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

[HIStory]

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

^ On the Dangerous tape, at 42.04, (in response to the question 'Does Norma Staikos have control over thevault') MJ asks 'What do you mean by 'control'? The lawyer then asks 'Does she allow certain people to access the vault?, and MJ says (voice rising in scale) Well, if they need a tape and she knows they are working on something for me, sure'.

Thanks. Good find.

Staikos was MJ's personal assistant and secretary at the time and a lot of things have gone through her. But it's also obvious she was taking orders from Michael, not the other way around. It's such an absurd notion that Robson is trying to tell here that an employee would have control over her boss and employer, not the other way around.

They try to cling on the "some" word in "some control", but like Ivy said everyone in a company has "some" control over certain areas. That does not mean they would have had control over the situation that they needed to have control over to "stop alleged abuse". Norma Staikos simply did not have control over the relationship between MJ (her boss) and the Robsons. Joy Robson, however, (as the mother) did. So why doesn't Wade sue her?

 

[Bubs]

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

That just comes from Orietta Murdock, so it may as well as be totally made up. But at the very least definitely taken out of context, IMO.

Was Orietta M one of NL 5?
Staikos may just have meant that not to leave kids because she would have to look after them while kids stay at NL or make some of NL staff to do it if MJ was busy, and then Orietta (depending her mindset) translated that Staikos meant something else?

Is this the guy Staikos fired:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/jackson-case-das-sleazy-witness

LA Times article says that Staikos testimony in 1994 was "considered" crucial?
If it was so crucial, Sneddon couldn't get trial going back then, and that "crucial" testimony wasn't brought in 2005 trial. Why would Wade's team even think using Staikos for their case, if it didn't help back then?

 

[HIStory]

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

Was Orietta M one of NL 5?
Staikos may just have meant that not to leave kids because she would have to look after them while kids stay at NL or make some of NL staff to do it if MJ was busy, and then Orietta (depending her mindset) translated that Staikos meant something else?

We discussed Orietta Murdock on the previous pages starting here: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tate/page798?p=4095272&viewfull=1#post4095272

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Yes, but that is a civil duty as private persons outside of the bounds of the companies. Within the company they did not have the right to tell MJ what to do or seperate MJ (the boss and owner) from the Robsons. If they had suspicions they could have turned to the police or other authorities in their private capacity. If they failed to do so while allegedly having knowledge about sexual abuse Robson should sue them as private persons. Of course, he is not doing that because that's not where the money is.

The absurd thing in these allegations is that these disgruntled, tabloid-whoring ex-employees (Quindoy, Blanca Francia, Orietta Murdock, Charli Michaels) are used by the accusers in support of their claims, yet none of the accusers feel the need to sue them. For God's sake, some of these people claim they witnessed abuse or improper behaviour and they just stood by and never felt the need to report it to anyone until money was to be made of it in the tabloids! Tabloid money was enough motivation for them to tell a story, but protecting the kids was not enough motivation. When Quindoy claims he witnessed MJ fondle Wade but never told anyone, cannot be construed as the companys responsibility. Since Quindoy never reported it to anyone until tabloid money was to be made of it, that is his own responsibility. Blanca Francia claims she witnessed MJ and Robson shower together. But she never reported that to anyone until the 1993 allegations. She just stood by and watched and kept it to herself. Never occured to her that the kid should be protected. So why doesn't Wade sue Blanca Francia for negligence then? How interesting that these people never get sued for negligence, instead the accusers want to use them to sue MJ and his companies. Follow the money!

That's exactly what I've been thinking about. The lawsuit against the company can not be about sexual abuse (since companies can't sexually abuse anyone) but about negligence. He accuses some individuals in the company of being negligent because he thinks they "knew" or "had a reason to know". If that's the case, he should have sued them in the first place and maybe list MJ Companies in the lawsuit as well. Otherwise this case is still about sexual abuse by MJ and not an alleged neglection of his employees. It's up to the judge to decide if it's a case against the company as a whole or just them as individuals.

For example (and please contain yourself and don't derail this thread again)

AEG Live execs dropped from suit
AEG Live CEO Randy Phillips and co-CEO Paul Gongaware were dismissed as individual defendants in the case. The two executives in charge of producing and promoting Jackson's comeback concerts "did not assume personal liability" when dealing with the hiring of Murray, Palazuelos wrote. "Rather, they acted solely as an agent of AEG Live."
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/09/showbiz/michael-jackson-death-trial/

I think the inclusion of the person\people who were (allegedly) negligent is essential. In the AEG case the judge dropped them eventually. I think it's not the case this time because Norma Staikos did "assume personal liability" if she saw things and kept her mouth shut - meaning she didn't go to the police (and not that she didn't ask he boss to stop.)

If these people witnessed a felony, assisted it and didn't report it, they share the guilt and they can even face a criminal case too, don't they? They're still alive after all. Isn't Wade looking for justice?

I'm not saying there's a case against Staikos in anyway, I think the fact Joy and Wade denied anything happened will clear Staikos name and this will be the final nail in the coffin of this case.

They don't have money so Wade didn't bother suing them.
What is more interesting that media never asked them why didn't they go to police or report to child services, or at least child's mother?
The whole thing is as crazy as they come.

But Wade said it's not about the money :smilerolleyes::rofl::doh:

 

[ChrisC]

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

I love how savvy Michael sounds on that tape. Sharp as a tack. He's so aware of the language people use to try to get something out of him that he's not prepared to say. He was like that with Diane Sawyer too.

He hasn't always come across that way.

 

[HIStory]

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

I love how savvy Michael sounds on that tape. Sharp as a tack. He's so aware of the language people use to try to get something out of him that he's not prepared to say. He was like that with Diane Sawyer too.

He hasn't always come across that way.

The Judge was kind of rude though. When MJ said "I am just trying to explain..." and the Judge said "you are failing". That was kind of rude and IMO unwarrented. It's not like MJ was not co-operative. Loved that MJ just laughed and probably was like "whatever". LOL.

 

[barbee0715]

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

I love how savvy Michael sounds on that tape. Sharp as a tack. He's so aware of the language people use to try to get something out of him that he's not prepared to say. He was like that with Diane Sawyer too.

He hasn't always come across that way.

I love it too, oh, how I love it. My favorite part of this is when the atty asks him if he hears anything similar in the songs and he says "yes." Can you imagine how excited she probably just got? "Then what do you hear?". "I hear us both say Dangerous." So sharp and such a smart aleck too. A respectful smart aleck.

And I love watching the exchange between him and Diane about "would you do that again"-"would I do what again", on and on. They always underestimate his intelligence. His face is as innocent as a child's and yet he knows exactly what she's getting at and they go around and around-I loved it then, love it now. I burst into applause back in the day when I watched it on TV .

I think in the next hearing and if Wade's attorneys say something about Norma S. being in control, the Estate attorney ought to just play back Michael's line from here "What do you mean-in control?" Obviously, by the way that line was delivered, he was the only one in control.

 

[jaydom7]

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

His responses are a mess.. still don't understand how he's not blaming his own mother for not protecting him from this 'alleged' abuse but instead he blames MJ's admin assistant??? :busted:

 

[AliCat]

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

Friday, Feb. 1 1 , 1994 Sentinel- Jackson lawyers seek nude photos the status of the criminal investigation.

During the public portion of the hearing, Santa Barbara District Attorney Thomas Sneddon Jr. implied the photographs revealed more critical evidence than the entertainer's widely reported vitiligo affliction.

One year ago Thursday, Jackson told the nation during a television interview with Oprah Winfrey that he suffered from the discoloring skin disorder. The prosecutor also said he wanted to keep affidavits sealed because he feared other potential victims could be scared off.

DeBarge and Staikos declined to answer questions shouted by reporters staking out the courthouse where the 19-member grand jury panel met.

Los Angeles deputy district attorneys William Hodgman and Lauren Weiss also used the courthouse to meet with Sneddon.

When asked for details on the grand jury hearing, Hodgman said, "No comment."

The Associated Press SANTA BARBARA - Michael Jackson's lawyers asked a judge Thursday to give them nude photographs taken of the entertainer as part of an ongoing child molestation investigation.

But Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge James M. Slater postponed action on the request until March 22, saying he never heard of evidence being surrendered by prosecutors to the custody of a possible criminal defendant.

'There is no detriment to the party of Mr. Jackson," the judge said after assuring Jackson lawyers that the photographs and negatives of the pop star's genitals were in a safe deposit box in a local bank.

"Extraordinary measures are being taken to protect your client's privacy," Slater said.

After the hearing, Jackson attorney Johnnie Cochran Jr. said the photographs were taken during "the most invasive, intrusive, humiliating search imaginable."

"This is an investigation that has been going on since August of 1993.

Here we are February of 1994 ... and it seems to us this is a case that is going nowhere and there ultimately should be no charges filed.

If they had evidence, they would have had it by now," Cochran said.

The photograph hearing took place an hour after a county grand jury recessed following two days of closed testimony.

On Thursday, jurors heard testimony from Norma Staikos, vice president of MJJ Productions, and James DeBarge, ex-husband of singer Janet Jackson.

"We think it's inappropriate to make any comment on the ongoing grand jury investigation except to say, once again, that we believe in our client's innocence and we think a fair proceeding will result hopefully, and no indictment taking place," said Jackson lawyer Howard Weitzman.

The grand jury was expected to meet again in two weeks,

http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/66948242/

Is Wade Robson in some kind of time warp and we have been transported back in time to August of 1993 to May of 1994? Is Wade hoping his publicity will stir the pot and bring the Estate to its knees and now the Estate of Michael Jackson will lose money, because of his allegations? The Grand Jury did not indict Michael in 1994, after interviewing Norma Staikos.

 

[HIStory]

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

"Norma Staikos, vice president of MJJ Productions"

Vice president. Michael was the president. So that clearly tells us that - not surprisingly - MJ was above Staikos, not the other way around.

"A vice president (in British English: vice-president for governments and director for businesses) is an officer in government or business who is below a president (managing director) in rank."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_president

BTW, the circus around those nude photos is incredible. In 1994 Sneddon refused to give those photos to the defense. Then he refused to return those photos to MJ for the next 10 years. He even refused to return them after the 2005 trial when MJ was aquitted and MJ again asked for them to be returned to him. It's just crazy. The whole thing around those photos is mind-boggling. It's already questionable how a search warrant could be issued for the body search but this thing that for years and years and years Sneddon refused to give them back, even after an aquittal, even after all statutes of limitations had run out for Jordan - I don't even know how this was allowed, how it was possible under US law. I think those damn photos are still there in some safe in the custody of SB police. Just crazy that this was allowed to go on despite of aquittal.

 

[barbee0715]

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

"Norma Staikos, vice president of MJJ Productions"
BTW, the circus around those nude photos is incredible. In 1994 Sneddon refused to give those photos to the defense. Then he refused to return those photos to MJ for the next 10 years. He even refused to return them after the 2005 trial when MJ was aquitted and MJ again asked for them to be returned to him. It's just crazy. The whole thing around those photos is mind-boggling. It's already questionable how a search warrant could be issued for the body search but this thing that for years and years and years Sneddon refused to give them back, even after an aquittal, even after all statutes of limitations had run out for Jordan - I don't even know how this was allowed, how it was possible under US law. I think those damn photos are still there in some safe in the custody of SB police. Just crazy that this was allowed to go on despite of aquittal.

I agree with you. The fact that those photos are still around just horrifies me and it should not be legal in any way, shape, or form. And I don't get why they wouldn't allow the photos to go to the defense-don't you have to give the defense copies of your "evidence." If you don't, I thought that was withholding evidence-plenty of mistrials based on that.

The whole thing on the part of Robson and Safechuck has been absolutely "nothing, nothing, nothing" except for already debunked and regurgitated tabloid trashy stories-nothing real, nothing new-because there is "nothing, nothing, nothing."

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Wade's case is so weak he thinks things that failed in 1993 will help him.

"Norma Staikos, vice president of MJJ Productions"

Vice president. Michael was the president. So that clearly tells us that - not surprisingly - MJ was above Staikos, not the other way around.

"A vice president (in British English: vice-president for governments and director for businesses) is an officer in government or business who is below a president (managing director) in rank."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_president

BTW, the circus around those nude photos is incredible. In 1994 Sneddon refused to give those photos to the defense. Then he refused to return those photos to MJ for the next 10 years. He even refused to return them after the 2005 trial when MJ was aquitted and MJ again asked for them to be returned to him. It's just crazy. The whole thing around those photos is mind-boggling. It's already questionable how a search warrant could be issued for the body search but this thing that for years and years and years Sneddon refused to give them back, even after an aquittal, even after all statutes of limitations had run out for Jordan - I don't even know how this was allowed, how it was possible under US law. I think those damn photos are still there in some safe in the custody of SB police. Just crazy that this was allowed to go on despite of aquittal.

I think Sneddon knew what he was doing, he probably hoped they would "accidently" leak one day.

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

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

In '94 Mike Walker from the NE claims he was offered the pics, but said he wouldn't touch them because MJ would sue their asses off. I believe The Star also said the same. And in 2003 very shortly after MJ was arrested, Geraldo said on his Fox News show that he had been shown the pics, I guess sometime around '94, nobody noticed he said it. From what I remember the pics are suppose to be locked in a safety deposit box at a bank and requires a few signatures to access. But I'm sure many copies were made.

 

[barbee0715]

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

^^that doesn't sound too safe. They need to be destroyed.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

What was with this Murdoch chick? What a hateful little bitch. I saw her on hard copy once I I said to myself she talks in circles. On the Spanish channel a lady who interviewed her in the nineties said no matter how hard they tried they couldn't find her anywhere. this was an 05, maybe she choked on her own hate

 

[HIStory]

What was with this Murdoch chick? What a hateful little bitch. I saw her on hard copy once I I said to myself she talks in circles. On the Spanish channel a lady who interviewed her in the nineties said no matter how hard they tried they couldn't find her anywhere. this was an 05, maybe she choked on her own hate

Murdoch was someone who was friends with Victor Gutierrez. That is very telling. This is from Lisa Campbell's book The King of Pop's Darkest Hour:

Also working diligently on the case was Hard Copy. They had now dug up another former employee of Michael Jackson's to do one of their ever so lucrative "exclusive" interviews. Orietta Murdoch had worked as Michael's executive secretary for two years, leaving in 1991. She had quit, not because of any concerns over Michael's behavior, but because she was refused a pay increase. The former secretary admitted to Diane Dimond that she never witnessed any improper behavior but did see many kids spending time with Michael Jackson. About the only tiling that was learned in the multi part interview about Michael Jackson was his brand of makeup and underwear.

IIRC then she's been selling nonsense stories about MJ to both English tabloids and especially Spanish speaking South American media back in the day.

I also found it remarkable that the drawing about MJ's genitals that was apparently made as some sort of draft by the Chandlers in October 1993 mentions her name twice:

On the drawing you can see random notes of an alleged “cow-blotchy-pink/brown/not white but pink” skin. On the top you see “Mike circumcised / short pubic”, in the middle you can read “body oil stink” and below that “brown patch on ass / left glut” and further below “bleaching cream / Orietta”. In the little box on the right you can read “my theory: / ass blotched / shades of / brown – so / how is MJ(?) p. V / be selective / Orietta bleach”.

Additionally, consider the references to an “Orietta”. Jackson had a personal assistant named Orietta Murdock whom he fired in 1992. In an article in the September 2006 issue of the British GQ magazine it was claimed that Victor Gutierrez befriended many of Jackson’s employees, including Orietta Murdock [13]. Why would Jordan Chandler make references to her while describing Jackson’s private parts? Orietta Murdock no longer worked for Jackson when Jackson spent time with the Chandler family. The link between Murdock and the Chandlers is Gutierrez [for details about who Victor Guiterrez is and what his role is in the allegations against Jackson see this article].

http://michaeljacksonallegations.co...s-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

And I don't get why they wouldn't allow the photos to go to the defense-don't you have to give the defense copies of your "evidence." If you don't, I thought that was withholding evidence-plenty of mistrials based on that.

The defence probably did have copies, but the photos on their own aren't evidence of anything really, i mean mj knew what his d*** looked like. It's the photos in conjunction with jordan's detailed description and diagram of alleged 'spotting' that is the 'evidence' and i don't believe mj's lawyers had that. I think i'm right in saying that the only one to have seen both is sneddon, the two bits of evidence were never shown to an independent authority to state that there was any match.

 

[HIStory]

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

I think i'm right in saying that the only one to have seen both is sneddon, the two bits of evidence were never shown to an independent authority to state that there was any match.

I agree. Apparently Sneddon did not allow anyone else to see both the pics AND the description and make their own conclusions, everyone was required to take his word for it.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

^You mean take the word of mr 'i definitely don't have a vendetta against mj and am totally unbiassed' sneddon? Sounds fair.

Re wade's case, i agree with most of the thread but on the narrow issue of 'notice' i think you can make a good argument that the 93 allegations would be sufficient for 'notice' under the 340.1 code - a formal criminal investigation into abuse allegations leading to the accused paying out a large civil settlement for negligence. However as respect pointed out in a great post upthread which dug out the legislative history and purpose behind the code, it's cases where 3rd parties don't share or conceal info so that alleged victims and their families are not given any inkling or warning of formal accusations made against someone that this code was meant to cover and give people an opportunity to sue a school or church group. I don't think we've ever had a case where everybody on the planet clearly knew about the allegations made against an individual and he was portrayed as public enemy #1 to children but the plaintiffs still felt they needed a bit more of a heads up from 3rd parties to stop themselves spending alone time with him. As for the list of things which supposedly mj company people 'knew' before the allegations went global in 93, it's just tittle tattle and gossip amongst staff and doesn't come near the required level of knowledge.

Actually in the light of the judge's judement in the probate case, even if it does survive this demurrer, i can't see how his case would come within the special timelimits of 340.1. This (b)2 subdivision is subject to the age 26/statutory 3 year delayed discovery rule whichever is later. The judge was able to conclude by wade's answers to interrogs that wade knew or should have known all the causes of a claim well before mj died, so as it's been more than 3 yrs and he's over 26, he's out of time to even have 340.1 applied to him.

 

[ivy]

Actually in the light of the judge's judement in the probate case, even if it does survive this demurrer, i can't see how his case would come within the special timelimits of 340.1. This (b)2 subdivision is subject to the age 26/statutory 3 year delayed discovery rule whichever is later. The judge was able to conclude by wade's answers to interrogs that wade knew or should have known all the causes of a claim well before mj died, so as it's been more than 3 yrs and he's over 26, he's out of time to even have 340.1 applied to him.

I disagree with this. In his probate ruling -based on robson's claims that the judge needs to accept - judge determined date Robson knew about the alleged abuse as May 8, 2012(the day he told his doctor) or September 7, 2012 (the email he sent mentioning legal matter). If you use those dates, he is within 3 years.

I think this would be a matter of if he can show the three conditions for the exception to 26 years old rule.

Remember the exception to 26 years old rule is "MJJ Productions/ MJJ Ventures “knew or had reason to know that their employee/volunteer/ representative/agent MJ has engaged in unlawful sexual conduct and MJJ Productions/ MJJ Ventures failed to take steps to avoid the unlawful sexual conduct in the future."

 

[barbee0715]

I think this would be a matter of if he can show the three conditions for the exception to 26 years old rule.

Remember the exception to 26 years old rule is "MJJ Productions/ MJJ Ventures “knew or had reason to know that their employee/volunteer/ representative/agent MJ has engaged in unlawful sexual conduct and MJJ Productions/ MJJ Ventures failed to take steps to avoid the unlawful sexual conduct in the future."

well he can't meet the exception, because they couldn't know bc Wade himself said he told no one. Obviously Michael didn't tell anyone bc it didn't happen.
Unless someone comes around proving that people knew about a kid before Wade. Is that where Safechuck comes in? He didn't tell anybody either.

And these photos. Didn't Sneddon show something to the GJ. Michael said in the DS interview that nothing matched or "I wouldn't be sitting here."

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

well he can't meet the exception, because they couldn't know bc Wade himself said he told no one. Obviously Michael didn't tell anyone bc it didn't happen.
Unless someone comes around proving that people knew about a kid before Wade. Is that where Safechuck comes in? He didn't tell anybody either.

Not only they didn't tell anyone, they strongly denied anything has ever happened, especially Wade. Even if Michael's employees had a reason to think (they had no reason to "know" lol) something was wrong both Joy and Wade put their worries to rest when they denied it repeatedly. What else could they do?

1) Make Wade leave? fire him against his & his mother's wishes? physically kick him out of the room when he came to see Michael? but Joy and Wade didn't want to leave (Because Michael never molested Wade)

2) Go to the police? but Joy and Wade kept saying Michael is innocent. What would they tell the cops? "Maybe you should check the Robsons"? Sneddon already wanted to talk to them.

Blanca Francia claimed she saw Michael in the shower with another person she once imagined was Wade and he still denied it so many times. What difference would it have made if Norma Staikos had said something of that nature too? And her alleged claims (we don't even know if she really said them) were not nearly as explicit as Francia's lies.

 

[AliCat]

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

May 2, 1994

Latest on Jackson Case One of two California grand juries that have been investigating sex abuse allegations against singer Michael Jackson has ended its deliberations without returning an indictment, according to NBC Los Angeles affiliate KNBC-TV. The grand jury, which heard testimony from Jackson employees, friends and family, has concluded its three-month term and will not hear from any more witnesses. "It's pleasant, it's not surprising, but still, we'd like it all to be over with, and hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later," Jackson attorney Howard Weitzman told KNBC Saturday. Because Jackson maintains a home in Los Angeles in addition to his Neverland ranch in Santa Barbara County, an L.A. grand jury is continuing its investigation into allegations that Jackson molested a 14-year-old boy last year. In January Jackson settled a civil lawsuit filed by the boy by agreeing to pay him millions of dollars.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/1994/05/02/names-faces/fdeb190c-38a2-4eb4-b9ba-3dffe16cecaf/

 

[Bubs]

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

May 2, 1994

Latest on Jackson Case One of two California grand juries that have been investigating sex abuse allegations against singer Michael Jackson has ended its deliberations without returning an indictment, according to NBC Los Angeles affiliate KNBC-TV. The grand jury, which heard testimony from Jackson employees, friends and family, has concluded its three-month term and will not hear from any more witnesses. "It's pleasant, it's not surprising, but still, we'd like it all to be over with, and hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later," Jackson attorney Howard Weitzman told KNBC Saturday. Because Jackson maintains a home in Los Angeles in addition to his Neverland ranch in Santa Barbara County, an L.A. grand jury is continuing its investigation into allegations that Jackson molested a 14-year-old boy last year. In January Jackson settled a civil lawsuit filed by the boy by agreeing to pay him millions of dollars.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/1994/05/02/names-faces/fdeb190c-38a2-4eb4-b9ba-3dffe16cecaf/

Thanks Alicat for posting this. Was there a grand jury in 2005 too? It beats me how on earth any grand jury thought prosecutor had a case in 2005 and how the case was allowed to go on trial :bugeyed:

I think that is good to save above post somewhere to use as reply to some idiots online who claims MJ paid off 93 allegations. The fact is it didn't stop there after settlement. Sneddon tried to get trial going but he couldn't get past not just one but two grand juries. Imo, that is what should be highlighted in all the replies.

 

[Soundmind]

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

Yes there was a grand jury in 2003 . That's how Sneddon changed the charges. The grand jury hears only the prosecution side. Geragos at the time sent Sneddon exonerating evidence, Sneddon being the "objective" prosecutor he was did not use what Geragos sent to impeach the Arvizo, instead he pushed the timeline to fit with the new evidence . The jurors were very "moved" by the "victims" testimony , before they returned the indictment , they prayed and held each other hands. :smilerolleyes:

 

[ivy]

Radar reporting latest robson news

Won’t Back Down! Wade Robson Continues Sex Abuse Lawsuit Against Michael Jackson With New Filing
Posted on Jun 24, 2015 @ 3:58AM

A judge dismissed Wade Robson’s molestation claims back in May, but RadarOnline.com has learned he’s not going down without a fight! Though he first attempted to go after Michael Jackson’s estate, he has now filed an amended complaint against Jackson’s production companies over similar claims of rape.

When Robson filed against the estate, he also filed a separate civil case that named two corporate entities of Jackson’s as defendants.

Jackson’s attorneys want this case dismissed just like the other one was, but Robson’s legal team believes the civil lawsuit is still valid. In court documents obtained by Radar, they cite several civil procedure codes that allow plaintiffs to bring civil suit after the statute of limitations has passed.

One code, for example, allows plaintiffs to bring suit “within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse,” according to the documents.

Robson has said he recalled the alleged abuse during therapy in 2012.

In May, Judge Mitchell Beckloff ruled Robson couldn’t proceed with a claim against Jackson’s estate because the statute of limitations had passed.

The estate’s famed attorney, Howard Weitzman, previously told Radar exclusively, “Our Motion for Summary Judgment was granted and Robson’s Request to File a Late Claim against the Estate was denied.”

“The court’s dismissal of Wade Robson’s claim against the Estate of Michael Jackson confirms that his lawsuit was inappropriately filed,” Weitzman said. “Mr. Robson testified under oath in a courtroom that Michael never did anything improper with him. The Estate believes his testimony was honest when his sole motivation was ‘to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.’”

Story developing.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

 

[PoP]

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

You know what? Let him keep fighting it all he wants. His fight's not going anywhere and the truth will continue to win.

 

[barbee0715]

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

They wrote this like it's breaking news. Lol.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

Unless someone comes around proving that people knew about a kid before Wade. Is that where Safechuck comes in? He didn't tell anybody either.

In their desperation to try and show that it was common knowledge that mj was unsafe with children, even though they don't have to provide any evidence at this stage and they must know the chances of the case going to trial are uber slim, the lawyers haven't even attempted to use the $20m/$200m/'whatever the figure is this week' coverup stories about hush money paid to multiple victims that have dominated the press. I'm sure the media aren't really interested in picking up the glaring omission, but at least when wade's lawyers or stacey brown etc rant about how there was all this explosive evidence against mj but they've been denied the chance to show it at trial, we can ask why didn't you mention it in your court complaints rather than just spend your time repeating some stale tittle tattle from disgruntled maids.

I disagree with this. In his probate ruling -based on robson's claims that the judge needs to accept - judge determined date Robson knew about the alleged abuse as May 8, 2012(the day he told his doctor) or September 7, 2012 (the email he sent mentioning legal matter). If you use those dates, he is within 3 years.

The judge determined the date to be no later than 8 may. He said himself he was choosing the scenario most beneficial to wade and yet even so wade still was out of time, he was covering himself to close down all possible appeals from wade's side. He said elsewhere in the judgement that wade knew of the facts giving rise to the claim well before mj's death, he would have based this on a finding of undisputed facts. The judge might have to assume that wade can prove all the facts he's claiming, but he doesn't have to accept 'the contentions, deductions or conclusions of facts'. If wade's claims of delayed discovery are undermined by undisputed facts brought out in the pretrial process, a judge must have the right and duty to take that into account, otherwise you would just have huge waste with cases going to trial and collapsing. I don't doubt that the lawyers will mainly concentrate on the 340.1 code as mj's side has really really strong arguments and lots of lines of defence for that, but as a last line of defence if it's at all needed they could bring in the fact at summary judgement that wade's case doesn't come within the 3 yr rule. It's just another string to their bow.