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

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I think the judge said he might dismiss MJ later on, he also said Wade's claims against the companies are not strong enough but he still got a chance with it - if he finds anything to support those claims but I think it's an attempt to take a long shot on Wade's lawyers' part.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

I think the judge said he might dismiss MJ later on, he also said Wade's claims against the companies are not strong enough but he still got a chance with it - if he finds anything to support those claims but I think it's an attempt to a long shot on Wade's lawyers' part.

Right he said that. When you say a long shot you are right because so far Wade has yet to find anything to support his claims against the companies.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Yes, it looks like plan B in case the other things don't stick (equitable estoppel\repressed\unrepressed memories) "I'll just say someone knew without giving any names and we'll figure it out later..."

 

[#MJforever57]

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

So far everything that Wade and his lawyers have threw against the wall has yet to stick.

Ivy brought out a interest point in one of her post about MAW case how it took 3 times before his amended complaint case got dismiss so i hope that does not happen here but who know what this judge will decide. It just a long waiting period that we will go through. Like it was mention it would be nice to get a early Christmas present.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

We do not see the opposing arguments as of now, so we can only hope the Estate's arguments are really as strong as they seem here.

Re the estate arguments - i think we can be really confident of the estate's legal position. The interests of the deceased have got to be protected for public policy reasons, all these time limitations to bring lawsuits are there for a good reason and i just can't see a judge creating ground breaking precedents on such dubious, problematic cases like jimmy's or wade's.

I know this but I still do not understand why it blew up bigger now than when he was first accused - mainly by these same women? It's not like it's a new case.

I also read that he wanted to have some fun competition on his Twitter and asked people to make memes of him and it turned out to be a bad idea because a lot of memes came back referencing the rape allegations and that's how it got out of hand. So yeah, I understand why it became a topic again, but what I do not understand is why did it blow up bigger now than when he was first accused? That does not mean anything about his guilt or innocence of course, just strange to me.

There is a viewpoint/joke that it is because the accusation that crosby was a rapist was made by a man (the stand up comedian), rather than a bunch of women. I guess i've yet to see an alternative explanation, so maybe there's something there, lol.
It might be significant that the initial crosby civil trial/settlement happened just a month or two before mj's arvizo trial. I wasn't around then, but maybe in the usa all media and public attention was directed on mj and no one wanted the crosby distraction.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

You might wanna re-read the first post and see I didn't say your post is ridiculous, I called the hypothetical conversation itself ridiculous.

Semantics, the hypothetical conversation was in my post. An unimportant, off the cuff remark, and certainly not worthy of being picked up and being made such a big tedious deal of in a already cluttered hard to follow thread.

It doesn't change my point because demanding Wade to "explain why he denied everything in court" is something a victim would do, not someone who consciously lied on a witness stand.

Once again, just stating something as a fact. That is merely your opinion of how gavin might react, i don't happen to share it. If you're going to come down hard on a viewpoint and call it absurd over and over again, it would be nice if you were basing it on more than just some personal speculation. There's a tendency for intolerance on the forum, where it seems literally impossible for some to accept that their certainties are just in fact opinions.

I don't think Gavin is bothered because Wade denied something that he himself lied about, I think he's bothered because he lost. Two different things.

And i don't think they are necessarily 2 different things. Gavin lost in 05, but would he have lost if wade and jimmy had decided to join forces and come out in 05and accused mj - i personally wouldn't have rated his chances even then, but there's no denying extra victims wd have been helpful for gavin's case, a fact he'll be well aware of.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Re the estate arguments - i think we can be really confident of the estate's legal position. The interests of the deceased have got to be protected for public policy reasons, all these time limitations to bring lawsuits are there for a good reason and i just can't see a judge creating ground breaking precedents on such dubious, problematic cases like jimmy's or wade's.

You are so right here the deceased need to be protected Michael is not here to defend himself against these allegations. Every deadline has been miss here i am surprise it has gotting this far. I hope Dec 16 will give us a clear picture of what is going on.

Still no word on Safechuck case that was Nov 19. his was just a creditor claim.

 

[MJLovesyoumore]

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

New Tom Mesereau interview with Jim Clemente

Watching this interview has made me understand Jim's bias against MJ a little more, as he mentions that he himself was once a victim of child abuse by some camp director. Just like some certain people who are constantly on MJfacts & SOWR, who are all convinced MJ was guilty all happen to have been abused as children. I think with some victims of child abuse it can impair their judgement on people and will instantly and gullibly believe every accusation, just because it once happened to them. I really don't think they can see that not everyone out there is a monster and some people(like MJ)are or were genuinely good people who just happened to put their trust the wrong people/ false accusers.

 

[Petrarose]

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

I agree with you. I agree with Mez when he did not want to use speculations to say why Brown acted the way he did.

My take is that no matter what evidence Mez gives this host about Michael's innocence, the host will still think Michael is guilty because he is going by profiles of what victims usually do, like they lie at first. He also has ideas of what a pedo will do/act. He mentioned the closeness of Michael and the boy in Bashir footage. To me, in a sense this was not a good showcase for Michael's innocence, because Mez was not able to show in such a short time what elements showed Michael was not guilty, and the viewers are left with the lasting impression of the host who clearly believes Michael guilt's. In fact, I feel the host wanted the viewers to be left with that impression of doubt about Michael's innocence. When Mez mentioned the inconsistencies, the host says that is common with these abused victims. This is the same tactic Wade's camp rely on, where every inconsistency he has is written off as oh well that is the way abused victims act.

 

[passy001]

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

I agree with you. I agree with Mez when he did not want to use speculations to say why Brown acted the way he did.

My take is that no matter what evidence Mez gives this host about Michael's innocence, the host will still think Michael is guilty because he is going by profiles of what victims usually do, like they lie at first. He also has ideas of what a pedo will do/act. He mentioned the closeness of Michael and the boy in Bashir footage. To me, in a sense this was not a good showcase for Michael's innocence, because Mez was not able to show in such a short time what elements showed Michael was guilty, and the viewers are left with the lasting impression of the host who clearly believes Michael guilt's. In fact, I feel the host wanted the viewers to be left with that impression of doubt about Michael's innocence. When Mez mentioned the inconsistencies, the host says that is common with these abused victims. This is the same tactic Wade's camp rely on, where every inconsistency he has is written off as oh well that is the way abused victims act.

I'm not not sure why you guys even waste your time with such nonsense.

you should know by now that for the media, portraying MJ as a monster is a very lucrative business. not to mention how well it plays into their grand plan to destroy everything MJ.

MJ was acquitted 14 times. They will never change that. the idea that MJ molested Gavin while the whole world was watching is laughable.

The host conveniently claims he was also the victim of abuse. yet he offers no proof of that alleged abuse. pretty much a common tactic among extortionists. Anyone can go on TV and claim to be a victim of abuse. '

In any case, his so-called opinion matters NOT. it's the jury's that counts. Yes, the jury cleared MJ 14 times.

 

[HIStory]

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

Double post.

 

[HIStory]

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

Clemente is an idiot. He may have a degree but his posturing in the comment section of that YT video is utterly unprofessional. Basically he is trying to win the argument by stating he is a behaviour expert therefore he is right in his assessment of Michael and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong. And all that assesment is centered around MJ hanging out with young boys and sharing bed with them. A classic appeals to authority fallacy.

Behaviour anaylsis can be useful, but when someone thinks he can tell someone's guilt or innocence simply based on his own biased analysis without having to know all the other facts of a case then you know the guy is not a good expert.

The funny thing is that he mentioned the Bashir interview scene as something that was very telling. That shows you right there how reliable his "expertise" in behaviour analysis is. Because when you know the actual case then you know that before that interview there have been hardly any contact between MJ and Gavin and they do not claim abuse before the Bashir interview. Their claim was that the molestations happened after that. So it's always very telling (but not of MJ but about these so called "experts") when they say things like that about the Bashir video.

Oh, and in the comment section when I said I researched the court documents and the trial and I base my opinion on those when I say MJ was innocent he came back with this:

Jim Clemente14 minutes ago



The court case is a show for the jury or judge. It is not always the full story and it certainly wasn't in MJ's case. ?

LOL, so the trial does not matter, only his biased "expert" opinion which is based on incomplete and often twisted information. Right.

I said to him:

Suzy Suzy5 minutes ago



+Jim Clemente No, the court case is a process where evidence and testimony pro and contra is shown. It definitely gives more information about a case than your appeals to authority ("I'm an expert so I'm right and you are wrong") fallacious arguments here.?

ETA: His reply

Jim Clemente6 minutes ago



+Suzy Suzy Suzzzzzzzzy, you don't know sarcasm do you. Let me spell it out for you. 1. I'm a lawyer. 2. I'm a former prosecutor, 3. Im an FBI Profiler with 25+ years of law enforcement investigations into violent and sexual crimes. You, not so much. So, spare me the juvenile definitions of the court process. Even Mesereau admits that they are an opportunity for each side to promote its "theory" of the case. Good prosecutors tell the truth, and good defense attorneys try to poke holes in it or mislead the judge or jury to prevent conviction. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a difficult thing to achieve especially against an icon. But, in this case... Michael Jackson, fell in love with about a dozen boys over time and acted out sexually with them. He never "hurt" them as he said, but he did molest them. That is my expert opinion based on my training, experience, expertise and listening to the victims recount the grooming and victimization process. ?

Such an asshole. Thinking that by flaunting his "expertise" and "qualifications" he's automatically right. LOL.

Suzy Suzy1 minute ago



+Jim Clemente Once again this fallacy of "I am right by default because of my qualifications and expertise". When it's clear from your comments that you do not know much about this actual case that we are talking about, just incomplete, surface stuff. Qualifications alone won't make you right.?

Also: my "definition" of the court process (I did not intend to give a "definition" of it) is "juvenile", but when he says crap like this then that's a correct "definition" of a court process?

Good prosecutors tell the truth, and good defense attorneys try to poke holes in it or mislead the judge or jury to prevent conviction.

That's an extremely biased "definition" of a court process starting with the premise that prosecutors tell the truth and a defense is only there to "mislead the judge or jury to prevent conviction". LOL.

Clemente is a typical example of the biased idiots who made up the prosecution in 2005.

 

[wendijane]

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

I think if MJ was alive Wade would still be visiting him to have BBQs with him. IMO he and James Safechuck are cowards who are only doing this because MJ is not here to defend himself so they do not have to look him in the eye while claiming such horrible things and he cannot defend himself.

Co ign

Wade would be faking friendship 100 per cent

 

[wendijane]

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

The shame.I can't even ...

 

[HIStory]

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

And the interesting thing in people like Clemente on the prosecution's side is that they always operate with these general ideas of "pedophile profiling" and "victim profiling". Then they make up an assumption about MJ's case (a strawman) that seemingly fits their profile. And they try to convince people by that tactic. They NEVER talk about the actual facts of these cases! Never. They always go into this profiling crap or generally talking about pedophiles and then claim that MJ was exactly like that and these cases were exactly like that, when in reality he wasn't and they weren't. Unfortunately people who do not know better probably buy into this "I'm an expert so I know better" rethoric, but it's ridiculous because that seems to be his only "argument". OK, you are an expert, we get it, you tell it in every post. But let's get down to facts. He claims he was convinced by the fact that the grooming and victimization process was exactly the same in the 1993 allegations and the 2003 allegations. LOL, really?

1) Even if it was so, it would obviously be a no-brainer for Gavin and his family to make up similar stories as in the allegations of 1993. So that would not prove anything.

2) That is not even so. I mean Jordan and his family were "friends" of Michael, while the Arvizos not so much. By Gavin's own testimony MJ kept avoiding him on purpose. So what is so similar in those stories then? He'll probably come up with some crap about MJ buying both of them gifts. Is that enough to call something "grooming" and to call it a similar pattern when there is nothing else similar? LOL.

 

[barbee0715]

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

I was going to say that all lawyers like to argue and they're always right , but reading the comments to you , I'd say he sounds more like a school boy bully.

 

[HIStory]

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

I was going to say that all lawyers like to argue and they're always right , but reading the comments to you , I'd say he sounds more like a school boy bully.

I agree. Actually compared to the level-headed reasoning of someone like Mez he sounds very bad with his constant attempts of trying to convince people by flaunting his credentials and suggesting because he has those credentials he is right by default. Very lame and stupid. I'm sure Mez would have eaten his arrogant ass alive in court.

He was on the prosecution's list as an "expert" of child abuse, but he fell out of the case I think because he got cancer. But I'm sure that's not why no pedophila expert was eventually put on the stand by the prosecution. I guess there are more pro-alleged victim leaning experts in the field so if the prosecution had wanted to put an expert on the stand they would have despite of Clemente's illness, but they did not which even Mez called them out on in his closing argument. But then the defense would also have called their experts who would have argued for just the opposite. Thing is with expert testimony that you can hire one for any side of the case. And all of those experts have their credentials and qualifications, yet they do not agree. So what does that tell us? That expert testimony can be interesting, but in itself it means nothing, you will have to know the facts of the case as well to make a judgement.

And the fact that the prosecution wanted to hire such an utterly biased expert who by default believes any allegation without even learning about it more, shows what kind of case they had.

 

[PoP]

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

I really don't trust that Jim Clemente guy when it comes to MJ, but his story about being abused reminds me of a story very similar from former NHL star Theoren Fleury was being abused by former junior coach Graham James and kept his silence for so long even after Sheldon Kennedy who's coached by James spoke publicly about being abused by James and after Fleury wrote a book telling about his abuse by James his cousin reveal he too was abused by James.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

In my opinion it's unprofessional to talk so adamantly about a case he doesn't know that well. He can be a former police officer, a DA, a FBI profiler or a farmer it makes no difference on his knowledge on each particular case and doesn't make his opinion superior to others - besides being aware of the professional terms and laws. On the other side you have Mesereau - who avoided any psycological analyzation - the professional (and the fair) way to go. He never forgot to point out he doesn't know those people and doesn't claim to know.

Jim's main assumption is that a kid would never lie. That a 5 year old kids are usually the ones who give false testimonies because they can't always tell between life and fantasy, but a 13 years old doesn't have that problem anymore and he knows very well what's reality is. I'd say his preception regarding this is on the verge of being naive if it's not a case of being ignorant because you want to be ignorant. "a 13 year old boy knows what's reality hence his testimoney is not likely to be false.". Except that 13 years old boys - and girls - are very able to tell a lie and can be very skilled at lying.

Did you notice how Jim's speech changed as he approched to the disccusion on Michael's case? he started stuttering and even lowered his voice. I found it a little odd. His presence is not half impressive and even though he didn't give Mesereau the opportuinity to oppose him, I think Mesereau's words were more powerful and effective.

 

[HIStory]

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

Jim's main assumption is that a kid would never lie. That a 5 year old kids are usually the ones who give false testimonies because they can't always tell between life and fantasy, but a 13 years old doesn't have that problem anymore and he knows very well what's reality is. I'd say his preception regarding this is on the verge of being naive if it's not a case of being ignorant because you want to be ignorant. "a 13 year old boy knows what's reality hence his testimoney is not likely to be false.". Except that 13 years old boys - and girls - are very able to tell a lie and can be very skilled at lying.

Yes, I agree. He spouted a lot of the usual fallacies: "boys and men don't lie about sexual abuse" (why wouldn't they, especially when there is a motive to lie?), "false allegations do not happen in older children" etc.

What he mixed into this with the 5-year-olds vs. 13-year-olds argument is probably rather about false memories of sexual abuse, although I'm not even sure about that not happening in older children or even adults. I'm sure they do and I think it's been proven with experiments that they do.

However, we do not claim false memories in either Jordan or Gavin. (Well, there was the whole Sodium Amytal theory re. Jordan but I do not believe in that and we can show MJ's innocence without Sodium Amytal as well.) They were simply kids who were co-erced into lying by their parents for money. No, they did not mix up fantasy and life, they knew they were lying and they did it because their parents told them to do it so that they can make money. Same with Wade and James as well, who made their allegations as adults and amids monetary demands (=motive to lie). The only guy who may have some type of false memory syndrome IMO is Jason Francia, because who knows what was done to him in that therapy that he was put in by the prosecution in 1994 to make him "remember" things. And with his type of allegations it's not too hard for a skilled therapist to convince a scared and not too smart kid that when MJ tickled him he also touched his penis and if he does not remember then well, he should because the therapist and the prosecutors say that's what happened. But I'm not even sure about him really believing the lies, he probaby just went along with what the prosecution and his mother wanted from him, but if any of them has false memories than he would be it IMO. All the others know they are lying.

Older kids are perfectly capable of understanding motives to lie. Like when Pellicano asked Jordan and he said "my father only wants money" - he perfectly understood that if he made that lie then his family and he would get a lot of money. Also there was a manipulation on the parents' part in both cases. And Gavin and his family were seasoned grifters, so what makes anyone think they would not lie?

Some people are embarassed about making allegations even if they were abused, but some are not embarassed to make such allegations even if they were not. It happens all the time. Daniel Kapon and Joseph Bartucci and that Canadian kid that Diane Dimond found all said they were abused by MJ and it turned out none of them even met MJ. So that shows right there that yes, there are people who do lie about sexual abuse.

 

[barbee0715]

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

The thing that got me when Clemente was talking about his own abuse, and how he would have taken it to his grave except there were others that were molested and decided to tell- I can understand from his own theory why Wade would lie at 13 if there was molestation going on-however, if Wade is like Clemente, what stopped him from telling the "truth" in 2005?

By then, Wade was an adult, was quite successful in his profession, had piles of support from the DA, etc. and Michael was reviled by both the media and the world. There was nothing to fear from Michael at that time. He was a "fallen icon." Being able to tell that he was molested was practically handed to him on a silver platter and he would have been saluted and applauded by the world. true hero for finally taking down a prolific serial molester.

But he didn't. Why? Because it didn't happen!

 

[HIStory]

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

Some more conversations between him and me:

Suzy Suzy8 hours ago (edited)




+Jim Clemente OK, instead of these generalizations and appeals to your "expertise" in your posts, let's talk about the actual case. You say MJ "fell in love" with these boys. OK, let's take the subject of the 2005 trial. Can you show me in that case where is evidence of MJ "falling in love" with Gavin and from what did you conclude that??

Jim Clemente26 minutes ago



+Suzy Suzy Sure, the interactions that I saw with my own eyes between an unrelated teen aged boy and MJ, holding hands and leaning on shoulders and "No you sleep in the bed" playful banter following many hours spent frolicking around Neverland playing games and having adventures and shopping sprees and caring for a sick child and being a "father figure" to him, and his interviews and statements to the grand jury and his disclosures of being molested by MJ and his brother's witnessing of two such events and there's more... But you reading the transcripts and not being educated in the field of Child Sexual Victimization, I can see where your love of MJ would overcome this overwhelming evidence of grooming followed by compliant sexual victimization of that child. ?

Again, trying to discredit me, because he is an "expert" and I am not and trying to declare his opinion superior by that. LOL.

Suzy Suzy14 minutes ago



+Jim Clemente The problem with what you said here is that it's not consistent with even what the accuser alleged. Not consistent with their timeline. You making such conclusions from the Bashir interview is excting because thing is MJ and Gavin met before that scene once in 2000 and some two other times at NL when according to Gavin's own testimony MJ actively avoided him. There were no hours of frolicking and shopping sprees together. So you concluding from that scene that MJ "was in love with Gavin" is interesting. That was a set-up scene and actually even Gavin admitted on the stand that the portrayal by Bashir in that documentary was false. As for the "disclosures" of Gavin of being molested. Lots of, lots of changes and contradiction in his story during the course of the process. Same goes for his brother. They contradicted both their own earlier statements and each other on the stand and not only on some minor points but in significant ones. If there had was actual overwhelming evidence of grooming why wasn't it shown??

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I applaud to you respect, but I think he's a creep that won't change his mediocre mind.

 

[barbee0715]

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

I find this really amazing (and hilarious) that someone would take that Bashir piece and actually use it as some kind of definitive proof. Even when I first watched it and wasn't aware of the editing, etc. I was more than aware that some of those scenes were for "show." The Gavin scene, the shopping in Vegas scene, etc.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

By the way, our dearly beloved Oprah did the exact same thing before her "love" for Michael re-emerged in 2009. She used to have people on her show and bring up the MJ case sometimes randomly and then say "I was a victim of sexual abuse as a child too" as if it somehow reflects on Gavin.

 

[metermaid]

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

I really don't trust that Jim Clemente guy when it comes to MJ, but his story about being abused reminds me of a story very similar from former NHL star Theoren Fleury was being abused by former junior coach Graham James and kept his silence for so long even after Sheldon Kennedy who's coached by James spoke publicly about being abused by James and after Fleury wrote a book telling about his abuse by James his cousin reveal he too was abused by James.

there was also another hockey related molestation ring story in toronto at maple leaf gardens where victims stayed silent for years. i really like to avoid making assumptions about victims but i think the difference between wade and these cases, for example, is that he is on the record over the years absolutely praising michael, defending him in court, having barbecues with him and his children. in these hockey molestation allegations, i dont believe the players had the same kind of relationship with their abusers? they stayed silent but also stayed very far away from their abusers later in life. i've read a bit about this horrifying ring of molestation amongst young hockey players and it's absolutely heart breaking what happened to a lot of the victims as they got older - drug addiction, suicide.

**side note. bill maher mentioned michael jackson in relation to bill cosby last night. he said he never made mj jokes because it was never clear if he was guilty of any crime. then he added "he was certainly an unconventional babysitter but that was probably it"

 

[HIStory]

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

I applaud to you respect, but I think he's a creep that won't change his mediocre mind.

I know I won't change his mind, I just could not bear seeing his arrogant BSing and wanted to call him out.

 

[HIStory]

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

I find this really amazing (and hilarious) that someone would take that Bashir piece and actually use it as some kind of definitive proof.

I know. I think the Bashir docu is such a great catch for people like Clemente with only superficial, half-assed info about the case. These people always think that the allegation was that MJ molested Gavin before the Bashir docu and that he molested him on that night which was mentioned in the docu. So they say BS like what Clemente did that from the docu they can tell MJ was in love with Gavin and crap like that. It's a pleasure to show them then how their assumptions are not even consistent with what the accuser alleged. Clemente just walked into this trap. There goes his great "expertise" in behaviour analysis. LOL.

 

[barbee0715]

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

On another note, it's rather alarming that people like this are being used as expert witnesses in critical jury trials.
I would dismiss any credibility based on this 'schoolyard bully'mentality he's using on YouTube. (I went over to read). How could you possibly take anything he says seriously?

 

[HIStory]

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

On another note, it's rather alarming that people like this are being used as expert witnesses in critical jury trials.
I would dismiss any credibility based on this 'schoolyard bully'mentality he's using on YouTube. (I went over to read). How could you possibly take anything he says seriously?

Yes, I agree. Just shows how cautious one has to be with expert testimonies. Naturally all sides will hire experts who will support their side of the case. For every Clemente the Defense would put an expert on the stand who says the exact opposite. Especially in areas like psychology expert opinions can be totally subjective, yet Clemente wants his followers to believe that they can base a judgement of a case on such a subjetive opinion (his). He should be more humble about the limitations of his field. He is not a God who can tell who is guilty by just looking at him.

"Experts" like him and Stanley Katz are the reason why things like the McMartin trial happen.