason you are not allowed to use Geraldine Hughes, Aprodite Jones or Ray Chandler for example (I mention the latter, because I think you actually can use that book to refute the Chandler claims), even though they come from first hand accounts, from people who were there, unlike Dimond's or Orth's or Taraborelli's books and articles.

Since there are lots of crappy and untrue books and articles about MJ out there, it's easy for haters to find sources such as Orth, Dimond etc. to "verify" these lies. Maybe it could be fought and changed if more fans would be active about fighting these allegations, but at this time haters unfortunately are a lot more active in terms of the allegations than MJ fans. The result is that they hijack the narrative on pages like Wikipedia.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
I once had a conversation with a Wikipedia editor and he told me that the criteria to put something on Wiki is not whether it's true or not as Wikipedia does not take it on itself to determine if a claim is true or not. The criteria is "verifiability". Verifiability means to them that you can provide sources to a claim which comply with Wikipedia requirements. Now Wikipedia requirements for a source are that it's not a blog, but a book or an article published on some official website. There are also requirements for what books you are allowed to use: you are only allowed to use books which are not self-published. It's a stupid, stupid rule, because just because a book is not self-published it does not mean it's more reliable than a self-published book, but that's their rules are. So for that reason you are not allowed to use Geraldine Hughes, Aprodite Jones or Ray Chandler for example (I mention the latter, because I think you actually can use that book to refute the Chandler claims), even though they come from first hand accounts, from people who were there, unlike Dimond's or Orth's or Taraborelli's books and articles.

Since there are lots of crappy and untrue books and articles about MJ out there, it's easy for haters to find sources such as Orth, Dimond etc. to "verify" these lies. Maybe it could be fought and changed if more fans would be active about fighting these allegations, but at this time haters unfortunately are a lot more active in terms of the allegations than MJ fans. The result is that they hijack the narrative on pages like Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

You gotta be kidding me... all because of some stupid rule certain sources can't be used to counter those claims? This is a disaster in the making. People rely on Wikipedia for a lot of things and won't bother to research further because they're lazy, even though people joke about how unreliable Wikipedia is. But hey, it's Michael Jackson, and you know how much people love to have double-standards about him.

I also find it interesting how they use Taraborelli's book to say the description matched, but I saw a passage from that book that claimed JC got the circumcision part wrong. Why isn't that used as well? Afraid of the truth?

Is it possible to edit that passage to say something like "there are conflicting reports over the accuracy of the description"? That USA Today article from January 1994 is probably the only mainstream news source that said it didn't match, and it could be referenced. The autopsy probably could be referenced as well since I think multiple news outlets mentioned him being uncircumcised when talking about it.
 
Amaya;4019143 said:
You gotta be kidding me... all because of some stupid rule certain sources can't be used to counter those claims? This is a disaster in the making. People rely on Wikipedia for a lot of things and won't bother to research further because they're lazy, even though people joke about how unreliable Wikipedia is. But hey, it's Michael Jackson, and you know how much people love to have double-standards about him.

I also find it interesting how they use Taraborelli's book to say the description matched, but I saw a passage from that book that claimed JC got the circumcision part wrong. Why isn't that used as well? Afraid of the truth?

Is it possible to edit that passage to say something like "there are conflicting reports over the accuracy of the description"? That USA Today article from January 1994 is probably the only mainstream news source that said it didn't match, and it could be referenced. The autopsy probably could be referenced as well since I think multiple news outlets mentioned him being uncircumcised when talking about it.
Click to expand...

At the very least it should be added for a balance, that initially, shortly after the strip search, police sources said that the description was not a match. For example, when Jackson's mother was called to testify in front of the Grand Jury on March 16, 1994 the Los Angeles Times wrote this:

“Jackson’s mother has frequently given interviews and made public appearances to defend her son, but a source close to the investigation said she may be questioned about Jackson’s physical appearance. Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January.”
Click to expand...

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-16/local/me-34715_1_grand-jury

The claim that it was a match was first made by Tom Sneddon in an 1995 interview with Maureen Orth, but he was not asked to explain why then MJ was not arrested...

As for the books found, again the sentence gives the impression that MJ's room was full of such material, when in reality we are talking about two art books and by the inscription in them (the inscriptions are deliberately omitted in the referenced prosecution motion) they were gifts from a fan and the context also includes the fact that MJ had a large collection of art photography books of all kinds. Again, the source used here is a prosecution motion which is by no means an unbiased document. They are deliberately worded in an inflammatory way against the defendant, they deliberately take things out of context and actually often the claims in prosecution motions were refuted in court. (For example, the prosecution never proved even the existence of that alleged nude photo of Jonathan Spence. They only mention it in this one motion, but they never introduced any such material to court, so no one really knows what it really is or where it came from or if it even exists, for that matter. They never presented any such evidence to the court.)

Again, at the very least it should be noted for a balance that after the search in August 1993 police stated that “the search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing”. Source: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-27/news/mn-28516_1_jackson-case

But to be honest, I don't think this parapgraph should be in the main MJ article at all. I mean these are some very small, inflammatory aspects of the case, if you want to give a summary of the Chandler case, I'm not sure why these particular elements are taken out of the context of the full case and given prominence while major aspects of the case aren't mentioned? Well, of course, I know why. Because these are the things haters try to use against MJ and it's obvious that sneaking these things into the main MJ article is their doing. Notice, how they never discuss any of these cases in full context. They just take out inflammatory bits of information and claims, such as this prosecution motion and make it prominent when in reality it wasn't in the full context of these cases. But they never talk about things like how Jordan's allegations emerged, his father's monetary demands from MJ etc.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

SheilaMJFan4Ever said:
Me, too. It literally hurts to see (even in death) Mike can't catch a break, is still being persecuted for something he did NOT DO. :cry:
Click to expand...

It's MORE sickening in my opinion that these vultures are coming forward now when they know that Michael has no way to defend to defend himself. It makes my blood boil :puke:
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
^^ Oh thanks. So Egan dropped his claims against Neuman himself.

Yeah, in that case I do not see Robson doing the same, since, unlike Egan, he accuses only one person. On the other hand, it seems like Egan realized it makes it problematic for him if he brings in an allegation where he says one thing now, while he said the opposite earlier. So it shows it IS a problem, but of course Wade and James cannot do anything else, they cannot change what they said in the past, so they had to come up with some other explanation for why they changed their story and there comes the "we didn't realize we were abused until recently" explanation which is also an attempt to get them around statues of limitations.
Click to expand...

This argument from them baffles me. Are they trying to say that they didn't realize they were abused even though Wade Robson got on the stand in 2005 and stated that nothing sexual was done to him? Like he didn't know the questions they were asking him? Like he didn't know what the accusations were against Michael in 2005? It's absolutely ludicrous. It's not like he was a child in 2005 he was a full grown adult
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

MJresearcher said:
Ok, I've jumped into the storm, here's what Ive said:



My aim is to get people thinking about this more rationally (hopefully) and to see what people really know. I'm trying not to be biased towards MJ so they'll cut me some slack when I ask them valid questions. This could be hard but I'll give it a shot. :D

I hope other people from here will back me up if I need it, I don't want to be the only one in the firing line here. You can add me on facebook too if you like, the more like-minded people I have on there the better :)
Click to expand...

Don't forget also that the civil lawsuit was filed as "negligence" and said NOTHING about molestation and in it it stated that the defendant admitted to no wrong doing. Why would the Chandlers sign that if they knew or believed he had done something to Jordan?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
Unfortunately haters managed to hijack the narrative about MJ on Wikipedia and there is a lot of untrue crap on that page.

The possession of child porn is a crime in itself and if there was child porn found in his possession he would have been charged with that. He was not. Yes, haters try to turn two art books into "multiple books" that contained child porn. They also take it out of context, not mentioning the fact that Michael was interested in art photography and these books were found in that context, plus those two books were a gift by fans. Here is a full survey and context of what was found: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/category/2005-allegations/porn-as-listed-by-the-prosecution/

I see what you mean about the description:



The sources used are Taraborelli (172), Maureen Orth (173), Diane Dimond (174) and Sneddon's motion from 2005 (175). All biased against MJ. (This is why I never understood how fans can be supportive of Taraborelli's crap. His book is extremely harmful, especially because many take it as the Bible on MJ's life and is extensively used in MJ's Wiki article as a source, for example.)

I once had a conversation with a Wikipedia editor and he told me that the criteria to put something on Wiki is not whether it's true or not as Wikipedia does not take it on itself to determine if a claim is true or not. The criteria is "verifiability". Verifiability means to them that you can provide sources to a claim which comply with Wikipedia requirements. Now Wikipedia requirements for a source are that it's not a blog, but a book or an article published on some official website. There are also requirements for what books you are allowed to use: you are only allowed to use books which are not self-published. It's a stupid, stupid rule, because just because a book is not self-published it does not mean it's more reliable than a self-published book, but that's their rules are. So for that reason you are not allowed to use Geraldine Hughes, Aprodite Jones or Ray Chandler for example (I mention the latter, because I think you actually can use that book to refute the Chandler claims), even though they come from first hand accounts, from people who were there, unlike Dimond's or Orth's or Taraborelli's books and articles.

Since there are lots of crappy and untrue books and articles about MJ out there, it's easy for haters to find sources such as Orth, Dimond etc. to "verify" these lies. Maybe it could be fought and changed if more fans would be active about fighting these allegations, but at this time haters unfortunately are a lot more active in terms of the allegations than MJ fans. The result is that they hijack the narrative on pages like Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

I once tried reading his book and was so disgusted in the way he was talking about Michael and Jordan. He made it out like they were having a love affair and that Michael was like a jilted lover and how Lisa Marie "helped him to move on from Jordan" I NEVER even bothered reading another sentence after my disgust at the innuendo he was writing

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

speechlesslove4michael said:
I once tried reading his book and was so disgusted in the way he was talking about Michael and Jordan. He made it out like they were having a love affair and that Michael was like a jilted lover and how Lisa Marie "helped him to move on from Jordan" I NEVER even bothered reading another sentence after my disgust at the innuendo he was writing

:puke:
Click to expand...

That is because Taraborelli's source for that part was Evan/Ray Chandler.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

MJLovesyoumore said:
Please nobody post this anywhere yet, as I still have loads to do.

http://therealmjhaterfacts.wordpress.com/category/the-introduction/

http://therealmjhaterfacts.wordpress.com/2014/06/

any opinions or suggestions, or noticed any mistakes I have made?

Sorry if it's a bit all over the place, writing things or blogging isn't exactly my strongest point.
Click to expand...


Wtf is wrong with people? :blink:
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

June 13, Motion to seal hearing for Safechuck.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

OH MY DAYS!! This is BRILLIANT!! You are a hero!!

Great investigative work! I can't wait for it all to be finished so we can finally share it!! How much more have you got to do?

MJLovesyoumore said:
Please nobody post this anywhere yet, as I still have loads to do.

http://therealmjhaterfacts.wordpress.com/category/the-introduction/

http://therealmjhaterfacts.wordpress.com/2014/06/

any opinions or suggestions, or noticed any mistakes I have made?

Sorry if it's a bit all over the place, writing things or blogging isn't exactly my strongest point.
Click to expand...
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

So in legal terms Ivy what does that mean exactly?

MJLovesyoumore said:
Please nobody post this anywhere yet, as I still have loads to do.

http://therealmjhaterfacts.wordpress.com/category/the-introduction/

http://therealmjhaterfacts.wordpress.com/2014/06/

any opinions or suggestions, or noticed any mistakes I have made?

Sorry if it's a bit all over the place, writing things or blogging isn't exactly my strongest point.
Click to expand...

ivy said:
June 13, Motion to seal hearing for Safechuck.
Click to expand...
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

seany said:
OH MY DAYS!! This is BRILLIANT!! You are a hero!!

Great investigative work! I can't wait for it all to be finished so we can finally share it!! How much more have you got to do?
Click to expand...

About 3 quarters, maybe more. I did have a lot of screenshots and notes which I had been gathering for months, but my old laptop isn't working. Unfortunately I have to start all over again. :cry: I will try my best to finish it by sometime next week. If you have any screenshots of crazy things they have said or any info, please PM them to me. :)
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

seany said:
So in legal terms Ivy what does that mean exactly?
Click to expand...

in USA court documents are considered public. Safechuck has filed his complaint sealed. This is a hearing to show cause why it was filed sealed and why it should stay sealed.

Given how the judge made Robson claim public with redaction, I'm gonna assume the same will happen for the Safechuck claim - public with redaction.

From legal standpoint sealed, public or redacted doesn't make any difference but from media perspective if the complaint becomes public or public with redaction expect media stories about it.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

And what is on June 19? Someone said there is another hearing scheduled for that date.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77 said:
And what is on June 19? Someone said there is another hearing scheduled for that date.
Click to expand...

06/19/2014 at 08:30 am in department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
MOTION-QUASH

That's the hearing about Wade's request to get 2005 criminal files and Estate's objection (motion to quash).

Nothing about the dismissal motion yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top