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

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

dont bother with the haters. heck most are just sad internet trolls

a hater using savile to support their argument shows how stupid they are. savile is an argument for why mj is innocent. 100's of ppl have claimed abuse against savile. ppl from many different places with no connections to one another spanning many decades as he had free access to 10 of thousands of ppl through out his life

and mj had who accuse him!! the chandlers where theres clear evidence of extortion. the arvizos with a history of falsely accusing ppl etc etc etc. and wade LOL or does the hater want to use the likes of bartucci etc aswell LOL Mj had free access to tens of thousands of children through out his life yet all we got was ppl with clear motives and agendas accusing him. mj certainly was picky wasnt he lol. obviously things may change depending on whether robsons money grab goes anywhere but the fact the floodgates didnt open after mjs death like they did with saville tells you everything!!
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

wade supporters are now trying to make rumour up that mj molsted brett barnes and that brett is in denial :rolleyes:

Oh, they are harassing everyone to try to get them say MJ molested them. They recently harassed Corey Feldman as well.

Corey Feldman ?@Corey_Feldman 1h
@MikeParziale1 dude get over it! MJ is gone And if Wade had a gripe, he shoulda said so while the man could defend himself!

He blocked them since, because they kept harassing him. So these haters not only spread some twisted and downright untrue info about what went on at MJ's trials and what is in those court documents, but they also harass people, hack Twitter accounts, bully and do just about anything the worst trolls do. And these are people who Wade has no problem to associate himself with! He and his family (Chantal and Jonathan) communicate with this hater group, they thank them for their "support" (which, as you can see, includes harassing and bullying people). In fact they kind of confirmed a direct communication with Chantal recently.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

You dont need to lie if you are telling the truth and actually believe what you are saying. They resort to lying and to continue to use impeached arguments in court as evidence of mj's guilt because they know very well if they presnt the evidence like it really was the public would found him innocent the same way the jury did.

Exactly! Why need to lie, make up and twist stuff and rely on tactics like they do (hacking people's twitter accounts and harassing people) if they are truly out there to support a person who they believe to be a victim? You never see these people talk about generally fighting against pedophiles and child abuse. You never see them trashing any proven child molester. In fact, some of them showed support to a convicted child molester just because he wrote a book portraying MJ as a child molester. They are also supportive of pedophilia advocate, Victor Guiterrez. They do not have a problem with these people. You never see them going on about Roman Polanski who is actually a proven child molester. They have only one thing on their agenda: to live out their obsessed hatred towards MJ. They could not care less about whether Wade is telling the truth or not. They just use his allegations to further trash MJ. But they deserve each other.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

dont bother with the haters. heck most are just sad internet trolls

a hater using savile to support their argument shows how stupid they are. savile is an argument for why mj is innocent. 100's of ppl have claimed abuse against savile. ppl from many different places with no connections to one another spanning many decades as he had free access to 10 of thousands of ppl through out his life

and mj had who accuse him!! the chandlers where theres clear evidence of extortion. the arvizos with a history of falsely accusing ppl etc etc etc. and wade LOL or does the hater want to use the likes of bartucci etc aswell LOL Mj had free access to tens of thousands of children through out his life yet all we got was ppl with clear motives and agendas accusing him. mj certainly was picky wasnt he lol. obviously things may change depending on whether robsons money grab goes anywhere but the fact the floodgates didnt open after mjs death like they did with saville tells you everything!!

Yes. These haters try to play "there are already 4 victims" card as if that's many and as if that means they can't be all false allegations. But when you break them down one by one you see how they are ALL suspect and how the first one inspired all the rest. When someone gets the stigma of a child molester it's almost impossible to get rid of it for the rest of his life. And it will make it easier for others to accuse him as well. Here we have a guy who was filthy rich, very naive, perceived to be weird and got the stigma attached to him in 1993. The perfect target for extortionists and opportunists.

Each of these four allegations are connected to each other. In Jordan, Gavin and Jason's case it was the same prosecution with an axe to grind against MJ. The same lawyer (Feldman), the same psychologist (Katz) - it was all connected with the same players. And now Wade is trying this way to get money because of the stigma that is already on MJ and he thinks this will make it easier for him to make people believe it. But all four allegations are financially motivated (and yes, even the Arvizo case, no matter what Ron Zonen claims).

I have seen Sean Penn's documentary called Witch Hunt which was about people who were wrongly imprisoned for long periods on false child molestation allegations. After they spent years in jail it came out they were innocent. But those people had dozens of kids accusing them - and it were still false child abuse allegations. The prosecution somehow managed to get them falsely accuse these people. Or there is the McMartin case where there were hundreds of alleged victims, but those too turned out to be false allegations. So the number of alleged victims does not mean anything in itself without looking below the surface about how those allegations emerged.

And money wasn't even a factor in those cases, but it was in the cases against MJ! Actually it was the main factor. How can people ignore that fact when the Nr 1 motive for people to lie is money? In fact, considering the stigma and his wealth and the decades long media brainwash I'd say it's a miracle that there has only been four allegations! MJ is such an easy target for this.

And yes, you are right about the "floodgates". When Jordan accused him that should have opened the floodgates but it did not. In fact the prosecution had the opposite problem: they could not find anyone else to support Jordan. Then by pressuring him with classic improper and suggestive interviewing techniques they managed to get Jason Francia somehow "remember" (even if he initially did not) that MJ improperly tickled him. That's all they could come up with after interviewing dozens and dozens of kids around MJ!

Then the Arvizos came and Sneddon was on national TV calling other alleged victims to come foreward, even setting up a website for them to be able to contact them, but no other alleged victim came (expect for ones like Kapon and Bartucci who never even met MJ). And that was already the second time the floodgates should have been opened up.But no one came through those floodgates.

And then MJ died and no floodgate either.

What you see in real child abuse cases is totally the opposite: one victim comes foreward and the floodgates open and dozens of others come forward too. The reason why those people don't come foreward for a long time is because they think they were alone and no one would believe them. But this wasn't an excuse in MJ's case: MJ was publically accused with Sneddon's whole troop ready to believe anyone who would make an allegation. By 2005 he was convicted by the court of public opinion so there's no "no one would believe me" excuse that can work here.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Wade just like so many others is a pitiful excuse for human life. I hope he, his family and his supporters rot in hell.
 
respect77;3913143 said:
Think what you want about LMP, but I really don't think she purposfully posted that link. It also would not be the first time that hater hacked someone's Twitter. He did it with a fan earlier too.

It's so clear these people do not give a rat's ass about Wade or child abuse - they are just MJ haters and internet trolls using the allegations against MJ to try to mask their activity as fighting for a "good cause". The Robsons associating themselves with such people is not a good look for them.

I think like that, maybe Lisa just thought it was a video against child molesters (the link doesn´t mention Michael's name) so she retweeted.
She knows what fans would do to her if she retweeted such a thing, I believe it was a mistake or she was hacked.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It wouldnt matter if twenty ppl accused mj if they all had the same credibility issues and motives of the chandlers arvizos etc. its quality not quanity.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It's still so weird Wade's mother hasn't said anything. At least for supporting her bastard son. I wonder if she realizes deep inside her, it's vile and shameless lie.

To me what sick, twisted dudes do isn't just trolling, they wanna screw Michael up.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Then the Arvizos came and Sneddon was on national TV calling other alleged victims to come foreward, even setting up a website for them to be able to contact them, but no other alleged victim came (expect for ones like Kapon and Bartucci who never even met MJ). And that was already the second time the floodgates should have been opened up.But no one came through those floodgates.

And then MJ died and no floodgate either.

And then after Wade's claim there was no floodgate.

And after Wade's camp got Baressi to resell his BS there was no floodgate.

I think outsiders understand that there are huge problems in what's going on because on a visceral level they can see the allegations don't add up in a normal way. That there's something missing.

But instead of blaming the fake victims, they blame MJ. MJ paid hush money to everyone - I mean I saw SO many posters on forums acting like the FBI docs was the final proof, finally they had an answer for why there were no victims! They'd never said before this is what they needed, but suddenly when they had it they acted like it was obvious! After that got debunked I saw people making up stories about how MJ had threatened everyone into silence - this person accused the fans of conspiracy theories in believing his innocence, when I pointed out that this "threatened everyone" version of events contradicted her supposed Jordan/Jason/Wade victims who never claimed to be threatened and therefore SHE was the one with the conspiracy she didn't respond back to me. Same thing over and over again.

I think like the Chandler's Wade expected a floodgate. He's either delusional enough to believe MJ did molest other kids really OR he's sociopathic enough to presume everyone else is as greedy and shady as he is. As he said to TMZ and then in a statement later, he wanted other victims to come forwards. One of The Mirror's reports within hours of the Baressi doc was that Wade was relieved as he felt other victims would help him be viewed more sympathetically.

Wade's very unlucky as there are very few kids who could be molested:

The Cascios - still denies it
Emmanuel Lewis - still denies it
Jonathan Spence - still denies
James Safechuck - still denies it
Brett Barnes - still denies it
Omer Bhatti - still denies it
Macaulay Culkin - still denies it
Sean Lennon - still denies it
Corey Feldman - still denies it

Those are the kids who SHOULD be victims if Wade was telling the truth. They all deny it. Yet they're the liars.

I think it's funny they also don't realize that the only supposed witnesses ALL happened from 1990-1993 NEVER before or after that and almost every single one was contacted by Victor Gutierrez. They don't think it's bizarre there's never been any witnesses outside those dates for this big prolific pedophile?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It's still so weird Wade's mother hasn't said anything. At least for supporting her bastard son. I wonder if she realizes deep inside her, it's vile and shameless lie.

To me what sick, twisted dudes do isn't just trolling, they wanna screw Michael up.

Parents can be very blind when it comes to their own children. It's not unusual for example to read that the parents of convicted murderers will never believe that their child could kill.
I expect that she feels that she needs to back Wade in order to keep the family together, and probably because she can't convince herself that he might lie about anything as serious as this. It must be very difficult for a parent to be objective about a child.
 
LadyinHisLife80;3914081 said:
I think like that, maybe Lisa just thought it was a video against child molesters (the link doesn´t mention Michael's name) so she retweeted.
She knows what fans would do to her if she retweeted such a thing, I believe it was a mistake or she was hacked.

She was hacked. Parziale did it before.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

But instead of blaming the fake victims, they blame MJ. MJ paid hush money to everyone - I mean I saw SO many posters on forums acting like the FBI docs was the final proof, finally they had an answer for why there were no victims! They'd never said before this is what they needed, but suddenly when they had it they acted like it was obvious! After that got debunked I saw people making up stories about how MJ had threatened everyone into silence - this person accused the fans of conspiracy theories in believing his innocence, when I pointed out that this "threatened everyone" version of events contradicted her supposed Jordan/Jason/Wade victims who never claimed to be threatened and therefore SHE was the one with the conspiracy she didn't respond back to me. Same thing over and over again.

MJ never paid any hush money to anyone. In fact, the media is very manipulative to call the Chandler and Francia settlements "hush money". Hush money is if you pay someone to not to go public and to authorities. None of those settlements had that purpose. People don't even realize that if MJ was this guy who paid hush money to kids left and right how come he did not pay off the Chandlers when, according to their own freaking story, that's all the Chandlers ever wanted: to be paid off?! There is absolutely no evidence of him ever paying hush money to anyone, in fact there is evidence that he refused to pay hush money to the Chandlers when they demanded that he paid them off in August 1993.

On the other hand, there is evidence that the so called "witnesses" the prosecution used against MJ - and ALL (100%) of those who claimed to have witnessed improper behavior by MJ to kids were paid money by tabloids before they came out with their allegations. There is also evidence that tabloid media offered money to other kids to say MJ molested them (eg. the Newts). So if they want to talk about money and pay offs and how greed can twist justice then that's what they should talk about not MJ's non-existent hush money. And of course the fact that all alleged victims wanted money.


I think it's funny they also don't realize that the only supposed witnesses ALL happened from 1990-1993 NEVER before or after that and almost every single one was contacted by Victor Gutierrez. They don't think it's bizarre there's never been any witnesses outside those dates for this big prolific pedophile?

Yes, that's a good point. Jordan said he was molested in 1993, Jason said he was improperly touched somewhere between 1987 and 1991 and Wade says he was molested between 1989 and 1996. And all three of them had contact with Victor Gutierrez at the time... Magically MJ stopped molesting kids after that (expect for Gavin, I guess just to give the prosecution something to be right about as, according to the Arvizo story, he started to molest him while he was investigated for the Bashir documentary, even though he never molested him before.).
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate



^ I'm officially annoyed. Mainly by Mike Parakeet (yes, I called him parakeet.) and his so called 'supporters'--better known as the delusional hater's club. I think it's quite ironic how all the people who don't believe Wade are suddenly 'delusional' or 'off'. That man seems like the one waaaayyyy off of his rocker. Buying fake likes with $100. And supporting a pedophile advocate. *Kingsley voice* Really b*tch, really?



^ I had to add this one in, xD

Anyway, if I don't promise anything else, know that I DO promise that once I become a journalist/news reporter/or even president of the United States (if that happens, hopefully I'll be the first female. Because I'll be having an MJ themed inauguration lol) I'll make sure I put every shred of evidence proving his innocence out there. If people listen to it, that's beautiful, if they don't--sorry I couldn't make them smart. Ooooh..if I become a journalist or news reporter I'll make sure to get Diane Dimond on live TV and put her in check in front of the whole country. *devious laughter*

But in all seriousness, this is getting really old. I say all the haters get a mental evaluation.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Parents can be very blind when it comes to their own children. It's not unusual for example to read that the parents of convicted murderers will never believe that their child could kill.
I expect that she feels that she needs to back Wade in order to keep the family together, and probably because she can't convince herself that he might lie about anything as serious as this. It must be very difficult for a parent to be objective about a child.

It makes my blood boil to read some of Chantal's comments, but then I remind myself that she may be mislead by Wade as well. We don't know if any of his family member are in it with him or they just accept Wade's lies. Probably any of us would have the same reaction if someone we love made such an allegation against someone: we would not question him, but we would support him. That's the natural reaction.

But in that case, it's a very cruel move by Wade not only to MJ, but to his own mother as well. There is no way Joy can come away from this looking good. If Wade says people at MJ's companies just stood by and did nothing to help him and sues those people and companies how can he give a pass to his mother? There is simply no way he can. I do not think he thought it over well what the implications of this could be for Joy. Well, perhaps they never even expected it to go to trial. They just expected the Estate to settle silently.
I think Joy does not say anything because they try to keep her low-profile in all this. But in case it goes to trial she won't be able to avoid scrutiny.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It took 20+ years, several interviews, testimony in a court of law and he's finally realized he was "molested". Funny old world, huh.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I've tried to stay away from this, it makes me so angry, that he could do this. Hopefully people realise the amount of crap that is streaming from his mouth and nothing comes of this.
 
he fits the classic profile of a pedophile

I´m not sure but I think it was from 1993 someone said he didn´t fit the classical profile of a pedophile.
Maybe it was someone from the police who said it, I suppose I saw it in the news then.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Pretty sure Michael was reviewed and they said he had no "classic" signs of a pedophile.
 
MIST;3914270 said:
I´m not sure but I think it was from 1993 someone said he didn´t fit the classical profile of a pedophile.
Maybe it was someone from the police who said it, I suppose I saw it in the news then.
There were multiple researchers and psychologists who said in 1993 that there was no such thing as a classic profile of a child molester, because they come from all walks of life, all ages, and can appear to be completely average and normal. The only generalization that could be made was that 90% of convicted child molesters were men, and that isn't very useful. Even these days the "profile" of a child molester is so vague it can't really distinguish a pervert from those who just like the company of kids.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That guy doesn't have a chance. He testified in MJ favour. He said Michael never abused him. Now he contradicts himself.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It's not even what those prosecution/court documents say. That's why fans need to educate themselves to be able to refute the twisted info haters put out there.

It's been years since I've read the court documents. I don't know the exact details of it anymore, just the basics. Is there a way to view them online? I tried to download them the other day (someone linked to a zip file) but it just gave a virus to my computer and I couldn't open them.

1) The possession of child porn is a crime in itself. MJ had been charged with it if he had any. He was never charged with it either in 1993 or in 2005. No, he did not have child porn - not a single piece of it, let alone "tons of". Had MJ have any child porn he would be in jail. Actually this should be evident to anyone with at least two functioniong brain cells.

Wasn't this one of the charges in the 2005 case? I seem to recall that the prosecution tried to pass off these perfectly legal art photography books as pornographic material. Anyway, I used the same argument you did, that the possession of child porn is a federal offense and if there was any evidence that MJ was guilty of this, he would have been convicted. The hater's response was that the material was "child erotica" and not child porn; that is was not illegal in and of itself but endorsed by organisations like NAMBLA and that it was highly suspicious for MJ to have them. He also said MJ had nude pictures of Jonathan Spencer, another boy he "slept with".

2) The so called "witnesses" (who were about 5-6, not 12) who claimed in 2005 to have witnessed MJ behave inappropriately were ALL proven to be liars for money on the stand. They were 3 people of the Neverland 5, who only came up with their BS when the media paid them money for it and then they sued MJ trying to leech him off for money. Only MJ counter sued them and they were found to be thieves and liars. At the civil trial they were reprimanded by the Judge for lying on the stand. Then there was Philip LeMarque who also came up with his allegation after the Chandler scandal when he wanted tabloid money for them. He's the "when the price was $100,000 MJ's hands were outside of Macaulay's pants, when it was $500,000 they were inside his pants" guy who Barresi interviewed. Then Blanca Francia who too came up with her allegation when Diane Dimond paid her. Oh, and Bob Jones who admitted on the stand that he lied in his book about having witnessed anything. And there's a bunch of people who not even this prosecution used because they did not have any credibility even for them. So those are the kind of "witnesses" we talk about. ALL, 100% of them, being paid by tabloids and proven to be shady people who would do anything for money.

I said the same thing as well. I also mentioned how it was strange that Blanca Francia supposedly witnessed all this abuse but still allowed her young son to be around MJ. The hater's response was that it's not unusual for witnesses to "protect" the abuser and to keep quiet when they know abuse is going on.

Lie detector test? LOL. That would be the Hayvenhurst 5 - one of those people claimed to have taken a lie detector test (there's no proof he indeed did). Again, those people were so "credible" that not even the prosecution touched them. In fact, in their police deposition they actually admitted they never witnessed anything inappropriate.

See, he threw me for a loop here. He claimed there was a witness who passed two lie detector tests and that this was in the court documents. First time I heard that but not surprised it's complete BS.

3) MJ did not have porn scattered everywhere. He had them in his LOCKED bedroom - in his nightstand, in a box at the base of his bed and in a locked briefcase. Kids were not supposed to go in there when he wasn't there. It's another thing that some, including the Arvizo kids, did, but how is that MJ's responsibility when kids basically break into his locked bedroom in his absence? And once again: he had no child porn.

I know, I told him he had his facts mixed up (heterosexual porn was locked away, the art photography books were not). He also insisted MJ had lots of homosexual (male-on-male) porn. According to this hater, MJ was not only a pedophile but gay as well.

4) There's nothing similar in MJ and Jimmy Savile and that "classic pedophile profile" is such a myth. Even Dr. Stanley Katz who was absolutely biased for the prosecution said that MJ did not look like a classic pedophile to him.

Yep, I wrote the same thing you did about MJ having the stigma of a child molester while Savile maintained a respectable public image until he died.

Your posts are so clear and eloquent, I wish everyone could read them. I hope you share your knowledge with as many people as you can, although I know how time-consuming it can be. I hate that YT only allows 500 characters per comment, it's impossible to structure a proper response that way. It amazes me that someone can know so much about the case and still believe MJ was guilty. How can you possibly research the accusations against him and not see that it was clearly a matter of extortion?
 
MIST;3914270 said:
I´m not sure but I think it was from 1993 someone said he didn´t fit the classical profile of a pedophile.
Maybe it was someone from the police who said it, I suppose I saw it in the news then.

Maybe you mean the Mary Fischer article from 1994? Here's an excerpt:

"There's no such thing as a classic profile. They made a completely foolish and illogical error," says Dr. Ralph Underwager, a Minneapolis psychiatrist who has treated pedophiles and victims of incest since 1953. Jackson, he believes, "got nailed" because of "misconceptions like these that have been allowed to parade as fact in an era of hysteria."In truth, as a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study shows, many child-abuse allegations -- 48 percent of those filed in 1990 -- proved to be unfounded.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Wasn't this one of the charges in the 2005 case? I seem to recall that the prosecution tried to pass off these perfectly legal art photography books as pornographic material. Anyway, I used the same argument you did, that the possession of child porn is a federal offense and if there was any evidence that MJ was guilty of this, he would have been convicted. The hater's response was that the material was "child erotica" and not child porn; that is was not illegal in and of itself but endorsed by organisations like NAMBLA and that it was highly suspicious for MJ to have them. He also said MJ had nude pictures of Jonathan Spencer, another boy he "slept with".

No, it wasn't any of the charges.

They tried to pass off legal books as "porn" but that wasn't a charge.

The two books mentioned were given by a fan in 1983, one is inscribed by the fan, the other is inscribed by MJ about how it's a childhood he hoped his kids would have. Both of them are non sexual photos of kids just playing, if that's "erotica" to people, then anything is. You have to be a real idiot to think the only source of naked kids MJ could find was from 2 books given to him by a fan in 1983. And btw it was Blanca Francia who put the books in a cupboard, she was fired in 1991 and was the only one who had a key, police had to use her to break into it - so MJ had survived from 1991-1993 without these precious books.

Prosecution tried to claim there was a photo of a naked kid who was possibly Jonathan Spence, but they never entered this into actual evidence, it was never in court. That photo alone if it existed would have been enough to have him in prison for life. Instead Sneddon didn't even use whatever it supposedly even was. It's been said it was a photo of a naked toddler.
I said the same thing as well. I also mentioned how it was strange that Blanca Francia supposedly witnessed all this abuse but still allowed her young son to be around MJ. The hater's response was that it's not unusual for witnesses to "protect" the abuser and to keep quiet when they know abuse is going on.
That makes no sense, how stupid.
I know, I told him he had his facts mixed up (heterosexual porn was locked away, the art photography books were not). He also insisted MJ had lots of homosexual (male-on-male) porn. According to this hater, MJ was not only a pedophile but gay as well.
LOL totally made up, there was only one book found with anything gay in it in 2003, it was found in a box full of thousands of other books in the downstairs of MJ's room and the prosecution admitted they couldn't even tell if MJ had opened it. Only a couple of other books MJ had of photography with nude males, that was it. Almost all the books like that were sent in by the photographer's themselves.


You're not just speaking to someone who dislikes MJ btw, you're speaking to one of the well known haters behind the anti-MJ websites. The well known haters all use the same lies in their arguments to try and create a case and trick people into thinking they know what they're talking about. I would make your replies to that person separate from them so that they don't respond to you, but that others can see the responses, and block/report them for spam.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I just spent two hours "debating" with a hater, it just feels like a waste of time because I know nothing I say makes any difference. I was watching a completely unrelated video and the top comment was this person bashing MJ :( It's obvious he just read the prosecution's documents and took them as truth. He claimed MJ had tons of nude pictures and pornographic material of children, that there were 12 witnesses who saw him abuse children and one of them passed two lie detector tests, that MJ had porn scattered everywhere to groom children (except the child porn, which he kept locked away), that he fits the classic profile of a pedophile, that he's just like Jimmy Savile, etc. It's so frustrating that so many people apparently believe this, and the fact that he says he has "court documents" to prove it makes him sound more credible even though we all know the claims in those documents are BS and disproven in court. Wade will give these people even more ammunition. It's so unfair.

Don't debate with him just post that there is NO court evidence of child pornography, which is illegal, and what ever items he claims. Then post that a lawyer's/prosecutor's arguments are not evidence. You can post the list of what was found if you have it, just in case an uninformed person clicks on that site. Don't debate with these people because that is not what they are about. They want to spread exactly what is on their minds and that is all, not debate with you.

On another note, haters including TMZ always make fabricated lists of what was found in that raid. We need to put the correct list somewhere in this section of the forum for a quick reference. They keep saying he had child porn & gay porn.
 
Last edited:
LindavG;3914338 said:
It's been years since I've read the court documents. I don't know the exact details of it anymore, just the basics. Is there a way to view them online? I tried to download them the other day (someone linked to a zip file) but it just gave a virus to my computer and I couldn't open them.

Wasn't this one of the charges in the 2005 case? I seem to recall that the prosecution tried to pass off these perfectly legal art photography books as pornographic material. Anyway, I used the same argument you did, that the possession of child porn is a federal offense and if there was any evidence that MJ was guilty of this, he would have been convicted. The hater's response was that the material was "child erotica" and not child porn; that is was not illegal in and of itself but endorsed by organisations like NAMBLA and that it was highly suspicious for MJ to have them. He also said MJ had nude pictures of Jonathan Spencer, another boy he "slept with".

Here are the court transcripts: http://www.sendspace.com/file/7vibp9


La_C already answered most of it.

It was one of those MJ-bashing documentaries in which one of the prosecutors called those two books "child erotica" - knowing he can't call them child porn because it simply isn't - so haters ever since use that inflammatory term to describe these two art books.

But in reality we talk about two art books which were made in the 60s, which were a gift by a fan and one of which was inscribed by Michael showing how he viewed them. (“Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children, MJ.” ) Here I wrote about about them: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...inger-s-home?p=3856585&viewfull=1#post3856585

LA_C is right, you are being tricked by a hater and these are the same copied-pasted flawed arguments, verbatim, that a hater website uses. No, MJ was never charged or even attempted to be charged with child porn. In fact in 1993 after the search (in which those two books were found) invstigators acknowledged that “the search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing”. The prosecution knew well it was not child porn, nor child erotica - they never used even the later term in court.

The hater's response was that it's not unusual for witnesses to "protect" the abuser and to keep quiet when they know abuse is going on.

LOL. For haters everything that they can't answer in a logical way becomes just "not unusual". So to them it's normal for adult people to witness child molestation and keep quiet about it until some tabloid offers them money? It's also "normal" for them for parents and alleged victims rather wanting money than the accused in jail.It's also "normal" for them for alleged witenesses to go to tabloids rather than authorities.According to these people none of these affects these people's credibility? Alright then.

He also insisted MJ had lots of homosexual (male-on-male) porn. According to this hater, MJ was not only a pedophile but gay as well.

Another lie. The only piece of material that can be perhaps called male-on-male "porn" was a rare book called Sexual Study of Man which was published in the 60s and which was found with hundreds of other books and vintage books in a cardboard box. That book was about homosexuality and apparently had pics in it which depicted homosexual activity. If that is "lots of"... There were some other books with both nude males and females that they confiscated - none of those were porn, none of those depicted sexual activity (except for some books on females), they were art photo books. The context in which you have to put those books is (including the two books from the 1993 search with the kids) that MJ had a huge collection of art books and especially art photo books. Obviously some of those will have nudes in it. He also had a fondness for rare, vintage books.

Here is, for example, Todd Gray talking about MJ's love for art photo books:

"When Michael did find time to relax, he loved to leaf through photographic picture books. He would bring his favorite books with him on tour and buy more books while on the road - the bus weighted with an increasing number of boxes as we left each city. The Triumph Tour began in Memphis with no boxes; by the time we got to Dallas, a few days later, I noticed two; then came Houston; and by the time we hit San Antonio, I noticed a score of boxes being loaded onto the bus. He especially loved books on Hollywood glamour from the 1930s, richly illustrated children’s books, and coffee-table books on photography. Michael would usually hole up in the rear of the bus, while the others spent their time together in front. I also preferred the quiet at the back, and I would sit down with him while he was engrossed in a book of Hollywood glamour photographs from the 1930s. Looking at a particularly striking photo, he would say, “This is magic. They don’t make photos like this anymore.” He studied the pose, eyes, make-up, and expression - everything that went into a great glamour photo.

Michael also loved books that showed children from around the world. One day on the bus I remember him saying “I wish I could write a book about the children of the world. I could go to every country and show how everyone on earth is beautiful. I want to go to India and show the poverty and suffering of the children there, and maybe I could help improve the situation. Africa, too, where there is so much starvation and disease. Todd, would you want to do that with me?” I was stunned, both because I wondered how Michael would ever find the time and also that he wanted me to be the photographer. I suggested that he take a look at the photographs of Lewis Hine, the influential photojournalist whose work helped spur the introduction of child labor laws in the early twentieth century.”

"When Michael and I leafed through photography books on the tour bus, he would point out images he especially liked. He particularly loved the light that bathed the faces of the stars in classic Hollywood portraits. "This light is magic," he'd say in a whisper. "This picture is magic. Look at her eyes. They are so innocent and beautiful. Todd, I want you to photograph me like this." He also told me he wanted to be photographed in expressions similar to those in the photographs of children laboring in factories taken by Lewis Hine in the early 20th century, the subject of another book we had looked at on the bus."

The books confiscated were books by renowned photographers such as Bruce Weber - the same photographer who did the L'Uomo Vouge photos of Michael in 2007 and who Michael knew since he was a teenager because he also used to photograph him back in the 70s. The prosecution were simply desperate to use this kind of stuff as evidence for anything. They introduced it saying that they can be used to "groom victims", even though no alleged victim ever claimed to have seen them...

Michael's real porn was all 100% heterosexual or the type of female-on-female stuff which is targeted to heterosexual men. No male-on-male porn was found among his magazines, DVDs, the websites he visited or the pics which were cached on his computer, only stuff which is targeted to heterosexual men. All legal, of course.

It amazes me that someone can know so much about the case and still believe MJ was guilty. How can you possibly research the accusations against him and not see that it was clearly a matter of extortion?

Don't fall for that "knowledge". They are good at selling themselves to those who are uninformed, but most of these haters do not know much about the allegations. There is a hater website that they go to for ammunition to argue and they use the exact same terms (for example "NAMBLA endorsed books") and that's how you can tell they take their arguments from there. It's a highly flawed website with carefully cherry-picked and twisted information about the cases and evidence. They do not present the full picture and context because they know that would exonerate MJ. Those who created that website simply WANT MJ to be guilty. If they would be really honest and genuine in their research they would not need to make up stuff and take things out of context, twist things and they would present the full picture and context, not just cherry-picked stuff. They are clearly not honest and genuine. The same people tried to plant child porn on Charles Thomson, tried to impersonate him online, bullied Paris on Twitter etc. Why to do all that if you are an honest researcher? Well, they are not, they are haters.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

There were multiple researchers and psychologists who said in 1993 that there was no such thing as a classic profile of a child molester, because they come from all walks of life, all ages, and can appear to be completely average and normal. The only generalization that could be made was that 90% of convicted child molesters were men, and that isn't very useful. Even these days the "profile" of a child molester is so vague it can't really distinguish a pervert from those who just like the company of kids.

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

So...is this just a cheap a$$ publicity stunt or ploy, as in

a cunning plan or action designed to turn a situation to one's own advantage.

With the mentioning of Naomi Campbell or Eddie Murphy, both of whom appeared in the "Dangerous" album short films of Michael Jackson's. It seems Wade Robson is trying to draw our attention back to this particular time period, what to take away that Jordy Chandler wasn't Michael's first and Wade was and this makes it relevant, this cheap a$$ publicity stunt or ploy...

a cunning plan or action designed to turn a situation to one's own advantage!
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It took 20+ years, several interviews, testimony in a court of law and he's finally realized he was "molested". Funny old world, huh.

LOL i know right

shows how much this is messed up
 
Corey Feldman Slams Michael Jackson Child Molestation Accuser Wade Robson: ‘He Had A Gripe’

Posted on Oct 7, 2013 @ 17:48PM | By radarstaff

Four years after his death Michael Jackson is still surrounded by controversy but his longtime friend Corey Feldman never stops defending him against child molestation charges.

Corey hit back at a Wade Robson, who posthumously accused the King of Pop of abusing him.

When Mike Parziale, who runs the ’Supporters of Wade Robson and other victims of MJ’ website, tweeted to Corey, asking “Corey you have a son would you allow him to sleep in the same bed as MJ if he was still alive?” and the Goonies star was quick to respond.

“Dude get over it! MJ is gone And if Wade had a gripe, he shoulda said so while the man could defend himself!” Feldman wrote, referring to Robson’s claim that

Feldman continued his defense of Jackson, writing: “plus if he was such a victim y did he take his side during “the trial” and let MJ buy him a house/car? I never took a thing!”

According to Robson, it wasn’t until May 8, 2012 that he realized he’d been systematically abused — after multiple nervous breakdowns which included feelings of extreme stress, anxiety, fear, depression and insomnia.

Feldman has been an outspoken supporter of his late friend. He released the video for ”Ascension Millennium” this summer where he danced and dressed up like Michael Jackson.

Commenters hit back at Parziale’s tweet, slamming him and writing: “Like corey feldman 4 example. He hounds him & when par does not get the answer he likes he attacks him.”

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2...ael-jackson-defends-child-molestation-claims/
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Mj bought wade a house/ car? Is corey snorting coke AGAIN ?
 
Back
Top