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

[Justthefacts]

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

Is the Safechuck thing about accepting his CC claim?

 

[HIStory]

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

as expected

Pearl: No ruling today. Another hearing in which a ruling to proceed maybe determined is Nov 6 & Nov 19

Is this about Safechuck?

BTW, I find it really odd how Safechuck's lawsuit has not been released like Robson's. Yes, the media reported about its contents but they have never published the actual lawsuit. I wonder if it's even available in the court IT system or someone leaked it to the media just to generate negative headlines.

 

[MJresearcher]

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

Yes, it's been fairly quiet on the Safechuck front compared to what's been released about Wade's claims and proceedings.Will be very interesting to see what the judge's decision about discovery will be.

 

[analogue]

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

Something I need to get off my chest cause this frustrates me. I really hate it when some fans say that Jordan Chandler came out after MJ's death and said that MJ never touched him, cause that never happened. I appreciate that these people are trying to defend MJ, but I wish that they would use the correct information when defending him.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

I think Safechuck got the wedding idea from the Eddie Long sexual abuse scandal.

 

[SarahJ]

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

God this is nerve-racking. I realize things take their time in the court system, but still...

 

[GreenEyes]

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

Is this about Safechuck?

BTW, I find it really odd how Safechuck's lawsuit has not been released like Robson's. Yes, the media reported about its contents but they have never published the actual lawsuit. I wonder if it's even available in the court IT system or someone leaked it to the media just to generate negative headlines.

I think (but it's just a guess), that the whole Robson thing was leaked on purpose. He was almost boasting about it on his Facebook page. He seemed to be gloating over the lurid rape details that went out. He even went on the Today show when he first filed his claim. He never intended for any of it to remain private. He's enjoying the bragging too much.

 

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

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

I think (but it's just a guess), that the whole Robson thing was leaked on purpose. He was almost boasting about it on his Facebook page. He seemed to be gloating over the lurid rape details that went out. He even went on the Today show when he first filed his claim. He never intended for any of it to remain private. He's enjoying the bragging too much.

That's why I've never been able to believe how his lawyers tried to sneak the court filing past the media at the beginning of this whole mess. I think they all knew that eventually the claim was going to be found out and published. Then they said something that sounded to me like they only went public with this because the Estate forced it out into the open by talking about it. Please. Give me a break. Excuses. Excuses. Excuses..

 

[dannyboy72]

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

Matt Lauer asked him why he didn't do this quietly and tried to work out some kind of deal with the lawyers and he stated "Because I've lived in silence and denial for the past 22 years. In order for me to truly heal, I must speak as loud as i can."

 

[ivy]

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

Today one fan / believer aka Pearl Jr was at the courtroom, she has been talking about the hearing. (I'm not gonna mention her believer stuff)

Apparently Estate has mentioned statue of limitations being passed in 3 different ways. (26 yrs old, 1 year, 60 days.) Estate apparently saying they shouldn't be even here, the case shouldn't be allowed. They mentioned they are working for beneficiaries not MJ. Also mentioned there's a reason for statue of limitations - so that Estate can close. They argued these never ending claims causes Estate not being able to closed.

Apparently Wade / Safechuck lawyers mentioned equitable estoppel. Wade's lawyer mentioned "compressed" memories that he remembered it when he remembered it.

Estate said it doesn't matter such memories can only be used in criminal cases and not at civil / probate cases.

As the discovery goes, they asked for Neverland search info, apparently used "serial pedophile" to describe MJ. Weitzman was apparently angry and argued they do not want to agree to any discovery until after the court determines if the case will go forward or not.

As for the interrogatories they want Estate to answer and Estate say they have no knowledge about such accusations. Apparently Robson/Safechuck lawyers mentioned Branca being a long time lawyer and be able to answer questions and mentioned the previous accusations of Chandler and Arvizos. Apparently Weitzman said there's no way that they would have any knowledge, 93 was a settlement with no admittance of guilt and in 2005 he was acquitted. So even though there were accusations there's no knowledge/information/evidence of guilt.

 

[GreenEyes]

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

Matt Lauer asked him why he didn't do this quietly and tried to work out some kind of deal with the lawyers and he stated "Because I've lived in silence and denial for the past 22 years. In order for me to truly heal, I must speak as loud as i can."

Translation.... I know this claim will probably go nowhere due to me testifying under oath that NOTHING bad ever happened, and it's WAY past the statute to bring any such claim - but I can try to force a settlement if I claim that Michael Jackson raped me repeatedly. They will probably just pay me to shut up.

I guess he figured wrong.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Thanks ivy

 

[Justthefacts]

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

What is compressed memories?

 

[Justthefacts]

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

is anyone else curious about that Branca of being a lawyer and shou l d know comments like I am?

 

[ivy]

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

is anyone else curious about that Branca of being a lawyer and shou l d know comments like I am?

no not really. Estate previously argued the beneficiaries of the Estate - aka Katherine and MJ's kids- cannot defend MJ in such claims as they didn't know or even weren't born at the time of these events. It seems to be "but Branca was hired by MJ going to back to 80s so he should know and be able to answer" has been Wade / James's counter argument.

Weitzman seems to have done a good job in replying that. Branca working for Michael for a long time doesn't necessarily mean he would know anything to answer those questions. Similarly prior accusations doesn't mean they know anything. Like Weitzman pointed out those ended in no admittance of quilt and an acquittal / not guilty verdict.

 

[HIStory]

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

Matt Lauer asked him why he didn't do this quietly and tried to work out some kind of deal with the lawyers and he stated "Because I've lived in silence and denial for the past 22 years. In order for me to truly heal, I must speak as loud as i can."

Funny, because that is contradictory with their initial request to have this case under seal, citiing the privacy interests of the Defendant...

 

[HIStory]

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

Today one fan / believer aka Pearl Jr was at the courtroom, she has been talking about the hearing. (I'm not gonna mention her believer stuff)

Apparently Estate has mentioned statue of limitations being passed in 3 different ways. (26 yrs old, 1 year, 60 days.) Estate apparently saying they shouldn't be even here, the case shouldn't be allowed. They mentioned they are working for beneficiaries not MJ. Also mentioned there's a reason for statue of limitations - so that Estate can close. They argued these never ending claims causes Estate not being able to closed.

Apparently Wade / Safechuck lawyers mentioned equitable estoppel. Wade's lawyer mentioned "compressed" memories that he remembered it when he remembered it.

Estate said it doesn't matter such memories can only be used in criminal cases and not at civil / probate cases.

Thanks Ivy. So their last resort is equitable estoppel? I don't think their case is strong for an equitable estoppel either. (I reasoned why I think so here: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tate/page516?p=4038647&viewfull=1#post4038647 )

And WTH is "compressed memories"? Didn't they say it wasn't repressed memories? So now they want those memories to be "compressed"? When I google "compressed memory" all I see is all kind of links to computer/informatics websites. Apparently computers can have compressed memory, but humans? So did he want to say repressed memory? But then he contradicts their earlier claim when they said it wasn't that.

 

[MJresearcher]

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

And WTH is "compressed memories"? Didn't they say it wasn't repressed memories? So now they want those memories to be "compressed"? When I google "compressed memory" all I see is all kind of links to computer/informatics websites. Apparently computers can have compressed memory, but humans? So did he want to say repressed memory? But then he contradicts their earlier claim when they said it wasn't that.

This made me laugh so hard! It would actually be pretty funny if he started claiming repressed memories now, especially since there's the interview he did where he said that wasn't true earlier on. Wade is more full of shit than a sewage farm.

 

[HIStory]

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

as expected

Pearl: No ruling today. Another hearing in which a ruling to proceed maybe determined is Nov 6 & Nov 19

AP: No ruling on Robson's discovery requests. Judge said he'd rule as soon as possible. That (November) hearing will be on different issues - judge said he'd rule on today's motion before then.

If the Judge decides about the discovery request first then it seems he did not accept what the Estate asked for, ie. that a decision on the discovery should be only made after there is a decision about whether the case could go on at all. I don't understand how he can decide about this before he decides whether the case can go on at all.

ETA: And how does it affect the October 1 date? Is the decision about the demurrers still on for October 1 or will that also be made in November?

I'm a bit confused about what happens when, because before this hearing the info was that it would be about Safechuck's complaint but instead it seems everything else was discussed, including Wade's complaints.

 

[HIStory]

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

This made me laugh so hard! It would actually be pretty funny if he started claiming repressed memories now, especially since there's the interview he did where he said that wasn't true earlier on. Wade is more full of shit than a sewage farm.

Yes, if they truly talk about repressed memories now it just shows how full of it they are. After Wade went on Today's Show and flat out stated it was not that. I think to claim repressed memory from the beginning would have been slightly better for him, but my guess is that he could not claim that because of how he first made these allegations to his therapist. Repressed memory usually comes forward due to some kind of hypnosis but if such things did not happen in his therapy sessions he just one day went in and started to claim these things then I don't think the therapist would back him up saying it was repressed memories. So I guess that's why he had to go with the other thing, not the repressed memory. But they do seem to realize that repressed memory would have been better because they allude to it when it's convenient to them.

 

[Bubs]

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

I figured it out what is compressed memory.
They mean that Wade's mind shrunk memory of molestation to so small that he didn't realise he was molested?

I guess next time they come up with suppressed memory, so we have repressed, compressed, and suppressed memory issues:doh:

 

[analogue]

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

This would be laughable if it wasn't so sick

 

[Justthefacts]

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

I figured it out what is compressed memory.
They mean that Wade's mind shrunk memory of molestation to so small that he didn't realise he was molested?

I guess next time they come up with suppressed memory, so we have repressed, compressed, and suppressed memory issues:doh:

That explains the he remembered it when he remembred it line. We were right when we said his ego was just to damn big to say repressed memories

 

[myosotis]

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

This article includes mention of memory compression (and memory function in general):

-----------------------------------------------

Following the pioneering research of the Cambridge psychologist, Sir Frederick Bartlett, in the early part of this century, experts have come to accept that human memory is more reconstructive than previously thought. I.e., memory is not simply a perfect echo of past experience. What seems to be an unadorned replay of past events (often complete with detailed visual imagery) has, in fact, a substantial inferential component which has been shown to be affected by cognitive biases, short-cuts in reasoning strategies, social and contextual processes, and even personality factors.

..............

In recent years, it has been the work of Elizabeth Loftus and her colleagues at the University of Washington that has done the most to cast doubt on this "store everything verbatim" school of memory and to demonstrate the superiority of Bartlett's reconstructive approach.

Since it is clearly impossible, even for the truly astonishing capacities of the human brain, to store every detail of a complex situation, memory must select and compress. Thus, it registers a few salient features of each episode, along with a label for what Bartlett called a "schema." A schema is a body of knowledge, acquired in the process of acculturation, that summarizes what typically occurs in events of various sorts. Which label is attached to the skeleton event stored in memory is a function of the meaning initially ascribed to the episode. Upon recall, the outline is "filled in" from data contained in the appropriate schema.

Because these inferential and reconstructive processes are largely unconscious, this creative aspect of memory generally escapes our notice. Inasmuch as daily life does include many repetitious, role-governed situations, this way of storing autobiographical memories is economical of our limited capacity to handle information and, most often, leads to a sufficiently accurate account of what transpired. It can, however, also generate egregious errors on occasion, even among highly intelligent and honest individuals.

Potential sources of distorted memories have been discovered at all stages of memory processing. During the initial experience, one's beliefs, wishes, and expectations can direct attention toward certain features of the situation and away from others. This affects how the event is classified from the outset. Because this interpretation influences the label attached to the event in memory, it can bias the selection of the schema that will be engaged to flesh out any later recollection. Significant omissions or insertions can result. Errors can also be introduced at the recall stage when an interrogator's leading questions invite unsound inferences that seem to arise spontaneously from the recaller's own memory. These misinterpretations can then feed back into the system as this modified version of the event re-enters memory to become part of the "recollection" on subsequent attempts.

http://www.srmhp.org/archives/hidden-memories.html

 

[HIStory]

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

^ The context here seems totally different to me.

 

[ivy]

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

And WTH is "compressed memories"? Didn't they say it wasn't repressed memories? So now they want those memories to be "compressed"?

I figured it out what is compressed memory.
They mean that Wade's mind shrunk memory of molestation to so small that he didn't realise he was molested?

first of all don't forget this information comes from a fan - means not necessarily knowledgeable about law (for example she said Wade's lawyers mentioned equitable estoppel a lot and she has no idea what that is) and a person who thinks MJ is alive. Then I listened to a chat and wrote a summary so it is possible that somethings are mistaken or lost in between.

However I believe she mentioned compressed (or even perhaps repressed) memories and how it went against what Wade told at Today show. It's hard to know if this was something mentioned by Wade's lawyer or is the interpretation of the fan who was at the hearing. She also mentioned Wade's lawyer mentioned "well he remembered it when he remembered it" against Estate's "but all three statue of limitations passed" response. I think what they are trying to say is Wade always knew what happened but the memories were buried in his mind? Or this is what they are trying to say with he didn't forget anything but only recently he realized it's abuse? Who knows really. apparently Estate's answer is that such memories can be used in criminal trial but never used in a civil trial.

If the Judge decides about the discovery request first then it seems he did not accept what the Estate asked for, ie. that a decision on the discovery should be only made after there is a decision about whether the case could go on at all. I don't understand how he can decide about this before he decides whether the case can go on at all.

ETA: And how does it affect the October 1 date? Is the decision about the demurrers still on for October 1 or will that also be made in November?

I'm a bit confused about what happens when, because before this hearing the info was that it would be about Safechuck's complaint but instead it seems everything else was discussed, including Wade's complaints.

Yeah a little confusion there as well. Both are represented by the same lawyer, both probably claiming to remember it at a later date so claims are similar. Previously media - was it Dimond- mentioned Safechuck is adding himself to Wade's lawsuit so perhaps its combined and it's just one big case. Unfortunately probate with limited information is hard to follow.

October 1 and 28? are hearings in the civil case. So they should happen - unless cancelled. Probate case also shows 11/06/2014 Motion Hearing(MSJMotion to Quash) - which is probably Estate's opposition motion to Wade's discovery requests and 11/19/2014 Hearing on Demurrer which looks like Estate's demurrer at probate claim.

So I think this next few months will see a lot of hearings and eventually some rulings - late 2014, early 2015.

Good news is at least AP (Anthony McCartney) is attending hearings and he would report if there's a major development.

as for discovery I still think Wade's side claim they need information for their equitable estoppel claim hence asking for past investigation information but Estate is objecting to any discovery. That's what I believe is going on. and I don't think to this date the judge has made a decision on anything which includes demurrers, discovery issues and interrogatory issues.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

Estate said it doesn't matter such memories can only be used in criminal cases and not at civil / probate cases.

What does this mean? - without wade and safechuck's newly unearthed memories of what happened to them then there's no evidence for a trial, unless there's a wedding cert knocking around. Do they specifically mean repressed memories - does calif courts recognise these type of memories for child abuse cases - i thought that might have been a reason why wade seemed so keen in that today interview to say it wasn't repressed memories. It's annoying having to rely on that nutcase pearl 'mj is alive' jr's info on the hearing.

 

[HIStory]

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

Yes, I realize this is coming through the filter of a fan who may or may not understand everything about the case and as always with hearsay there could be distortions. Eg. maybe the "compressed memory" thing was just her version for repressed memory. But assuming Pearl's account is somewhat truthful:

She also mentioned Wade's lawyer mentioned "well he remembered it when he remembered it" against Estate's "but all three statue of limitations passed" response. I think what they are trying to say is Wade always knew what happened but the memories were buried in his mind? Or this is what they are trying to say with he didn't forget anything but only recently he realized it's abuse? Who knows really. apparently Estate's answer is that such memories can be used in criminal trial but never used in a civil trial.

If this is indeed what happened then they are deseperate now IMO. I mean the line "well he remembered it when he remembered it" does suggest that now they try to claim something about Robson/Safechuck not remembering before, which would be a case of repressed memory and not what they claimed so far about always remembering but not realizing it was abuse. If the response was "well he remembered it when he remembered it" then it's quiet different from what the story was so far which is that some therapy made him realize that what he always remembered was actually sexual abuse. Wade made it a point in the Today's Show interview to emphasize that he does not claim repressed memory, that he always remembered, so what is it now about "well he remembered it when he remembered it"? The argument should have been rather that he had some psychological, mental block which made him unable to realize it (what he always remembered) was abuse before, not that "he remembered it when he remembered it".

"I think what they are trying to say is Wade always knew what happened but the memories were buried in his mind?"

It does not make sense to me. If he claims his memories were buried then it's repressed memory. But he was adamant on Today's Show that it's not what he claims.

Or maybe this part about repressed memory is about Safechuck, rather than Robson? As we analyzed law we figured that perhaps claiming repressed memory could have been more effective for Robson for various legal reasons. But I think what made him unable to claim repressed memory is probably the way he first made his claims to his therapist. But in Safechuck's case Gradstein was on board from the beginning so maybe in his case they could construct his story and claims and plan his moves in more effective ways? Ie. claiming repressed memories rather than this "I always remembered I just did not realize it was sexual abuse". To be honest both are bad stories and repressed memory is only slightly better and mainly for legal reasons, but as for plausibility it is just as bad as the other story. MJ was accused of this since 1993 and in 2005 he went through a public trial so how do you repress memories of abuse under these circumstances? And how are these repressed memories never triggered by 1993 or 2005 or by MJ's death but they are suddenly triggered when you see Robson on TV talking about a lawsuit?

as for discovery I still think Wade's side claim they need information for their equitable estoppel claim hence asking for past investigation information but Estate is objecting to any discovery.

I think they are just on a fishing expedition. What does the NL search have to do with Wade's claim for equitable estoppel? To be entitled to equitable estoppel he needs to prove that he was threatened and intimidated by MJ so that it made him unable to realize he was abused until 2013. How does that have anything to do with the 2003 NL search?

 

[ivy]

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

They mean repressed memories have been basis of criminal trials but never for civil trial. With MJ being dead, there's no way a criminal trial can happen. And Estate is arguing what you are saying "without those memories no trial can happen AND such memories isn't relevant in civil cases".

As for Pearl, don't worry. Like I said there hasn't been any decisions and if there's any developments looks like AP would report it.Pearl is just providing some details as far as she understood it.

 

[HIStory]

Do they specifically mean repressed memories - does calif courts recognise these type of memories for child abuse cases - i thought that might have been a reason why wade seemed so keen in that today interview to say it wasn't repressed memories. It's annoying having to rely on that nutcase pearl 'mj is alive' jr's info on the hearing.

Yes, the law recognizes repressed memory, in fact it's one of the main reasons why courts may allow late filings:

California courts have thus far been reluctant to apply the discovery rule, unless the plaintiff can successfully argue that she has repressed the molestation, or that she was ignorant of the "wrongfulness" of her abuser’s conduct.

http://www.rcrsd.com/publications/sex-abuse/