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

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

The defense brought an expert to talk about false allegations, didn't they?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The defense brought an expert to talk about false allegations, didn't they?

The Defense had its experts on their witness list as well, but since the Prosecution never produced an expert testimony there was no need for them. I remember that in his closing argument Mez made a point of the Prosecution never putting a pedophilia expert on the stand and how that is telling. (And yes, Clemente fell ill, but if this case is really so obvious from an expert POV then surely they could have replaced him.)

I know that the Defense for example had Dr. Elisabeth Loftus on their witness list who is pretty famous.

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

Respect I applaud your comments to this guy. In other conversations, did you ask him to give you specific testimony that supported his conclusions, or did he only go by his profile criteria? When he said he listened to what they said did you ask him for specifics and then ask him how the person responded during cross?

I wonder what this guy will say if he is told good experts never go only by a profile. I mean going by what this guy says makes him know Michael is guilty, a lot of people can be accused wrongly. Like even those Big Brother volunteers who have kids hanging with them, leaning their head on them, going shopping with them, bringing them to their house, could be accused.

To me he is a danger to many people because he is promoting this profile idea and placing guilt on people due to it. Imagine the innocent people this guy could apply this profile to and damage them. The only solace is that in court he will be cross examined, but here he is on tv and no one to cross examine him. Look at how he had his own grand theory of why Chris acted the way he did, and he seemed put off when Mez did not agree with him. He reminds me of a big noise.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Respect I applaud your comments to this guy. In other conversations, did you ask him to give you specific testimony that supported his conclusions, or did he only go by his profile criteria? When he said he listened to what they said did you ask him for specifics and then ask him how the person responded during cross?

I didn't ask him. He seems to imply he talked to both of the 1993 and 2003 accusers, but I'm not sure I believe him. Never heard his name in connection with Jordan, for example. In Jordan's case we heard of the psychologists Mathis Abrams, Richard Gardner and Stan Katz interviewing him. In Gavin's case it was Stan Katz again, who testified at the trial. Based on his interview with Mez here it seems he would have been only called as a general expert on general child abuse allegations, so called "profiles" etc, not as a therapist dealing with Gavin. So I suspect he was bluffing about talking to both Jordan and Gavin, but even if he did, obviously someone like him would not be too hard to convince for any accuser. It seems he is even easier convinced than Stan Katz who at least told that police officer on the phone that MJ did not fit the classic pedophile profile.

Also when I asked him on what he bases his conclusion that MJ was "in love" with Gavin he just went into this whole tirade about the Bashir interview, shopping sprees, Neverland etc. That too suggests to me that he did not actually talk to Gavin because if he did he would have mentioned that first IMO, not something like the Bashir interview.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

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"


Yeah I heard about the Maple Leaf Gardens scandal. Fleury's been having the personal problems because of James, he wanted Fleury, Joe Sakic and Bret "Hitman" Hart to be co-owners of the Calgary Hitmen of the WHL and because Kennedy told the world about the abuse by James, James was convicted and the 3 co-owners agreed to sell the Hitmen team to the Calgary Flames organization. As the millennium hits, Fleury played for the NY Rangers, his problems gets worse on and off ice, it was during the period he's going thru drug addictions like he mentioned in his book and documentary both title "Playing With Fire". In 2005 he stopped abusing drugs and alcohol all together, getting clean, be a man and put the man for the hell he's put through in jail.

And as much as I ain't a fan Bill Maher, but I would applaud him for not using any retarded jokes about Michael, because he believes it's really pointless to do so like dumb comedians uses all the time that pissed us off.

The Defense had its experts on their witness list as well, but since the Prosecution never produced an expert testimony there was no need for them. I remember that in his closing argument Mez made a point of the Prosecution never putting a pedophilia expert on the stand and how that is telling. (And yes, Clemente fell ill, but if this case is really so obvious from an expert POV then surely they could have replaced him.)

I know that the Defense for example had Dr. Elisabeth Loftus on their witness list who is pretty famous.


Ha! The prosecutors made such an awful strategy against Michael during the trial like when they try to get Debbie Rowe against Michael, but it backfired big time and not having p********* expert for the testimony that's a dumb strategy and that's another reason why they lost in Michael's innocence favour anyways.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^I wonder what he would say if you tell him how Katz did not agree with the profile match. ^^Loftus would be good if this Wade case goes to trial, because Wade most likely will have a list of experts.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^I wonder what he would say if you tell him how Katz did not agree with the profile match. ^^Loftus would be good if this Wade case goes to trial, because Wade most likely will have a list of experts.

I'm sure the defense will have their list of experts as well.

Katz was Larry Feldman's buddy and he was biased as well, but yeah there was a phone conversation where he told one of the prosecutors that MJ did not really fit the classic pedo profile. But that did not mean he thought he was innocent, just said something about how MJ was just probably doing it out of some type of ignorance or because he thought of himself as a kid and to him it was like when kids are jerking-off with each other - some other BS theory like that, but yeah, at least he appeared to realize that MJ actually does not fit in the so called "profile", even if he then came up with some other BS theory to rationalize why he would still be guilty.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Wow, that youtube conversation between Respect77 and this FBI profiler is interesting. He doesn't really offer any actual evidence of anything he says, he just keeps repeating that he's an expert and insists that he's right. Why is a person with his credentials arguing with people on youtube and being so rude about it? The way he's speaking is very unprofessional and doesn't help to earn him any respect or credibility. It's also very disturbing that he has such a strong opinion about all of this despite the fact that he doesn't seem to know very much about the facts of the cases. How can you reach a properly informed and fair conclusion when you've ignored so much of the information?

I think his own victim status is heavily influencing his views. This is understandable but you are not supposed to allow your own emotions, experiences or biases interfere with your work. I would see him as being more credible if he'd admit that he isn't infallible. When a person lets their bias show through this much it doesn't help them much. I also find it very interesting that he hints at bias while so clearly showing his own. Pot, kettle, black.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

He also says Michael did not Hurt them but molested them. I think in the tv program his comment was something like it was said that Michael did not hurt them but had sex with them? Does anyone know why he is stressing them not being hurt? To me molestation is hurting a child, and having sex with a child is hurting a child. Does he mean the kids' bodies were not physically damaged? He also seems like the type who learn something and he has to go by it to the exclusion of everything else. I am wondering if he helped create some of the elements in the profile, because sometimes when you help create something you try to justify it as working 100%. To me the best way to deal with a guy like that is just keep showing him how the facts destroys his profile or how his conclusions are not based on facts. At least others will see it even though he will not change his mind.

People like that I would like to see destroyed on cross by someone like Mez.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

He also says Michael did not Hurt them but molested them. I think in the tv program his comment was something like it was said that Michael did not hurt them but had sex with them? Does anyone know why he is stressing them not being hurt? To me molestation is hurting a child, and having sex with a child is hurting a child. Does he mean the kids' bodies were not physically damaged? He also seems like the type who learn something and he has to go by it to the exclusion of everything else. I am wondering if he helped create some of the elements in the profile, because sometimes when you help create something you try to justify it as working 100%. To me the best way to deal with a guy like that is just keep showing him how the facts destroys his profile or how his conclusions are not based on facts. At least others will see it even though he will not change his mind.

People like that I would like to see destroyed on cross by someone like Mez.

Actually, I read about it before. Some sex offenders don't see their actions as "hurting" the child, they don't think the sexual act equals harm. He's using Michael's "choice of words" against him, just like he used his kindness - for him, Michael saying "I would never hurt a child" doesn't equal a denial of sexual abuse. He also says he is "the loving kind" to demonstrate the delusion he thinks Michael had.

That's actually interesting because this way Wade and Safechuck contradict each other completely - while James' claims fit Jim's theory - the loving pedophile that has a delusion of a legitimate relationship between a man and a young boy, Wade says the complete opposite - He claims Michael told him what they are doing is bad and will get them both in jail.

Gavin's story doesn't fit neither. He never claimed Michael had a conversation with him about the nature of things. There's nothing in the 2005 case that shows MJ fell in love with Gavin. Jim just made it up based on his reflections on LWMJ - not on the actual claims.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Tal I get the part about him giving his theory of the loving predator, but why does HE say Michael did not hurt them. I mean even if he believes the loving predator theory, wouldn't he as a person see something like that as hurting a child? I could understand him saying that to Michael's way of thinking he did not hurt a child. However, in part of the footage he claims Michael did not Hurt as though he believes that himself. Shouldn't he say something like Micheal did not believe he hurt a child but he did?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Petrarose you have a point - he started with responding to Tom citing Michael but then he didn't elaborate and it looks like he doesn't see it as hurting.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I've seen numerous videos and images of MJ holding hands with children as well as giving them hugs and kisses, especially sick children, so I honestly don't understand why there was such a huge uproar just because he was holding hands with Gavin. I guess it was because of Bashir's sinister voiceovers. When I saw that particular scene for the first time in 2003, I didn't sense anything criminal or sexual. All I saw was a very beautiful and innocent friendship that was taken totally out of context by some unethical tabloid reporter who was after achieving the highest ratings in tv history. Bashir knew exactly what he was doing when he was in that editing room. He knew what would draw attention and what wouldn't draw attention and he didn't care who's life or reputation he ruined. All he cared about was furthering his career. I do believe that the jury's verdict was correct and Gavin would be doing the right thing as he did from the beginning when he told the truth to the 3 social workers as well as in the rebuttal video that MJ never did anything bad to him.
 
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!



I agree with your post 100% so true and to add to it Tom hit it on the head Michael was a big target and the ppls was after him. I would never believer this so cal memory lost that Wade claim he had i also agree with you there was nothing to fear if it happen he should have came out with it why wait til after Michael is gone. It all about the money the Estate is makes it and Wade want it.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I've seen numerous videos and images of MJ holding hands with children as well as giving them hugs and kisses, especially sick children, so I honestly don't understand why there was such a huge uproar just because he was holding hands with Gavin. I guess it was because of Bashir's sinister voiceovers. When I saw that particular scene for the first time in 2003, I didn't sense anything criminal or sexual. All I saw was a very beautiful and innocent friendship that was taken totally out of context by some unethical tabloid reporter who was after achieving the highest ratings in tv history. Bashir knew exactly what he was doing when he was in that editing room. He knew what would draw attention and what wouldn't draw attention and he didn't care who's life or reputation he ruined. All he cared about was furthering his career. I do believe that the jury's verdict was correct and Gavin would be doing the right thing as he did from the beginning when he told the truth to the 3 social workers as well as in the rebuttal video that MJ never did anything bad to him.




You answer your question in the bold.

I see stars do that today hold the kids hands hug kisses back then is was wrong for Michael to do that he was called weird not normal ppls have already made up in they mind that this was a bad person and he should not be around kids. Just like Michael said do not judge me if you do not know me. I wish Michael would has never did that doc with MB all he did is made Michael look bad.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Was this guy serious? This jerk shouldn't be allowed to testify in any child molestation case or even practicing his profession if he's gonna let his own experiences as an alleged abuse victim dictates his modus operandi and conclusions, he showed with his cocky arrogant attitude he doesn't give a damn about educating himself by actually knowing the cases, speculating doesn't make him automatically right neither having a so called expertise.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Actually, I read about it before. Some sex offenders don't see their actions as "hurting" the child, they don't think the sexual act equals harm. He's using Michael's "choice of words" against him, just like he used his kindness - for him, Michael saying "I would never hurt a child" doesn't equal a denial of sexual abuse. He also says he is "the loving kind" to demonstrate the delusion he thinks Michael had.

That's actually interesting because this way Wade and Safechuck contradict each other completely - while James' claims fit Jim's theory - the loving pedophile that has a delusion of a legitimate relationship between a man and a young boy, Wade says the complete opposite - He claims Michael told him what they are doing is bad and will get them both in jail.

Gavin's story doesn't fit neither. He never claimed Michael had a conversation with him about the nature of things. There's nothing in the 2005 case that shows MJ fell in love with Gavin. Jim just made it up based on his reflections on LWMJ - not on the actual claims.


Clemente read his textbooks in school and is trying hard to find a category to fit MJ into but he fails. He called MJ a "preferential child molester" in one of his posts. That's a textbook expression. According to such textbooks there are two types of molesters. One is the situational molester:

This type of offender, called a situational child molester, does not possess a genuine sexual preference for children. Rather, the motivational factors are criminal in nature. In some cases, the offender's sexual abuse of young people is a natural outgrowth of other forms of abuse in his life. That abuse is a continuation of a process by which he has mistreated his friends, colleagues, spouse and family members. He will have low self-esteem, maintain poor moral standards and view sex with children as an opportunity to prolong the violence that is already an active component of his existence. Other situational offenders see children as a substitute for an adult partner. Although these types of offenders do not harbor a singular sexual desire for children, they may react to a built up sexual impulse or anger, that to them, is irresistible. However, the victim is incidental. It could have been a store clerk, an elderly person or simply a woman walking down a lonely street. Because of the circumstances at hand, such as the Polly Klass incident, the victim happened to be a child. His main criteria for a victim is availability. The situational child molester will usually have few victims, sometimes only one, and never repeat the event again. He could be a social misfit or a psychopathic personality who harbors a seething resentment and hostility toward society in general.

I think even most of his haters realize that MJ was not an aggressive person so it would be harder to make the world believe in this version.

The other is the preferential molester:

The second classification of sexual offender is defined as a preferential child molester. These offenders have a sexual preference for children and usually maintain these desires throughout their lives. Preferential child molesters can have an astounding number of victims and these crimes can remain undiscovered for many years. In 1995, a child molestation case in Texas caused a national uproar when the suspect was due to be released from prison after serving a six-year sentence for the rape of a 6year-old boy. He told the police that he got away with abusing over 240 children before getting caught for molesting a single child and if released, would do it again[SUP](4)[/SUP]. One long-term study of hundreds of sex offenders found that the pedophile child molester committed an average of 281 acts with 150 partners. These types of offenders wreak havoc upon society far out of proportion to their numbers.

The preferential child molester exhibits distinct patterns of behavior that are common among his kind. They will seduce children by buying gifts and appealing to their emotional weakness. This requires the offender to develop a friendship with the child or utilize an existing relationship with the victim. In more than 90 percent of the rapes of children less than 12 years old, the offender knew the victim (U.S. Department of Justice). Other offenders will engage in self-exposure or personally harass children. Simply stated, the preferential child molester is a pedophile who has carried his fantasies and desires into reality. A small minority of these types of offenders may be sadistic in nature and inflict pain or torture upon their victims. These individuals, like any other criminal, can be brutal and sadistic. Such an individual was Britain's most famous and despised child molester, Bill Malcolm.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/pedophiles/2.html

As you can see this does not fit either, because preferential molesters are the type of molesters who have many, often several hundres of victims. I guess this is why Clemente in his posts sneakily tries to boost the number of MJ's supposed victims. He always says how "MJ fell in love with dozens of boys". Even with Wade and James the number of his alleged victims would be too small for a so called preferential child molester and that's why the likes of Clemente have to cling on claiming more victims than there are accusers. That is why haters are so desperate in trying to convince people like Brett Barnes or Corey Feldman to turn on MJ. They love to base their whole case on armchair psychology but they surely realize that for MJ to really fit into the "preferential child molester" profile he should have a lot more alleged victims, at least dozens if not hundreds.

I guess Clemente would emphasize the parts about buying gifts as what makes MJ fit the profile, but picking out small elements like that while ignoring the rest is ridiculous. If buying gifts and being generous is alone considered as a proof of child molestation than this world is doomed. MJ was generous with everyone - not only children, but his adult friends as well. He gave gifts to everyone all the time. Katherine said once that he was like that from an early childhood - always giving to others. And BTW people like Lousie Palanker gave Gavin more than MJ - so is she a preferential child molester as well?

What Clemente does is the opposite of what he should be doing as an expert if he was a good and unbiased one. He takes a profile where he sees at least some minor element as "fitting" (eg. buying gifts) and does not care if the rest doesn't fit at all, but rather he will try to twist MJ's image so that he could make him "fit". He's throwing around false information with no evidence at all, such as "MJ fell in love with dozens of boys". Absolutely unprofessional! Those of his followers who do not know much about these cases and are easily impressed by Clemente's credentials may buy into such tactics out of ignorance about the cases, but people who know the cases will not.

It's also funny when he says that he's been convinced because the grooming and the victimization process have been so similar in the 1993 and 2003 cases. In fact none of these 5 cases against MJ are similar. Yes, they take some headline stuff like wine, porn etc. to try to make it seem like earlier allegations, but when you dig deeper then you will see that this would be an absolutely patternless "molester". One kid says he started to molest him at 13-14, the other says that's when he lost interest. One kid claims mild acts, the other claims anal rape. One kid claims a lengthy "grooming" process, the other claims he's been molested on the first night. Etc. etc. So when an expert bases his expert opinion on claims which are not even true and even deliberately twists info for his agenda then that of course heavily compromises his credibility.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

You can post your exchange and any more updates in your conversation with this man in my thread if you like:

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/133197-Debates-with-the-public

Now that you've started talking about the facts of cases with him I wonder how long it'll be before he decides he's not going to reply? I wouldn't be surprised if he did that.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

respect77, you must also realize that these people are often paid to deliberately proliferate myths and false information, especially in the case of MJ. So they know exactly what they are doing. Diane Diamond, Nancy Grace, Roger Fiedman, Martin Bashir, Alan Duke, are not just some random people speaking out of ignorance. They form part of a long list of tabloid hawkers dedicated to smearing MJ and his reputation in exchange of large monetary compensation.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Respect77 you are on it tonight none of that fit Michael just like Michael said he was misunderstood they took his kindness and his love for the children and turn it into something ugly.

I don't believe what Clemente is say when he said i was not going to say anything about this then he heard that somebody else was sexual abuse also so now he say i need to do something about it why wait until you hear another person claim that they were abuse if you was abuse you need to report do not wait. That why i do not believe in Wade and Safechuck because if this happen they should have said this while Michael was here. Coming out with this now ppls will mostly likely see it all about the money.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

You know that the defend expert witness is going to say what the defend what to hear to help jury to understand they case where as the state will bring in the expert as well who will say what the state want to hear. It up to the jury to believe which expert.
 
I really wish some people would stop dragging michael's name into the cosby allegations.:-(

New York Daily News
BY Linda Stasi

Closeup: Comfortable examining room. Kindly doctor is administering to a weeping woman. The feeling is one of confidence and assurance. We are in good hands.

Cut to doctor: He looks into the camera, smiling with authority. That’s when the viewer sees that, why, it’s kindly Dr. Cliff Huxtable!

Doc Huxtable looks into the camera and says:

I play a doctor on TV, but in real life I’m a mad rapist.

What? You don’t think that commercial would fly?

Yes, yes, I know that Bill Cosby only played Dr. Huxtable on TV, but for those of us who couldn’t get enough of the curmudgeonly character, Cosby is the safe and loving father/husband/doctor of everyone’s fantasies.

He’s the father you wanted cutting your Thanksgiving turkey, and the doctor you wanted administering aspirin to your child. It’s tough to accept that — wait! — he’s not that guy? No, he’s the other guy — the one who is the antithesis of Dr. Huxtable.

But let’s stop pretending that we’re shocked. Remember back in 1997, when 22-year-old Autumn Jackson claimed she was Cosby’s daughter? He admitted to an affair with her mother, but it was Jackson who went to jail for extortion. (The verdict was overturned.)

Despite having paid support payments, America’s Dad told his “daughter” that “I will be for you a father figure, but I am not your father.”

I would have extorted the bastard too!

Then, in 2006, Cosby got nailed again. Andrea Constand claimed that Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her. Thirteen female witnesses with stories similar to Constand’s came forward. The more things change, the more they don’t.

Deals were made, settlements were reached, Cosby’s life went on as usual, even if the victims’ lives would never be the same.

Why weren’t criminal charges pressed? Right. Do you remember the story of Jordan Chandler, the first child to come forward in the Michael Jackson case? I do because I was the first one to learn of the story from Jordie’s uncle. Jackson was to music what Cosby was to TV. It didn’t get bigger.

Despite a huge settlement, Chandler’s family was destroyed. His father Evan’s dental practice was ruined, they went into hiding, and eventually Evan killed himself. That’s what happened to people who reported abuse by powerful stars back then.

Jackson’s family stood by him — the gravy boat is a tough ride to jump from without drowning.

Look at Bill’s gracious wife, Camille. Why? Because in the end, the powerful always win.

Right? No. Now, we have social media and finally the playing field is level. The powerful are as vulnerable as the victims. The arsenal is a viral video or accusation — the 21st century way of storming the Bastille to retake power....
 
Paris78;4060553 said:
]Despite a huge settlement, Chandler’s family was destroyed. His father Evan’s dental practice was ruined, they went into hiding, and eventually Evan killed himself. That’s what happened to people who reported abuse by powerful stars back then.


Jackson’s family stood by him — the gravy boat is a tough ride to jump from without drowning.

Look at Bill’s gracious wife, Camille. Why? Because in the end, the powerful always win.

Right? No. Now, we have social media and finally the playing field is level. The powerful are as vulnerable as the victims. The arsenal is a viral video or accusation — the 21st century way of storming the Bastille to retake power....


What did i tell you guys? Another mindless reporting by a paid tabloid hawker. MJ career and life were derailed and ultimately destroyed by these false allegations. so how can he even suggest that MJ did win? How? Won what?

Note how that lame-ass author conveniently left out the fact that MJ was acquitted 14 times. as far as the law is concerned, MJ is clean. but that is not the narrative he wants to sell, is it?

These people love to see icons fall. it's good entertainment i suppose. and they seem bend on encouraging extortionists so they can help them achieve the destruction of celebrities.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Why do you guys even waste your time with people like Clement? All the back and forth on YouTube is really stupid. Let his biased and closed minded self believe what he wants to believe.
 
Despite a huge settlement, Chandler’s family was destroyed. His father Evan’s dental practice was ruined, they went into hiding, and eventually Evan killed himself. That’s what happened to people who reported abuse by powerful stars back then.

Jackson’s family stood by him — the gravy boat is a tough ride to jump from without drowning.

If Chandler destroyed himself, it was through trying to jump INTO the gravyboat.

These reporters are wearing their binoculars the wrong way round.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

if chandler destroyed himself, it was through trying to jump into the gravyboat.

These reporters are wearing their binoculars the wrong way round.

Quote of the day
 
Paris78;4060553 said:
Why weren’t criminal charges pressed? Right. Do you remember the story of Jordan Chandler, the first child to come forward in the Michael Jackson case? I do because I was the first one to learn of the story from Jordie’s uncle. Jackson was to music what Cosby was to TV. It didn’t get bigger.

Despite a huge settlement, Chandler’s family was destroyed. His father Evan’s dental practice was ruined, they went into hiding, and eventually Evan killed himself. That’s what happened to people who reported abuse by powerful stars back then.

Jackson’s family stood by him — the gravy boat is a tough ride to jump from without drowning.
So many falsehoods. Typical tabloid.

Charges weren't pressed with the Chandlers because the family did not want a criminal trial. They would have been all OK with a civil one though (money), were also OK with writing a book, and the uncle appearing on TV so it wasn't about fearing the "power of celebrity".

In Cosby's case charges were not pressed because the prosecution said they did not see enough evidence. The alleged victim was more than ready to testify and despite of that charges were not pressed. In Michael's case we had a prosecutor in Sneddon who turned every stone to be able to charge MJ. In 2005 he did and he lost because his case was weak.

And why is it Michael's fault that Evan destroyed himself and his relationship with his family? Actually even Ray Chandler admits in his book that this was no one else's fault but Evan's:

"But life did not become better than it had ever been. It became much worse. Evan lost the lawsuits, his health and his family. The last two through no one’s fault but his own. But whatever faults Evan may have, whatever demons possess him, one thing he has never been and will never be, is an extortionist.”


And BTW this just confirms how the Chandlers were talking to tabloid media all through it. Fear of publicity, my ass:

I do because I was the first one to learn of the story from Jordie’s uncle.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Pretty sure Evan's dental practice was doing badly before Jordan's accusation against MJ. When did the Chandler's go into hiding? I don't remember hearing anything about that. We don't know for sure why Evan committed suicide, I think he was in very poor health at the time. Why is it always MJ that they have to throw into their articles as comparisons? Why not someone else?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

So many falsehoods. Typical tabloid.

Charges weren't pressed with the Chandlers because the family did not want a criminal trial. They would have been all OK with a civil one though (money), were also OK with writing a book, and the uncle appearing on TV so it wasn't about fearing the "power of celebrity".

In Cosby's case charges were not pressed because the prosecution said they did not see enough evidence. The alleged victim was more than ready to testify and despite of that charges were not pressed. In Michael's case we had a prosecutor in Sneddon who turned every stone to be able to charge MJ. In 2005 he did and he lost because his case was weak.

And why is it Michael's fault that Evan destroyed himself and his relationship with his family? Actually even Ray Chandler admits in his book that this was no one else's fault but Evan's:




And BTW this just confirms how the Chandlers were talking to tabloid media all through it. Fear of publicity, my ass:

Respect77, I must admit that MJ should be proud of you.

Your passion and thoughtful analysis are nothing short of impressive. keep it up.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Pretty sure Evan's dental practice was doing badly before Jordan's accusation against MJ. When did the Chandler's go into hiding? I don't remember hearing anything about that.

I guess Evan selling his dental practice is interpreted as them going into hiding. Then Evan and Jordan went into "hiding" from their own family according to Nathalie Chandler's lawsuit:

2wfl72h.jpg


But how is that MJ's fault in any way?

The only other time the Chandlers "went into hiding" was when they were called to testify in 2005.


We don't know for sure why Evan committed suicide, I think he was in very poor health at the time. Why is it always MJ that they have to throw into their articles as comparisons? Why not someone else?

I think this journalist just wanted to flaunt the info that she used to talk with Jordan's uncle. Most of the time I do not see MJ mentioned in connection with Cosby. They mention more people like Woody Allen, Roman Polanski etc.

Note how that lame-ass author conveniently left out the fact that MJ was acquitted 14 times. as far as the law is concerned, MJ is clean. but that is not the narrative he wants to sell, is it?

These people love to see icons fall. it's good entertainment i suppose. and they seem bend on encouraging extortionists so they can help them achieve the destruction of celebrities.

Desctruction of celebrities, yes and I think also relying on the fact that many people are jealous of celebrities, so this demagogue rethoric of "powerful celebrities" can work on them.

There may be powerful celebrities, but MJ surely was not one in this sense of having power to stop investigations against himself or rub cases under the rug. Yes, he had money and he was popular, but to have that kind of power that's not enough, you have to be well-connected to certain people and be in certain circles and I don't think MJ was.

The Chandlers had two powerful DAs on their side, a Judge who always decided in their favour (hence that they managed to push the civil lawsuit ahead of the criminal trial), powerful top lawyers (not one, but several), and much of the media. So what makes their representations as little David up against Goliath justified in this case?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top