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

[passy001]

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

It won't. In this demurrer doc it's stated that the next hearing about this subject is on June 30.

This is the civil hearing. When is the probate hearing about the estopel supposed to take place?

 

[passy001]

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

^^

See the last line "What Robson is really arguing is that the alleged acts of Michael in his bedroom can somehow be imputed to the corporate defendants as acts of the corporations".

He's trying to do that so that he can fall under "within 3 years of discovery of injury" deadline.

But then he changes position and claim corporations could have controlled MJ - which means classifying them separate and different from MJ.

Not surprisingly he's all over the place. This is probably a case of whatever sticks strategy.

That's so true even despite the so-called Neverland discovery, which the Robson camp was so excited about.

Anyway, it's obvious this so-called lawsuits both in probate and civil court are ill-conceived money grab exercises.

here is hoping that when this is all over, the estate will hound down Robson for the legal costs. he's got to pay them, one way or the other.

 

[HIStory]

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

This is the civil hearing. When is the probate hearing about the estopel supposed to take place?

This is what I see for probate court. Of course, these are not necessarily related to Robson/Safechuck (the trial is something else):

04/10/2015 at 08:32 am in department 51 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
MOTION - SUMMARY ADJUD. OF ISSUES(2. STATUS RE PROBATE CODE REPORT 12220

04/15/2016 at 08:32 am in department 51 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference

05/03/2016 at 08:32 am in department 51 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial(15 DAY ESTIMATE)

05/12/2015 at 08:30 am in department 51 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
STATUS HEARING(RE EVIDENTIARY HEARING AS TO ISSUE1)

12/07/2015 at 08:30 am in department 51 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Status Conference(TRIAL SET FOR 9:00 AM)


For Robson civil case:

04/10/2015 at 08:30 am in department 51 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Status Conference

 

[la_cienega]

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

Our friends at Vindicate MJ V.2 is saying the alleged Norma Staikos statement "Don't live children alone with MJ" is from MJWML by Gutierrez. and he said Orietta Murdock heard it.

given Staikos testified in front of Grand Jury but Grand Jury did not charge MJ and given Staikos wasn't called to testify in 2005, I guess it's safe to assume that she denied it.

edited to add: apparently there's also a Sneddon motion which states Norma Staikos and Miko Brando had statements about not leaving their kids alone with Michael. These didn't materialize either.

That's exactly what I thought this was.

Knew right away this was nothing new, but third hand info from shitty crazy people. The Miko Brando thing was from third hand shady people too, those LeMarques who had their story resold after Wade's broke... Miko testified in 1994 and in 2005, and was not asked about it which would've happened if it had been credible, but we know for a fact that for a man who supposedly said this he had his own children, including his son, at Neverland and around MJ all the time.

So in conclusion, they demand and insist and plead they NEED these 2005 court documents, and end up with some shitty third hand quote from a Victor Gutierrez hit piece.

 

[MJresearcher]

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

Back to Safchuck's allegations I'm wondering about this claim:1) Did MJ's bedroom at NL even have a window?

Looks like it did from this video, footage inside Michael's upstairs bedroom begins at about 6:15:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aMvs19ic6L4

Here's a screenshot:

 

[#MJforever57]

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

It won't. In this demurrer doc it's stated that the next hearing about this subject is on June 30.

Just hoping Wade and his lawyers can see there is no more they can do to fix this case why keep drag it the laws is the laws and you can not change it common sense will tell you you can not sue a dead i am hoping no judge will allow that. Alots can change between now and June 30. Is there a court date on April 10th ?

Let look at these facts in this case so far.

Statute of limitations - miss file dates
Suing MJ and his companies - no cause of action to back it up.
No one so far to say that they knew or was aware this was going on (MJ companies)
Wade file this after he was 26
Wade Lawyers trying to get around the statute of limitations
This is Wade third amended complaint (first one no changes 1 cause of action) (second one now we have 7 cause of actions 4 against MJ companies)Still have not found anything solid against the companies that someone should have know or was aware this was going on.
Estate is argue that the companies are owner by MJ so the companies do not have control over MJ.
These companies are not a person so you can not sue.


Wade and his lawyers can keep on going backward and forward with this case it will still not fit the laws. We all know this case is weak and the Estate case is strong, Wade has yet to show any real proof that this sexual abuse every took place i know it is the judge job to take Wade words as true his job is not to decide if Wade is telling the true or not he job is to decide if this case has enough to move on and is within the laws. Looking at what we see so far i do not see how it can get pass the demurrer that is imo.

You can correct me if i have anything wrong here. This is how i see it.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

^^

See the last line "What Robson is really arguing is that the alleged acts of Michael in his bedroom can somehow be imputed to the corporate defendants as acts of the corporations".

He's trying to do that so that he can fall under "within 3 years of discovery of injury" deadline.

But then he changes position and claim corporations could have controlled MJ - which means classifying them separate and different from MJ.

Not surprisingly he's all over the place. This is probably a case of whatever sticks strategy.

Does not make any sense here Ivy this case is all over the place Wade and his lawyers do not know where they want to go. I can tell you this this case is still not fitting the laws so far.

These lawyers are really trying to makes something work here. When will they realize it can not be fit.

 

[myosotis]

Back to Safchuck's allegations I'm wondering about this claim:

James recounts that while he and Jackson engaged in sexual activities, Jackson would trigger a flashbulb set up behind his bedroom window curtain “to resemble a camera bulb flashing.” Jimmy, who’d jokingly been informed by Jackson that paparazzi were snapping photos of them in the act, cried at the trick, and “Decedent was surprised by his reaction.”

Jackson teased the boy he claimed to love with this prank on both the Bad tour and at Neverland, James remembers.

1) Did MJ's bedroom at NL even have a window?
2) So he took this flashbulb with him everywhere to the Bad tour and installed it behind window curtains in hotels, as well as Neverland?

ETA: OK, I realize that the downstairs portion had a window (I don't think the upstairs did). But the second question still stands.

1. I've been thinking about this. I've certainly read that when Michael was in residence in a hotel, his suite curtains would be closed. I seem to recall press / paps mentioning this when reporting that he had young friends with him (Maybe in New York??)

Hotels (and presumably Neverland) windows are likely to have heavy drapes. If you wish to sleep at any time of day or night (as international hotel guests do) you need heavy, light-barring curtains/ drapes. So any camera flash would need to be fairly bright to be seen from inside.

It stretches incredulity a bit, to think that (while allegedly engaged in unlawful acts) MJ would draw the attention of any casual observer / pap outside the hotel by having a bright light flashing outside his window. At Neverland that would surely attract the attention of security and likewise in a hotel..and a hotel is likely to have more casual observers in the shape of guests, fans, reporters observing MJs window from outside.....


2. Re. Norma Staikos' comment about 'leaving children alone with Michael'
InvincibeleTal

I think the date of this alleged statement is very important because if she said it after 1993 it could mean anything and it doesn't mean she "knew". IF it was ever said, I'm sure it's after the Chandlers. Nice to see Wade's sources.

I think if Norma made this suggestion at any time after the release of 'Billie Jean'- a song about false accusation (on Thriller, released in 1982), that would be understandable..... Young girls do get ideas from songs, and accusations of molestation are not a big step from accusations of responsibility for pregnancy.....

 

[HIStory]

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

^ Like I said earlier my suspicion is the whole flashbulb/paparazzi story is to allude to stories when pedophiles make photos of their victims because they get a kick out of seeing them scared. Only problem that in this case despite of two house searches no such photos have ever been found - not of Safecuck, not of anyone else. So I guess this is his way to include such a story yet circumvent the lack of evidence: claiming that it was not a real photo taking session, just "mock photography" to scare and tease him.

Good point about a flashbulb flashing in the window would only draw attention to the room - which makes no sense if there was illicit activity going on in that room.

BTW, I think that in their zeal to shock the public and to link themselves to "supporting" narratives from the likes of VG and Dimond's books or other books, they are making a big mistake with portraying MJ as some kind of sadistic rapist. First Wade with his anal rape stories, now Safechuck with these stories like MJ playing cruel jokes and teasing him to the point of making him cry on him on top of the abuse while abusing him. These are just so incredibly off character. The MJ who could not bear seeing anyone cry, let alone a child? I said it earlier, but it would have been smarter from them if they had portrayed MJ as some kind of poor, troubled individual who just masturbated with boys and did not realize what he was doing was harmful and not OK. But then I guess they could not have made "I felt threatened" narratives as reasons why they did not come forward. At the same time these stories make it increasingly less believable that they would not realize, even as adults, that these things were wrong, perverted and harmful to a child. They make it increasingly less believable that all the while this was going on they could maintain the same level of love and affection for MJ and not show any type of behaviour problems or changes in their personalities, distrust towards MJ or sexual confusion, declining school performance or anything at all. There was not one kid who did not want to be around MJ. Not one. No "Mom, I don't want to go to Neverland any more." "Why?" "Just because." or "Because I don't like Michael any more." type of conversations ever. From anyone.
Maybe it's possible to confuse some kids to the extent that they could still love their abuser despite of abuse, but ALL? Every one of them? Not realistic. Especially not with the type of acts Robson and Safechuck allege.

For Safechuck MJ conveniently only became a "bad man" after he felt abandoned by him - and my feeling is that besides the monetary motive this is what makes it easier for him to throw MJ under the bus and this is how he justifies this in his own mind. While reading D's article about his complaint I was thinking: it's Gavin Arvizo all over again. It's all about his poor little hurt ego and that he felt abandoned by MJ (and of course money - the main motive), not about molestation.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Oh definitely. I know you did and it seems like that has happened in several other cases. But I just worry anyway. I was born worried and I think and worry about this case all the time even tho I try not to.

Same here it just give Wade and his lawyers more time to find something else that will not work.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

That why i say ppls will not believe what Wade and James are saying the question that will be ask why did you not take care of this when Michael was alive. Wade and James are only doing this to get money from Michael Estate this is all it is about. Wade say he is doing this to tell the truth and the world need to know the truth if the truth hit Wade in the face he would not even know it.

Like it was mention in a post here if Michael was here these two would be at Michael house having a cookout end of story.

 

[Soundmind]

James recounts that while he and Jackson engaged in sexual activities, Jackson would trigger a flashbulb set up behind his bedroom window curtain “to resemble a camera bulb flashing.” Jimmy, who’d jokingly been informed by Jackson that paparazzi were snapping photos of them in the act, cried at the trick, and “Decedent was surprised by his reaction.”

Jackson teased the boy he claimed to love with this prank on both the Bad tour and at Neverland, James remembers.

Why would he cry? I thought he did not know or understand that what they were supposedly doing was wrong , so why was he crying ?

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Why would he cry? I thought he did not know or understand that what they were supposedly doing was wrong , so why was he crying ?

I really do not believe Michael did that James is just adding more to his stories

 

[HIStory]

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

I really do not believe Michael did that James is just adding more to his stories

Yeah, no one here believes that I think. It was more a sarcastic question.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Why do Wade/James lawyers feel they can make these cases work to fit the laws we see so far all they have try has fail why do they keep drag it. These cases are so week and it does not make any sense.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Respect77 do you really believe Wade/James have a chance with these cases what do you think? Me looking at the laws i do not see how they have a chance statute of limitations have ran out.

 

[HIStory]

All of it is BS, of course, I'm just focusing a little bit on the phone part now. So basically he claims in and around 2005 there were four phone calls: three from MJ, one from Evvy Tavasci.

During the first one, he claims, MJ first tried to cajole him into testifying for him by promising to assist him with music, film, directing, then he got angry and threatened him that he would get him for perjury. Which we already said makes little sense, since MJ was not a DA who could get anyone for perjury, besides Safechuck was 26 years old at the time, I doubt he did not know that a testimony that he gave at the age of 15 could not get him in jail for perjury if he changed it as an adult. It also does not seem very on-character for Michael to threaten people like that.

Then this:

James told his mother about the telephone call with Jackson, saying he would not testify for the star because Jackson was a “bad man” — a vague descriptor that no doubt confused his mother, who, like other members of the Safechuck family, believed Jackson “could do no wrong.” In explaining his sudden and surprising rejection of Jackson to his mother but still sparing her from the grimy details, James “was unable to tell her any details or say anything but the briefest statement that he had been abused.”

Now, you are a mother and your son just said he was abused as a child. Wouldn't you want to know more? Even if your son does not want to say anything more about it initially, I sure would bug him about it later on because this is an important issue. But their story seems to be that he just uttered the words "I was abused" in 2005 and there was no further discussion about it until 2014 when Robson finally enlightened him. How realistic is that?

Not only that:

Jackson later called Mrs. Safechuck himself. He asked the mother not only to convince James to change his mind about testifying but also if she and her husband would give under-oath testimony in his defense. Mrs. Safechuck kept her son’s secret, and apparently neither of the parents took Jackson up on his request.

Kept her son's secret? You are a mother and you get a call from the guy about whom your son just said he abused him as a child. And asks you to testify for him in a child abuse trial. So you just politely turn him down or you are more likely to say something like this: "You bastard! You molested my son and you have the nerve to call me with this request?" Well, I know which would be me, but maybe that's just me.

The final call from Jackson, James remembers, seemed “rehearsed”, with Jackson’s tone reminding James of all of the listening devices attached to phones at Neverland Ranch. It occurred near the end of the trial, perhaps at a moment when — in spite of his attorney Tom Mesereau’s confidence the Prosecution’s case was full of holes — Jackson feared for his freedom, a tacit acknowledgment that years of bad behavior may have finally caught up with the allegedly ‘smooth criminal’. He needed James. He apologized, James remembers, telling James he was “sorry for not being there for [the Plaintiff].” James suspected the phone call was being recorded and “the very sound of Decedent’s voice made him very uncomfortable and put him into panic mode.”

Jackson pressed, saying Gavin Arvizo — as he’d said about Jordie Chandler over a decade earlier — was only interested in money, but James resisted. He told Jackson “never to try to call or try to talk to him ever again” and hung up.

This is as odd as when Wade says MJ was telling him things like "they make up all these lies about us". Why whould you say such a thing to a person with whom you both know you molested him? Similarly, why would MJ call James to tell him that Gavin and Jordan were only after money, when James would know that he's a molester anyway? And if you both know he's a molester what sense would it make to try to convince Jimmy that you did not molest the other two guys when you both know you molested him? And saying sorry for not being there for Jimmy? If there is a moment of guilty feeling for MJ shouldn't he have said sorry for the molestation if it happened?

Also, like La Cienega earlier noted it's odd that he emphasizes so much that he felt this last convo was "rehearsed" and recorded by MJ. It's almost as if he is afraid that such a conversation may pop up and so he needs to say these as some sort of preemtive strike, because the convo in itself sure does not seem incriminating. Actually, on the contrary, for the reasons I said in the previous paragraph.

(And if it happened towards the end of the trial MJ sure did not call him because he needed him. MJ did not need Jimmy's testimony towards the end of the trial, since it's been decided much earlier that Safechuck will not be discussed at the trial.)

 

[HIStory]

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

Respect77 do you really believe Wade/James have a chance with these cases what do you think? Me looking at the laws i do not see how they have a chance statute of limitations have ran out.

I have no idea how the Judge will decide. Wait and see. We have already discussed in lenght here all the problems we see with their cases, including their chances of getting around statutes of limitations. Hopefully the Judge will see the same problems.

What I don't understand is... if he filed late, beyond the 60 days, why is the judge even entertaining this anyway? Surely he has been able to pick up on that little bit.

Because they are making all kind of legal arguments for why the 60 days do not apply here. Equitable estoppel arguments in probate court and trying to sue the companies in civil court.

 

[Soundmind]

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

I do not believe for a minute MJ called him . Mez would have never allowed MJ to make the first call as the defense had no idea at the time on what side those people were. If MJ did not make the first contact with Mac, why would he call Safe**** who ,unlike Mac, had lost all contact with for decades ?

I bet the only call Safe**** received was from MJ's assistant and it was recorded by MJ's team.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

All of it is BS, of course, I'm just focusing a little bit on the phone part now. So basically he claims in and around 2005 there were four phone calls: three from MJ, one from Evvy Tavasci.

I would have expected some direct or indirect communication between mj and safechuck around the time of the trial as safechuck was on sneddon's list of potential victims for a period of time but i tend to agree with soundmind about it being unlikely mj would be doing the phoneround of witnesses. Tmez would have more details of the procedure. If a phone call from evvy is mentioned in the complaint, then i guess, unlike with those from mj,we can be more confident it happened as evvy is here to confirm or deny. I agree with you that the phonecalls as described all sound really peculiar , they don't even seem to help safechuck's case, but we have to remember we only have a 'desireed' version of a civil complaint, we could be missing some extra info about them.Maybe safechuck felt compelled to say mj threatened him with perjury if he went against mj and testified for the prosecution, because he felt he had to justify himself for not coming to court to back up a fellow victim, idk. Like wade, the 2005 trial for child molestation is a huge obstacle for these late victims, they need to confront it and explain their actions or nonactions.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

We already know Safechuck turned Sneddon down and why he failes to mention it on his lawsuit we all know. For me he just switched Sneddon with Michael in that story so he can join Wade.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Well i tell you Wade/James the truth has been reveal here it all these lies are coming back to get them i believe this judge can see this now the stories have change so many times these cases do not fit the laws it a mess now.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Because they are making all kind of legal arguments for why the 60 days do not apply here. Equitable estoppel arguments in probate court and trying to sue the companies in civil court.

In the end this is what going to get them Wade/James have not been able to back up any thing they have said and argue trying to say the 60 days does not apply to them is a waste of time it right there in black and white and these cases do not fit

 

[MJresearcher]

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

What Wade and James are saying is totally different from what other accusers have said. With what they're saying they're trying to turn him into one of the nastiest abusers that can be imagined, but even James Clemente said that he thinks MJ was a "loving" abuser which certainly does not fit with what these two are saying. Of course I think it's all rubbish and giving stories that differ greatly from other accusers isn't something I think will help them in any way. It also makes no sense, why would someone escalate to rape but then not rape Chandler or Arvizo? It's all over the place!

 

[ivy]

What Wade and James are saying is totally different from what other accusers have said. With what they're saying they're trying to turn him into one of the nastiest abusers that can be imagined, but even James Clemente said that he thinks MJ was a "loving" abuser which certainly does not fit with what these two are saying.

Their own comments right now doesn't make much sense with what they claiming as well.

for example this is Safechuck

For James Safechuck, the boy Jackson really had ‘thrown away’, his former friend’s passing left him conflicted. He “felt sad” at the realization that he and Jackson would never be able to have a “normal relationship” and that “his experiences with Decedent would never be resolved.” In spite of the abuse and the ugly note on which they last left, there were still pangs of guilty longing for the man who’d taken ten-year-old Jimmy’s innocence in order to rekindle his own — James had, in fact, “deeply loved and idolized” Jackson.

This is Robson

Even today, however, Robson has mixed emotions about Jackson, and told Lauer what he thinks of when he does think of the singer is: "Heartbreak, pain, anger and compassion.... The image that one presents to the world is not the whole explanation of who someone is. Michael Jackson was yes, an incredibly talented artist with an incredible gift. He was many things. And he was also a pedophile and a child sexual abuser."

Don't you find these positive things (compassion, acknowledging his talent etc) or feeling of sadness due to his death contrary to the portrayal of the abuser? Remember they even claimed anal rape.

Allow me to give an example. One of my friends had a very abusive boyfriend who used to beat her.(we knew the boyfriend as we as friends used to get together) She ended up in hospital multiple times and we as her friends helped her. Eventually she left her boyfriend. He was out of our lives. Several years later he died in an unexpected nature.

I haven't heard anyone express any sadness over his death. My friend was relieved - because she was always afraid that he could hurt her again. Many of our friends felt indifferent - when you know death especially a young and unexpected death is a sad thing but you can't feel sad, you feel nothing. and I haven't seen anyone describe that guy as "he beat women but he was also a very handsome and very articulate man". When people truly do bad things, that takes over everything.

To me, how Robson and Safechuck still approach to their alleged abuser doesn't make any sense. Especially not with the level/types of abuse they are claiming.

 

[HIStory]

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

Yes, I agree with both of you. I think they made a big mistake with claiming rape and all kinds of sadistic acts. Probably for shock value and because the worse acts they claim the more money they can demand. (I'd think the puntitive damages would be based on what paragraph of the Penal Code an act violates and if it's a paragraph with a bigger punishment probably the money attached to it in puntitive damages would be bigger as well.) But like MJ Researcher pointed out even very biased pro-prosecution people like Clemente or Stanley Katz have MJ in their mind as a "loving pedophile", it's very difficult to imagine him as some sadistic and violent rapist - even for his enemies. They really went off the deep end with this.

I think why they claim they still had love for MJ is to explain why they did not come forward earlier. For that they have to represent themselves as emotionally very confused and conflicted about MJ. But with the type of acts they allage it's not believable.

They claim things like:

(b) (1) Any person who commits an act described in subdivision (a)
by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and
unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, is guilty of
a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison
for 5, 8, or 10 years.

(2) (A) Any person who commits an act of oral copulation when the
act is accomplished against the victim's will by means of force,
violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily
injury on the victim or another person shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.

(B) Any person who commits an act of oral copulation upon a person
who is under 14 years of age, when the act is accomplished against
the victim's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or
fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another
person, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 8,
10, or 12 years.

So while being forced to sex "by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury" they somehow still managed to maintain love and affection for MJ and they managed to consider it "loving" until 2013/2014. Yeah, right. I'm worried for their wives and children if they could mistake such acts for "acts of love"...

 

[HIStory]

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

^ Unfortunately I agree. Especially Wade, who seems to have invented a whole new persona for himself playing this big child abuse advocate hero ( uke: ).

 

[myosotis]

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

Is anyone else worried about how this is all going to pan out? I mean, even if it does get rejected by the court, do you really believe this will be the last we hear from these two jokers? Book deals, media articles, talkshows.... they'll just make their money that way instead, all the while dragging MJ's name through the mud. To me, it seems this is a lose-lose situation for the estate and MJ's reputation.

Well, the 'media' are a fairly small world, and they are all fishing in the same pool for celebs who will give newspaper interviews, speak on TV etc. I imagine that the media will see a longer period of profitable exchange (and public interest) by working with Michael's children than by working with R and S. I don't think that any media organisations eg major TV companies could do both. I doubt that the children would want to associate themselves with any media organisations which gave significant, unchallenged time to Michaels' accusers. At the moment, Michael's children are young, and there are various court cases going on, so nothing can be said by them publicly. I think that a lot will change in the future.

Murray has threatened TV interviews, books, films etc, but I don't see very much of that happening, except initially after the trial, to excuse his own behaviour. I doubt that most of the public would pay money to hear about R and S, and newspapers don't seem very interested so far.

 

[myosotis]

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

^^ Which begs the uncomfortable question of whether or not a settlement is what's best in this situation. I don't want these assholes to get a penny of MJ's money, but the cold hard reality is that they will make their money out of this one way or another. MJ's public image will take yet another battering and his children will no doubt suffer the consequences if their sordid little make-believe tales get mass media exposure either through a civil trial or through selling their stories to the press.

Only way to avoid all of that is through a settlement imo.

The public tend to see settlement as an admission of guilt. I just cannot imagine that happening. Besides which, for false accusers like this, no money is ever enough. They would simply find other ways to blacken Michael's name/ rake in money using his name. Inventive and vindictive minds know no limits.

 

[HIStory]

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

A settlement has its downsides. One is of course that it will be taken as an admission of guilt even if it isn't. Second that it would give the green light to other vultures that they can make an allegation against MJ and his Estate will throw them money. That way the allegations will never end. And of course, this would be basically rewarding liars and fraudsters - bascially like giving in to terrorist demands. The biggest mistake Michael could do was settling with the Chandlers. Francia, Arvizo, Robson and Safechuck's allegations are all a consequence of that settlement.