Re: Wade Robson files claim of childhood sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
First never argued with friends that no new victims coming forward was proof of innocence, but when friends said he was guilty, I always asked them if MJ was a pedo, then why haven't all the victims come forward now that he is dead?
Sounds like you did use this as an argument in some form though. It's not a good one. You can never predict human nature and what someone will do - in this case when someone will get the idea to get money from the Estate this way. So if you built your whole argument on this either to your friends or to yourself then maybe it's time to study the cases and look for better arguments. There are.
Michael had more paternity cases against him than anything. Those paternity cases keep coming even now when he's dead. Does that mean they are true? Or that paternity lawsuits those come now when he's dead somehow have more credibility than those which came when he was alive? I don't see why someone's death should be some kind of marker of credibility for the accusers, why those who come forward after one's death somehow should have more credibility. What's the logic behind this?
It seems to me your way of thinking is heavily influenced by what happened in the Savile case but you are comparing apples and oranges based on a very, very tiny similarity - ie. that Savile's accusers came forward after Savile's death and Wade makes these allegations after Michael's death. However you do not want to look further than that surface thing.
What was
the reason that Savile's victims came forward only after his death? Or in Catholic Church cases?
In all those cases the usual reason for people not coming forward for a long, long time is because they are up against someone who had never been accused before and held in great respect publicly, and these people think they are alone and noone would believe them. The victims are isolated from each other, they do not know about each other until one of them comes forward and then the floodgates open and they all come forward.
MJ's case is VERY different compared to that! It was in 1993 those floodgates should have opened if he had really been a pedophile, after Jordan accused him. But the police's problem was very much the opposite: noone came forward to support Jordan. At the end they managed to get Jason Francia tell a story about some improper tickling - and that only by the way of textbook improper interviewing techniques, leading questions, threats and pressure, which typically lead to false allegations. That's the best they could come up with after interviewing 40-60 children!
Then 10 years later the ridiculous Arvizo allegations - another family trying to jump on the bandwagon. Sneddon's problem is once again the same: noone comes forward to support the Arvizos. Even though they set up a website for other alleged victims to contact authorities, even though Sneddon has the opportunity to beg people to come forward on national television. Yet, noone (other than very obvious fraudsters who never even met MJ, such as Kapon and Bartucci) comes forward.
And another 10 years on we now have Wade Robson. And once again his allegations seem very, very problematic. With him defending MJ for 20 years, both under oath and voluntarily in the media, and now turning while demanding money. He cannot say what Savile's victims or Catholic Church victims that he was afraid that noone would believe him. Hello?! MJ had been accused before, unlike Savile! MJ was trashed beyond belief in the media for these allegations. Those floodgates have been open for 20 years! They didn't just open recently.
So Wade's allegations are VERY different posthumus allegations than the allegations in Savile' case. The circumstances of both men's lives were very different. Savile died as a well respected person about whom most people would not have thought this. MJ died as a person about whom half of the world thought since 1993, but at least 2003 that he was a child molester. The obstacles to come forward those were there for Savile's alleged victims while he was alive, weren't there for anyone who wanted to accuse MJ.
As in savile and catholic cases. Second, never compared MJ to savile case, I consistently said in my posts that abuse cases differ and can be seen as similar depending on which cases you choose to look at. Non fans see nothing insulting in comparing abusers. They are criminals in the eyes of the general public. You are a fan and therefore biased. Of course you would find it insulting. MJ knew what it meant to his rep. " they're throwin me in a class with a bad name." Where I come from an abuser is an abuser no matter what the context or content. I believe that general society also views it this way
Non fans are very ignorant about these cases. I speak from experience. Non fans usually don't even know basic facts about these cases. So why do you care more about their opinion than "biased fans'"? Just because someone is a fan that doesn't mean he or she would give Michael a pass and defend him if he was a child molester. That suggestion is insulting in itself. Some fans obsess about what non fans and the so called "general public" think and play down fans' opinions all the time just based on the false premise that fans are necessarily more biased than non-fans. Do you really think non fans do not have their own biases and prejudices about MJ? Really?
And in this particular subject, the allegations about MJ, I'm telling you that the average fan is
a LOT more informed than the average non-fan and the so called "general public". So why do you rate more those people's opinions who mostly get their information about these cases from the tabloid media and media soundbites than those who actually take time and effort to study these cases in-depth - court documents, testimonies, instead of The Sun or the National Enquirer? Just because they are non-fans that somehow miraculously gives more validity to their opinion? Even if it's obvious that most of them are just painfully ignorant about these allegations? How does that work?
errin: 
