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

[InvincibleMJ]

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

right...allegedly MJ told him it was 'disgusting' so why wouldn't he know it was wrong after 20 years? and how can he equate 'disgusting' sexual stuff with 'he told me it was love'??? doesn't make one bit of sense.

I think this part is Wade using things MJ may have really told him (that's he's being accused of "disgusting sexual stuff") forgetting it's inconsistent with his previous claims - because they're untrue. I think they both do the same, they use things that really happened and twist them completely. I don't think Wade believes his own lies at this point, because he keeps making them up at time goes by.

 

[terrell]

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

I agree that just because burden of proof is lower in a civil trial doesn't mean a civil trial could easily be won

 

[terrell]

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

I think this part is Wade using things MJ may have really told him (that's he's being accused of "disgusting sexual stuff") forgetting it's inconsistent with his previous claims - because they're untrue. I think they both do the same, they use things that really happened and twist them completely. I don't think Wade believes his own lies at this point, because he keeps making them up at time goes by.

Exactly.

 

[aldebran]

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

Adlebran, the burden of proof is lower in a civil trial than it is in a criminal trial. The prosecution only needed to show Michael had the opportunity to commit the acts he was accused of by the Chandlers so he would be found liable.

No that's not true. Simply being there is not enough. If that was the case AEG would have lost.
You have to show that the preponderance of evidence is on your side. I.e it's more likely than not that something happened.

For Robson/Safechuck, the only barrier between them and the unprotected assets is this judge.

So you think they would win in court? Despite all the contradictions, absurdities, lack of physical evidence, lack of credible eyewitness
and the fact that Robson wasn't even in Neverland when he claims the was abused?

Remember he not only contradicts his testimony but his mother's and sister's too who according to him didn't know about anything
so had no reason to lie for MJ. What they told in 2005 was the truth and Chantal's and Joy's testimonies flat out contradict what Robson is saying about
the first trip.

He says he was alone in bed with MJ the second night and that's when the abuse started while Chantal said
she slept in that bed the second night.
Robson says he was left behind in Neverland between Feb 5-10 while his mother made it clear that the whole family left and didn't come back until the next weekend.
That means Robson couldn't possibly have been abused during those 5 days he wasn't even there!
Robson claims that he slept in bed with MJ in the Westwood apartment when there wasn't even any bed there! Only one person standard sleeping bags
and his mother testified the she and Chantal slept in the floor with MJ and Wade! So no abuse occurred during the few days while they were in LA either!

These are facts that certainly make it more likely than not that Robsons is a liar!

 

[terrell]

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

He must think the whole world is a bunch of idiots. His supporters are fools. Even if they believe MJ is guilty, one has to be an idiot to believe Wade's claims.

Any of his supporters are people who have motives. They are jealous of MJ success and achievement. Bottom line, when you are on TOP, some folks just hate you. Sick but that is how it goes. Even if you talk to someone who does not like MJ on a board, they always sound stupid and ignorant and jealous. Even when you hear Stacy Brown, Stacy is a jealous nut over MJ. I bet you Stacy lost a girlfriend or someone whom he liked who loved MJ more than him. I can read a brotha.

 

[terrell]

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

No that's not true. Simply being there is not enough. If that was the case AEG would have lost.
You have to show that the preponderance of evidence is on your side. I.e it's more likely than not that something happened.



So you think they would win in court? Despite all the contradictions, absurdities, lack of physical evidence
and the fact that Robson wasn't even in Neverland when he claims he was abused?

A very strong case could be made that it's more likely than not that Robson is a liar and he is doing this for money.

I know one thing the Estate needs to fight this and do not settle no matter what. this is bogus.

 

[aldebran]

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

first of all they did mention it during a hearing and on documents why 1993 allegations are irrevelant. Secondly 1993 allegations doesn't help Robson. His alleged abuse predates 1993 allegations.

Well the judge cited the 1993 case and Jason Francia and Michael being an agent as reasons why they could be within 340.1(b)(2)

not quite. even if the judge allows the late claim, there will still be an appeal,.

Appeal what? How does that work? sorry I'm not familiar with the process

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Any of his supporters are people who have motives.

I think that's right. Especially those MJFacts idiots, I think they're making profit from running this website, no way they're not. They're too motivated and too obsessed with the subject to be random people who just read tabloid stuff.

 

[jaydom7]

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

Wade is on video before, during and after MJ passed saying MJ did nothing to him and how he was a mentor and long time friend.

 

[aldebran]

Wade is on video before, during and after MJ passed saying MJ did nothing to him and how he was a mentor and long time friend.

And this:

To this day, the Robson family maintain Michael is innocent. “Michael would hurt himself before he would hurt a child. He didn’t have a childhood himself, so it is important to him to see others having one,” said Joy. It was Wade’s decision to `go public’ on television and proclaim Michael’s innocence. “It was a tough thing to do – especially for an 11-year-old – but we couldn’t stand by and let people believe Michael had been anything but a friend to us,” said Joy, with Wade nodding his approval as he sat in on our interview.
“He would never hurt anyone,” said Wade, with a maturity that belied his years. Wade said Michael was an inspiration to him and a guiding force spiritually but his career, including the move into recording, was his and Joy’s decision alone.

http://onwiththeshow.com.au/the-inside-story-on-life-in-michael-jacksons-shadow-1995/


Does Robson want to say that MJ called him on the phone and brainwashed him before this interview too?
He did that everytime Robson talked about him somewhere?
Or that brainwashing was only necessary in 1993 and 2005?
Every other occasion he knew what to say on his own!
Yeah makes sense.

and this

I learned altruism from him. In the entertainment industry, it’s easy to get jaded. Despite all of the madness he went through, he had such an innocence. He trusted people, and in his heart, believed in them. - See more at: http://www.dancemagazine.com/issues/september-2009/Remembering-Michael-Jackson#sthash.Se9xW0BA.dpuf

http://www.dancemagazine.com/issues/september-2009/Remembering-Michael-Jackson

When haters are challenged to explain why anyone would call a rapist innocent and kind and especially after the rapist died all they have is Stockholm syndrome.

When they are challenged to explain why all these boys remain friendly toward MJ well after hitting puperty, why they keep praising him, go back to his ranch,
become the godfather of his kids, go to his funeral, dedicate his twitter account to his memory, have a BBQ with him etc. they say Stockholm syndrome is more common than we think
and MJ targetted the right boys at the right time.

Of course they cannot explain what exactly was so right about Jordan Chandler or Gavin Arvizo and they cannot cite any proven pedophile whose victims
just have the strange habit of remaining his friends as grown ass men.

Wade Robson
Mac Culkin
Brett Barnes
Emmanuel Lewis
the Cascio boys
Anton Glanzelius
Micheal Jacobshagen
Mark Ronson
Sean Lennon
Jonathan Spence
Jimmy Safechuck

all of them stayed in touch with MJ after growin up and none of them said a bad word about him while he was alive
no matter what others threw at him!

Show me a real pedo with those kind of "victims"! There's none.
You won't find a single Sandusky victim going back to his house to take a vacation.


TM missed an opportunity in 2005.
He should have reminded the jury that there were three boys who are now men and all three of them still like MJ, still visit him, still praise him.
What are the chances that even one real abuse victim would do that as an adult ?
And what are the chances that THREE would do it?

And if we accept that those three were not abused, based on not just their words but actions, then we have to accept that
merely sleeping in a bed with someone was not sexual in MJ's world.
It was no different from sleepin in a car. Like this:
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/9363/marienicoledominicaldoh.jpg

And while they are in a bed clearly they are not licking each other:

https://vindicatemj.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/in-a-bed-with-emmanuel-lewis1.jpg



And if those three boys were not abused even though they all slept in a bed with him
why should we believe that any other boy in a similar situation was?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

TM missed an opportunity in 2005.
He should have reminded the jury that there were three boys who are now men and all three of them still likes MJ, still visits him, still praises him.

Are you serious?

 

[jaydom7]

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

Are you serious?

:bugeyed I know right... T Mez didn't miss any chance.. Mike was acquitted of 14 counts. The good thing is all of these videos and comments from Wade are documented.. Who calls their rapist 'an innocent' who trusts in people?

 

[krikzil]

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

not quite. even if the judge allows the late claim, there will still be an appeal, if that's is unsuccessful there will still be trial and a jury. It's not that easy. and we know from previous examples that just because burden of proof is lower in a civil trial doesn't mean a civil trial could easily be won.

True. Hardly game over by a long shot in the event it's allowed to proceed. Given the facts of the case, I think it would be unlikely Robson could prevail at trial. Settlement was and is his game plan IMO.

I know one thing the Estate needs to fight this and do not settle no matter what. this is bogus.

Agreed. I don't understand why anyone thinks a settlement is a good idea. The 1993 settlement was a game-changer as far as public perception. One now would do irreparable harm to MJ's legacy and the Estate.

 

[aldebran]

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

Are you serious?

Absolutely.
those three testified during the trial Wade Brett and Mac.
If anyone believed they were abused how the hell could they explain that they were still MJ's friends as grown ass men?
The jury should have been challenged that way.
there is no reasonable answer except that they were indeed not abused, period.

The reason why those two jurors who later changed their mind (aside from the book deal)
thought that MJ might have molested boys in the past was that they simply couldn't go past the whole sleeping in bed issue
and Brett Barnes supposedly slept in a bed with him for 365 days and that "didn't make sense to him".
He could have lost the case on this issue alone! if the other jurors had not been as forceful as they were it could have been a hung jury.


Unless you explain that for MJ sleeping with ANYONE simply didn't have sexual connotation you have no chance to win a civil trial.
This is THE issue which allowed Chandler and Arvizo to make a case in the first place. It wasn't just that MJ spent time with those kids.
But that he was in the same bed with them. Eliminate that element and you don't have any of these bogus claims.

Even though one doesn't need a bed to molest someone and most certainly you don't sleep while you molest someone.
But since where are humans logical?

MJ's extremely low libido also should be an issue. The evidence is overwhelming that he could go without sex for YEARS
so the whole argument that no way he just watched TV for 365 days while Brett was sleeping in his bed would be shot down.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

You know what....

 

[aldebran]

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

You know what....

what?

 

[jaydom7]

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

True. Hardly game over by a long shot in the event it's allowed to proceed. Given the facts of the case, I think it would be unlikely Robson could prevail at trial. Settlement was and is his game plan IMO.

Agreed. I don't understand why anyone thinks a settlement is a good idea. The 1993 settlement was a game-changer as far as public perception. One now would do irreparable harm to MJ's legacy and the Estate.

Exactly! and what exactly is Wade's team saying in order to get around the statute of limitations?

 

[Lil]

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

Robson said under oath that he never saw MJ naked at all.. His answers were specific and Mesereau asked him detailed questions which he responded yes or no too.. That's why his whole 'I didn't know what sex abuse' is was absurb.. He was asked and answered very specific questions that was yes or no responses so he either lied under oath or he didn't... There's no way a 23 year old man doesn't know what abuse is or inappropriate touching.

I don't think he said he literally doesn't know what sex abuse is, he claims that although he 'never forgot what happened' he didn't 'realize it was sexual abuse', because Michael convinced him he was 'a consenting party' to what they were doing. So yes, based on his own claims he flat out lied under oath. I think he'll go with the 'your life will be over' threat as a reason for answering 'no' to all those questions.
Basically he seems to be claiming that although at age 23 (well, up until recently actually) he still believed something as brutal as being anally raped as a child happened with his consent (even after having had actual consensual sex with a woman) he decided to lie and say those things didn't happen because -almost 10 years after the abuse had stopped- he was still influenced enough by Michael's 'brainwashing' to think his life would be over if he'd talk about it....:blink:

I think this part is Wade using things MJ may have really told him (that's he's being accused of "disgusting sexual stuff") forgetting it's inconsistent with his previous claims - because they're untrue. I think they both do the same, they use things that really happened and twist them completely. I don't think Wade believes his own lies at this point, because he keeps making them up at time goes by.

Exactly, I think they might have a taped phone conversation or something in which Michael actually says that, and WR is trying to make it sound like he only said it because he was 'role-playing' with him. I watched his interview again the other day and he said something along the lines of how there was 'no sense of truth over the phone' when he talked about how Michael would call him to 'role-play these scenario's'.

MJ's extremely low libido also should be an issue. The evidence is overwhelming that he could go without sex for YEARS

LOL, okay:rofl:

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Remember he said he did not lie under oath he was just unable to know it was wrong.

 

[aldebran]

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

Exactly, I think they might have a taped phone conversation or something in which Michael actually says that, and WR is trying to make it sound like he only said it because he was 'role-playing' with him. I watched his interview again the other day and he said something along the lines of how there was 'no sense of truth over the phone' when he talked about how Michael would call him to 'role-play these scenario's'.

I wonder why Safechuck didn't need to be role played before he talked to the police in 1993.
This brainwashing through the phone is a missing element in his story.

Oh and of course if we believe Jordan Chandler i.e. Victor Gutierez Mac Culkin and Brett Barnes had to be role played into supporting testimonies too.
Except Mac actually talked about one phone call in 1993 that MJ told him the accusations are not true and he just wanted him to be a friend.
No role playing there.

Reminds me of Jason's ticking story. He and only he was the tickled boy. This MO was preserved for him and noone else.
What an honor!

 

[aldebran]

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

double post

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

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

Are we being trolled?

 

[aldebran]

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

Remember he said he did not lie under oath he was just unable to know it was wrong.

Which is such a hugh load of bullshit!
Seriously who buys that?

He didn't know rape was wrong?
then why the heck did he write on his LiveJournal page that what MJ was accused of was "not exactly cool"?

It wasn't cool if it happened to others but it was cool if it happened to him?

 

[aldebran]

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

Are we being trolled?

No I just didn't know how to delete that post. Is there any way?

 

[aldebran]

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

LOL, okay:rofl:

It may be funny but it's true.

Look at his last five years for example.
Could you name anyone he could have had sex with?

What about these years?

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

and how else would you explain that he was with the Cascio boys for months during the Dangerous tour or with Brett
while there was noone else around him?

The dude had an eye for the ladies but he was practically asexual or certainly not much interested in the whole thing.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

^

Are we being trolled?

Yes

 

[jaydom7]

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

Wade's answers during the trial were yes or no responses. He wasn't asked what his opinion of abuse was or what the meaning of it was to him. This wasn't about if he knew or not if it was wrong. He was asked detailed questions which needed answers of yes or no so either he lied under oath with his yes or no responses or he didn't.

 

[HIStory]

He says he was alone in bed with MJ the second night and that's when the abuse started while Chantal said
she slept in that bed the second night.
Robson says he was left behind in Neverland between Feb 5-10 while his mother made it clear that the whole family left and didn't come back until the next weekend.
That means Robson couldn't possibly have been abused during those 5 days he wasn't even there!
Robson claims that he slept in bed with MJ in the Westwood apartment when there wasn't even any bed there! Only one person standard sleeping bags
and his mother testified the she and Chantal slept in the floor with MJ and Wade! So no abuse occurred during the few days while they were in LA either!

These are facts that certainly make it more likely than not that Robsons is a liar!

These are good points and I'm going to check them out all. I noticed the first night issue. Actually already back in 2005 there was a little confusion about whether Chantal slept with them on the first or the second night. Wade said it was the first night that they all slept together. Chantal however was adamant, very adamant that it was the second night and she said that was because by the second night she grew more comfortable with MJ.

Why does it matter now? Well, because Robson has it reversed now in his declaration:

"The first night at the ranch my sister Chantal and I both slept in Doe 1's bedroom in the same bed as Doe 1. The following night Chantal expressed concern about sleeping in Doe 1's bed and elected instead to sleep in a seperate bed on a different floor of Doe 1's two-floor bedroom, but I slept in Doe 1's bed. Doe 1 began sexually abusing me on or about that night."

So now Chantal's reason to not to sleep with them on the second night because she "has concern". However this is what Chantal said on the stand:

4 Q. And that night, your brother slept in the

5 same bed with Michael Jackson?

6 A. Yes. I told him to come up with me.

7 Q. You told him to come up with you?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Was that because you felt like he shouldn’t

10 be sleeping in a bed with a grown man?

11 A. Not at all.

12 Q. Then why did you tell him to do that?

13 A. Because I didn’t want to make Michael feel

14 like two people were invading his space.

15 Q. Something about that first night made you

16 feel uncomfortable, didn’t it?

17 A. No, not at all.

18 Q. Didn’t you say you felt more comfortable the

19 second night to Mr. Ross when you spoke to him a few

20 days ago?

21 A. Comfortable with my friendship with Michael,

22 yes.

23 Q. And that next night, you slept in the same

24 bed with Michael Jackson?

25 A. I did.

26 Q. And your mother knew about it?

27 A. Yes.

Of course, it's easy to not remember correctly of whether something was on the first night or second night, esp. when we are talking about childhood memories. But in this story motives and reasons are attached to it and that way it becomes a more important detail. It's not a small insignificant detail whether Chantal did not sleep with them on the second night because of being "concerned" or actually the contrary: she did sleep with them on the second night because she started to feel more comfortable with Michael. This is not just the simple mixing up of two nights, but when two different reasons are attached to it then these become two different stories. Was Chantal concerned by the second night or was she more comfortable with MJ by the second night?

I did not check out the other things you say. Can you provide the transcripts about those. If not I'm gonna check them out when I have time.

Exactly, I think they might have a taped phone conversation or something in which Michael actually says that, and WR is trying to make it sound like he only said it because he was 'role-playing' with him. I watched his interview again the other day and he said something along the lines of how there was 'no sense of truth over the phone' when he talked about how Michael would call him to 'role-play these scenario's'.

I agree. I suspect they either have a tape of this conversation or there were independent witnesses (eg. Mez) and because of that Wade needs to explain it away as "coaching". The whole thing just does not make sense in the context of his story and it does not support his claims at all.

 

[HIStory]

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

It may be funny but it's true.

Look at his last five years for example.
Could you name anyone he could have had sex with?

What about these years?

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

and how else would you explain that he was with the Cascio boys for months during the Dangerous tour or with Brett
while there was noone else around him?

The dude had an eye for the ladies but he was practically asexual or certainly not much interested in the whole thing.

I think we should not make the mistake of thinking that we know everything that MJ did in his private life.

 

[aldebran]

I did not check out the other things you say. Can you provide the transcripts about those. If not I'm gonna check them out when I have time.

this is about the timeline:
Wade Robson’s Fake Story of HOME ALONE AT NEVERLAND
https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/wade-robsons-fake-story-of-home-alone-at-neverland/


this is about the missing bed:

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/the-missing-bed-in-wade-robsons-stories/

It's not just that Chantal said it was the second night and Robson now put words in her mouth it's that Robson claims the abuse started on the second night
while Chantal was in the bed!
Impossible.
And he says that MJ talked to him in the bed! about how he should shut up about the whole thing because people are ignorant they don't understand that we express our love like that blah blah balh.
So MJ said all those things while a witness was there right next to them! Sure.

And this also contradicts Robson's claim about the hallway alarm. If MJ was indeed so careful that he wanted to know whether someone was approaching the room
wouldn't he molest someone while a potential witness was right there in the same bed?

The whole thing doesn't make sense.

I agree. I suspect they either have a tape of this conversation or there were independent witnesses (eg. Mez) and because of that Wade needs to explain it away as "coaching". The whole thing just does not make sense in the context of his story and it does not support his claims at all.

I find it hard to believe that MJ would say they want to take away my POWER and my MONEY when his very life was on the line not his power and money.
That part seems so manufactured. The disgusting sexual stuff is believable but the rest is just not what MJ would say especially under the circumstances.