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

[aldebran]

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

This means Nothing!!! Being in a relationship and having sex are 2 different things! You can think about sex every second of the day and still not want to have sex with a kid!!

Move on. Please.

You still don't understand why the average person would have a lot of problem accepting that he could sleep in a bed with a kid for months and do nothing sexual, do you?
Why do you think Zonen asked Brett whether MJ had any adult companion with him on that tour?
He asked the same from Mac regarding the trip to Bermuda.

If you don't explain to the jury what he was doing if he was not having sex with the only person in his bed for months you LOSE
because yes most people are that irrational and cannot imagine that someone simply doesn't have sex with ANYONE for year.

That "You can think about sex every second of the day and still not want to have sex with a kid!!" won't work because most people associate being in a bed with someone with sex.
That's the very reason why MJ got in trouble. that's why we are here now talking about Robson's BS claims.
None of these would be happening without the whole bed=sex mentality.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

It did but that's how being raised as a JW comes in the picture and what he told Schmuley about how values associated with being a JW affected his relationship with women.
Yes he disfellowshipped himself but that doesn't mean those values went away. After all he cried when he first celebrated Christmas. You don't do that if you have completely rejected that religion.

I suppose this assumption is your ultimate evidence.

No they were not said separately. Watch the video. One follows the other.

No, one does not follow the other. You watch the video. :smilerolleyes:

 

[aldebran]

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

This means Nothing!!! Being in a relationship and having sex are 2 different things!

Not for a devout JW, no. You cannot have sex outside of marriage period. And MJ by his own admission took that rule seriously.
WE should ignore his words about that too?

 

[HIStory]

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

I'm not projecting myself onto Michael I explained why I found that juror's comment arrogant as hell.
He didn't even contemplate the possibility that MJ wasn't even interested in sex like that is something completely impossible.
I've seen that mentality many times. People thinking about sex like it's food or water without which one cannot exist. That's just not the case.

It's true that many people have that mentality and that's why they have a hard time accepting MJ's lifestyle. Hanging out with children must mean perversion because they cannot imagine why would someone otherwise hang out with someone from whom he does not want sex. But you too seem to succumb to that mentality in a way when you say that it's essential to convince people that MJ was asexual/had a low libido. I don't think it's essential and frankly we cannot make claims about how much libido he had. You just do not know that. Maybe he did not have as much sex as the average person but that does not necessarily mean anything about his libido. There are other issues, like religion, having problem with trusting people (including people who could be potential romantic partners) etc.

Actually those magazines do not say anything about his libido since we don't know how often he...err...used them.

He had a lot of such magazines and based on their dates he basically bought a couple every month. So I personally have very big doubts about your low libido theory. But someone having a sex drive does not mean that he will rape kids when they stay alone in a room. It's a totally different thing to be attracted to adult women and to be attracted to children in a sexual way. Actually, I have seen experts say a number of times that pedophilia is not really about sex but about power and control.

That's precisely what a lawyer should explain if this goes to trial to avoid people like that jurors having the upper hand.
Most people, including Dr. Richard Garner thought that merely sleeping in a bed is sexual.

I read that and I couldn't believe my eyes.

Gardner might have said that for tactical reasons. It was not necessarily what he really thought about the issue.

But if this is the atitude of the average Joe in America, and this is what Chandler and Arvizo exploited then during a civil trial
one should provide an alternative explanation as to why MJ sleeping in bed with someone had nothing to do with sex.
I think it's obvious. You cannot just brush this issue aside and hope that it won't influence the jurors.

You cannot but you also should not make up easily challengable theories to explain that. Like I said, if MJ's side will base its defense of MJ on theories like yours about a low libido, I'm sure the opposing side will have an easy time with that by bringing up MJ's porn collection. It's just not a good argument IMO, simply because no one has any way of truly knowing how big or low MJ's libido was.

What you do have to show is that he did sleep in a bed with people in a lot of non-sexual situations. Not only kids, but adults as well. You can show the nature of those sleepovers by bringing other people on the stand to talk about them. That's what you can do. Not make assumptions about his libido.

 

[aldebran]

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

I suppose this assumption is your ultimate evidence.

It's not assumption it's a fact that he cried and he explained that he felt he did something wrong. You don't do that if you left behind that religion 100%.
So just because he disfellowshipped himself does not mean he was not still influenced by the values associated with being a JW.
Based on what he told Schmuley in 2001 years after this phone call it's clear that he still took those values seriously.
And again it's not assumption it's his own words. Do you deny that?

No, one does not follow the other. You watch the video. :smilerolleyes:

Yes it does. The only part I left out was him talking about Diana and LaToya's book which do not change the context at all.
He is talking about never really having a girlfriend, his prior relationships with Tate and Diana and then say I was involved..but we never really had sex.

Would you please explain what separates those two parts that actually changes the meaning of either parts or both?

 

[HIStory]

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

Not for a devout JW, no. You cannot have sex outside of marriage period. And MJ by his own admission took that rule seriously.
WE should ignore his words about that too?

Actually, we know from LMP that they did have sex outside of marriage. So I guess at the end of the day he could move on from very strict JW rules. And by the way, when you follow strict religious rules you are also not supposed to read porn magazines. Yet, MJ did.

It's not either he was a child molester or he was this asexual virginal thing not interested in sex - those are not the only two choices.

I agree with your point that he could probably go on without sex for years - and yes the Glenda tapes can be used to show that. So if the argument is that, that is more OK to me than to make ex-cathedra declarations about MJ having a low libido/being asexual/not being interested in sex. That's just crossing the border to making assumptions about his feelings, thoughts etc.

 

[aldebran]

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

It's true that many people have that mentality and that's why they have a hard time accepting MJ's lifestyle. Hanging out with children must mean perversion because they cannot imagine why would someone otherwise hang out with someone from whom he does not want sex. But you too seem to succumb to that mentality in a way when you say that it's essential to convince people that MJ was asexual/had a low libido. I don't think it's essential and frankly we cannot make claims about how much libido he had. You just do not know that. Maybe he did not have as much sex as the average person but that does not necessarily mean anything about his libido. There are other issues, like religion, having problem with trusting people (including people who could be potential romantic partners) etc.

I didn't argue that we should convince them that MJ was not much interested in sex because that's the only way to explain why he acted with kids the way he did but
because his own words point to that he didn't have much sex more than anything else. It is essential to explain if he didn't have sex with the boys he spent months with then what the heck was he doing?
If people assume that he was sexually active and was interested in sex and couldn't go without it for months and there is no adult companion with him during those month what do you think they will conclude?
Hello? WE should be realistic.

He had a lot of such magazines and based on their dates he basically bought a couple every month. So I personally have very big doubts about your low libido theory. But someone having a sex drive does not mean that he will rape kids when they stay alone in a room. It's a totally different thing to be attracted to adult women and to be attracted to children in a sexual way. Actually, I have seen experts say a number of times that pedophilia is not really about sex but about power and control.

OK so what do you think Joe Q will think if he does have a sex drive and does spend months with a kid and the kid sleeps in his bed and there is no adult partner anywhere around him?
You really think it's enough to say hey he has a sex drive like 99% of male humans it just goes away when he is with that kid for months. Sorry that won't work.

Gardner might have said that for tactical reasons. It was not necessarily what he really thought about the issue.

Exactly what tactical reason?

You cannot but you also should not make up easily challengable theories to explain that. Like I said, if MJ's side will base its defense of MJ on theories like yours about a low libido, I'm sure the opposing side will have an easy time with that by bringing up MJ's porn collection. It's just not a good argument IMO, simply because no one has any way of truly knowing how big or low MJ's libido was.

The issue is not the libido but the fact that he could go without sex with ANYONE for a long period of time.
In case you miss it this is exactly what most people cannot fathom! Why should we believe that he didn't have sex at all for months? And if he did have sex who was it with? there was no adult around him during that tour. So what the heck was he doing?

BTW desire for sex with a person is not the same as jerking off to Playboy, pardon my French. Many asexual mastrubate and watch porn. They just don't want to do with with a 3D person.

What you do have to show is that he did sleep in a bed with people in a lot of non-sexual situations. Not only kids, but adults as well. You can show the nature of those sleepovers by bringing other people on the stand to talk about them. That's what you can do. Not make assumptions about his libido.

To me it's evidence that if Sean Lennon was not molested, Frank Cascio was not molested then Jordan Chandler was not molested either.
But unfortunately I heard assholes during the trial who didn't draw that conclusion at all. Rather they assumed that if Brett, Wade and Mac slept in his bed they too were abused and they were simply lying about it.

If you prove that MJ slept with men, women, girls and boys alike that still doesn't answer the question what the he was doing for months if he indeed had a normal sex drive and had no adult companion.
How would you address that specific issue?

 

[ivy]

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

what the he was doing for months if he indeed had a normal sex drive and had no adult companion.

masturbation

I don't understand the point here but just because someone has a sex drive doesn't mean they always need to have sex. there are a lot of healthy adults out there who doesn't have sex when they aren't in a relationship. still don't get the discussion.

 

[aldebran]

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

I agree with your point that he could probably go on without sex for years - and yes the Glenda tapes can be used to show that. So if the argument is that, that is more OK to me than to make ex-cathedra declarations about MJ having a low libido/being asexual/not being interested in sex. That's just crossing the border to making assumptions about his feelings, thoughts etc.

Of course, the point was that he could go without it for years. Whether it's because he was asexual or low libido or whatever is irrelevant.
We just have to counter this notion that he MUST have had sex during those months with Brett and Frank and Eddie or Safechuck because hey everyone has sex and it doesn't make sense that he and Jimmy or Brett would just watch Tv and play video games for months.

It makes perfect sense if sex has a low priority in your life to begin with.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

Anyway who's this thread about again

 

[aldebran]

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

masturbation

I don't understand the point here but just because someone has a sex drive doesn't mean they always need to have sex. there are a lot of healthy adults out there who doesn't have sex when they aren't in a relationship. still don't get the discussion.

The point is that you have to convince the jury that he could go without sex with an actual person during the months he was with Jimmy or Brett without any adult partner around.
Because if you don't they will think he had sex with those boys.
Understand?
That's just the way most people think, no matter how idiotic it is.
This is precisely why Zonen asked those pointed questions about adult companions. He wanted to implant the idea if no adult then the boy, what else?
Don't you realize how lethal that notion would be during a civil trial?

 

[LindavG]

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

The point is that you have to convince the jury that he could go without sex with an actual person during the months he was with Jimmy or Brett without any adult partner around.
Because if you don't they will think he had sex with those boys.
Understand?
That's just the way most people think, no matter how idiotic it is.

No, that's not how most people think because most people have a normal libido themselves and know they would not rape a kid just because they have access. The only thing you would need to convince the jury of is that MJ had no interest in sex with children, not that he had no interest in sex period.

Now can we please move on from this absurd discussion?

 

[barbee0715]

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

I am so sorry but this has turned absurd and ridiculous. None of us know who Michael was having sex with. There were housekeepers. There were maids. Theres such a thing as prostitutes. Secret friends. Who the hxxx knows??
He didn't discuss it.
This still isn't evidence. It proves nothing in this or any other case!!

 

[HIStory]

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

Exactly what tactical reason?

For example to see how easily lead is Jordan.

The issue is not the libido but the fact that he could go without sex with ANYONE for a long period of time.
In case you miss it this is exactly what most people cannot fathom! Why should we believe that he didn't have sex at all for months? And if he did have sex who was it with? there was no adult around him during that tour. So what the heck was he doing?

Like Ivy said, the choice is not only between you either have sex with women/men or with children. Many people do not have sex for long periods of time. How do they release sexual tension? Well, masturbation. (And again, these were never continuous weeks and months spent with children.)

If you prove that MJ slept with men, women, girls and boys alike that still doesn't answer the question what the he was doing for months if he indeed had a normal sex drive and had no adult companion.
How would you address that specific issue?

Certainly not by making assumptions about his libido/feelings about sex. Mesereau did not want to portray MJ as some asexual being and he was right. He had no problem saying to the jury that "yes, those adult magazines are Michael's and he reads them from time to time". There is no shame in that and having a natural sex drive does not turn you into a child molester when you are alone with kids in a room.

Maybe some people will never believe that you can spend nights with children alone in a room and not touch them sexually, but then I don't think because of that you should base a defense on an assumptions which may not be true - eg. Michael being asexual/having a low libido. You just do not know that. That he could go on without sex for long is a better argument and yes, that's worth showing, but please refrain from putting labels and psychoanalytical conclusions on that.

 

[HIStory]

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

No, that's not how most people think because most people have a normal libido themselves and know they would not rape a kid just because they have access. The only thing you would need to convince the jury of is that MJ had no interest in sex with children, not that he had no interest in sex period.

Now can we please move on from this absurd discussion?

Thank you.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

It's not relevant whether he was 100% asexual or not. What matters is that sex was not something that was on his mind while he was with Brett pr any kid
even if it was 100 or 200 or whatever days.





I said that myself. Karlee was wrong. Her memory was faulty.





I'm not projecting myself onto Michael I explained why I found that juror's comment arrogant as hell.
He didn't even contemplate the possibility that MJ wasn't even interested in sex like that is something completely impossible.
I've seen that mentality many times. People thinking about sex like it's food or water without which one cannot exist. That's just not the case.




Actually those magazines do not say anything about his libido since we don't know how often he...err...used them.



That's precisely what a lawyer should explain if this goes to trial to avoid people like that jurors having the upper hand.
Most people, including Dr. Richard Garner thought that merely sleeping in a bed is sexual.
I read that and I couldn't believe my eyes.

If that was the case then relatives sleeping in a bed was automatically sexual too.

But if this is the atitude of the average Joe in America, and this is what Chandler and Arvizo exploited then during a civil trial
one should provide an alternative explanation as to why MJ sleeping in bed with someone had nothing to do with sex.
I think it's obvious. You cannot just brush this issue aside and hope that it won't influence the jurors.

My wife and I were actually talking about this very issue last night. She's one of those people who believe that MJ was guilty solely because of the sleepovers. No matter how much I try to convince her that the man was innocent, she still goes back to the whole sleepover issue. Regardless of how we may feel, the fact of the matter is, it is not normal for a grown man to sleep with children who aren't related to him. It is very questionable, and then when these same children come out and say "He molested me", that's not farfetched in a lot of people's minds. They're going to put two and two together. They're going to think "there's a lot of smoke here and where there's smoke there's fire". It's not physical evidence but it can be used as circumstantial evidence and this is the very evidence that the prosecution were hoping to use to convict Jackson. This is why MJ's attorneys advised him to stop defending the sleepovers because it was not helping their case at all.

 

[Lil]

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

No, that's not how most people think because most people have a normal libido themselves and know they would not rape a kid just because they have access. The only thing you would need to convince the jury of is that MJ had no interest in sex with children, not that he had no interest in sex period.

Now can we please move on from this absurd discussion?

Thank you! This is about whether or not Michael was sexually attracted to children and/or able to abuse a child, both of which can not be disproven based on how high or low his libido was. In fact, it doesn't even have anything to do with it.

Regardless of how we may feel, the fact of the matter is, it is not normal for a grown man to sleep with children who aren't related to him. It is very questionable, and then when these same children come out and say "He molested me", that's not farfetched in a lot of people's minds. They're going to put two and two together. They're going to think "there's a lot of smoke here and where there's smoke there's fire".

It might not be normal for normal people but I think that's an unfair comparison because Michael's life was anything but normal. He didn't know what a normal life was like and in turn we don't know (and maybe don't understand) what his life was like.
Because he was different, different rules apply to him imo. I've always tried to look at his behavior in light of his experiences, and by doing so it's quite easy for me to see why this was 'normal' to him.
Unfortunately people are going to have to look beyond the surface to see his innocence :sigh:

 

[Justthefacts]

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

The case was over when Mez adviced Michael to stop inviting family in his home. How silly would it have been fed him to say the sleepovers were had after being charged? It would have been used against him

 

[SarahJ]

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

I am so sorry but this has turned absurd and ridiculous. None of us know who Michael was having sex with. There were housekeepers. There were maids. Theres such a thing as prostitutes. Secret friends. Who the hxxx knows??
He didn't discuss it.
This still isn't evidence. It proves nothing in this or any other case!!

After reading through this discussion I can see why he kept it private.

 

[la_cienega]

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

MJ let anyone sleep in his bedroom though.

That doctor who wrote a book would fall asleep in Michael's bedroom while they watched movies together, and sometimes Michael would fall asleep too.

What is not normal is that a predator would invite the parents of those kids or his friends or older relatives or cousins or other kids or girls to also sleep in at the same time with these kids, as what would the point be? What predator enjoys just hanging out with kids? Wouldn't that ruin the whole set up entirely? Not to mention specifically calling them in to be witnesses like the Frank Cascio case. The logic of how MJ supposedly worked is absurd for a predator and unlike anything I've ever seen or heard before.

Predator's are single minded in their obsession, if the child has already been abused, then inviting them for sleep overs with other kids around or their parents or your friends or whatever would achieve what???? Why would you want such a set up when you've worked so hard to manipulate them to use them only sexually??? Predator's are not interested in kids outside of using them for sex. Predator's do not want witnesses. Predator's do not miss out on chances to abuse a child to instead watch a dumb kid's movie with Elizabeth Taylor, your cousins, the victim, and other victims, and their sisters. Imagine how messy and awkward and deranged this scenario is.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

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

I understand sleep overs with unrelated people are socially unacceptable in general but anyone who thinks sexual endeavors are the only reason a child sleeps in your bed is the true sicko. Michael didn't commit any crime by that mere act.

 

[Tygger]

Taj Jackson @tajjackson3 · April 8th

MJ Fam… I filed a complaint to the @IpsoNews on April 6th. Patiently waiting to hear back #MJlegacy

Taj Jackson retweetete
MelanieLuvsOTW @Mellie4Justice · April 9th

@tajjackson3 : RT Can you assist? We want parity in investigations regarding false MJstories by SBrown NYPost - http://wp.me/p1iFF1-1XC

Ah! Will be interesting to see how the Estate responds to Taj’s complaint.

I believe some are misunderstanding my comments about civil trials. The burden of proof is lower in a civil trial as opposed to a criminal trial. I never said the legal strategies for a civil trial are the same regardless of the claims.

In the Chandler civil trial, the most effective strategy for the plaintiffs was to simply show Michael had the opportunity to commit the acts he was accused of. Having the opportunity to commit such acts –acceptable for a civil trial - is not the same as showing one committed such acts without a shadow of doubt – the basis of a criminal trial. Can anyone suggest how Michael would be successful with such a civil trial strategy? Hint: any suggestion is most likely futile and that is why the trial was settled.

To believe Michael would have been successful in that civil trial goes against the crux of that scenario. The Chandlers’ and their legal team saw a method to successfully fleece Michael legally of his monies because the civil trial was to be tried before the criminal trial. Please understand the Chandler criminal trial was never going to happen. Fortunately for Michael, Cochran understood this and negotiated the settlement.

Robson/Safechuck’s claims should NOT be allowed because of the precedent it would set and that is the crux of this scenario. This precedent would be highly dangerous to Michael’s estate AND any other after his. How can one suggest appealing the judge’s approval of the claims, going to trial, trial strategies regarding Michael’s private life, etc. when the defendant has passed and CANNOT AND WILL NOT defend himself? How does one pass that fact to trial strategies that debunk the inconsistencies of Robson/Safechuck's tales when it cannot be explained logically that these claims should be approved first?

Weitzman cannot defend Michael; he can only defend the Estate. The Estate itself has not committed any such acts so Weitzman will be left to besmirch Robson/Safechuck’s character. While that may be exciting and/or interesting to some, what is gained in such sport at the cost of the Estate’s beneficiaries and the beneficiaries of other nameless estates afterwards? How will that be spun as a “win” and/or vindication of Michael by Weitzman if Michael was already vindicated and sums of monies would have been diverted from the beneficiaries to him and his legal team?

These claims cannot be approved. Full stop.

Aldebran, I hope my comment regarding civil trial legal strategies has been clarified.

Krizkil, the Chandler settlement was a good idea. The media, the public, and – I dare say – many fans never really understood that Michael would not succeed in that civil trial due to the legal strategy I detailed above so, they hold erroneous and suspicious beliefs about the settlement.

Robson/Safechuck’s dream of a civil award or a settlement, in your view, is not the broader concern. Who is funding Robson/Safechuck’s legal team? Who has a vested interest in watching Estate funds drain unnecessarily because of a doomed venture? What past events made this legal team believe there was a chance to set a precedent with this judge? Those are the broader concerns.

 

[passy001]

Ah! Will be interesting to see how the Estate responds to Taj’s complaint.

Why would the estate want to respond to taj complaint? What has his complaint got to do with them?

Besides, Taj is fighting a losing war. His complaint will be fruitless just as his previous ones.

 

[aldebran]

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

No, that's not how most people think because most people have a normal libido themselves and know they would not rape a kid just because they have access.

But MJ didn't have access to kids. He intentionally was with kids. Why do you think Zonen asked Brett and Mac whether an adult companion was around?
Why do you think that juror said it didn't make sense to him that they would only watch TV?
Most humans are perverts. They had an oversexualized mind. They hear bed and they think sex. That's the reality and we should not ignore that.

The only thing you would need to convince the jury of is that MJ had no interest in sex with children, not that he had no interest in sex period.

Now can we please move on from this absurd discussion?

I didn't say you should convince them that he has no interest in sex AT ALL but that he in fact could go without sex for months or even years.
Simply convincing them that MJ was interested in females wouldn't be enough.
Think about the 2005 trial. There was more than enough evidence that MJ liked heterosexual adult sex
and somehow Zonen tried to use even that as proof that if he is in bed with a kid he sure as hell thinks about sex.
He asked would you allow your kid to sleep in a bed with a man who has these magazines where women insert things in themselves?


The jurors did not say I voted not guilty because I saw that he liked women so case closed.

 

[aldebran]

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

I am so sorry but this has turned absurd and ridiculous. None of us know who Michael was having sex with. There were housekeepers. There were maids. Theres such a thing as prostitutes. Secret friends. Who the hxxx knows??
He didn't discuss it.
This still isn't evidence. It proves nothing in this or any other case!!

Don't have any doubt that a jury would ask if not boys then who?
And you could lose a civil case just on that if you can't give a plausible answer.

 

[aldebran]

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

MJ let anyone sleep in his bedroom though.

That's another important fact needed to be stressed.
This stupid notion that he slept with boys and he admitted sleeping with boys should be killed.
It's simply a lie of omission.

What is not normal is that a predator would invite the parents of those kids or his friends or older relatives or cousins or other kids or girls to also sleep in at the same time with these kids, as what would the point be? What predator enjoys just hanging out with kids? Wouldn't that ruin the whole set up entirely?

Yeah when I saw Frank on TV during the trial making the case for MJ and that idiot bitch asked him but what about the other nights Frank didn't retort with the obvious:

you really think if he refused to be alone with Gavin Arvizo back in Aug 2000 he would do just that AFTER the Bashir documentary had aired when the whole world was watching him and he was trying to make a rebuttal video to dispel the notion that he molested him?
That wouldn't make a freaking sense.

MJ and Gavin were NEVER alone in a bed. Period.

 

[somewhereinthedark]

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

I haven't read through all of the crap. However, it baffles my mind that people, even fans forget that Michael always said that he SHARED his bed with others-kids and adults. Michael explained that with Gavin Arvisso, he gave him the bed(shared his bed) and Michael, Prince, and Frank Cascio slept on the floor. Lionel Ritchie's daughter, Nicole, said that she slept many times in Michael's room with other children. WOW! How convenient that scum like Stacy Brown and others in the media NEVER mention the GIRLS that were in Michael's room. FTR, Michael's bedroom was basically the size of an apartment. It had two levels-sitting room with an entire video arcade.
BTW, a person doesn't have to be Einstein to know that NONE of these accusers stories make sense. All it takes is common sense, which a lot of people seem to lack. How sad that people are so gullible and weak-minded that they can't think logically and rationally.

 

[aldebran]

Ah! Will be interesting to see how the Estate responds to Taj’s complaint.

I believe some are misunderstanding my comments about civil trials. The burden of proof is lower in a civil trial as opposed to a criminal trial. I never said the legal strategies for a civil trial are the same regardless of the claims.

In the Chandler civil trial, the most effective strategy for the plaintiffs was to simply show Michael had the opportunity to commit the acts he was accused of. Having the opportunity to commit such acts –acceptable for a civil trial

No it's not acceptable. AEG had the opportunity to use Murray and mistreat MJ. That was not enough to find them liable.
You need to prove that it was more likely than not that the act was committed. That's a lower burden of proof than reasonable doubt but a far cry from just having the opportunity.
If that was enough 99% of civil trial would end up the same way.
MJ could have won the civil case if he had proven that it was more likely than not that Chandler was an extortionist.
Having said that in his situation I don't blame him for not believing in the so-called justice system. What that judge was doing with the motions was a joke.
Chandler was almost 14 and he still bought the argument that his memory was fading so he needed a civil trial within 120 days.
What a load of bullshit.

 

[aldebran]

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

I haven't read through all of the crap. However, it baffles my mind that people, even fans forget that Michael always said that he SHARED his bed with others-kids and adults.

This is from Ahmad Etabad who knew MJ and was in Neverland at the time whe Arvizo was there too:

"It's not young boys. He had young girls. He had teenagers with him, all kinds of ages -- young, old, everybody.
While he never slept in Jackson's bed, he saw many others who did. Does he think that Jackson is a child molester?

"No, I don't. He's not weird," says Ahmad, who claims Jackson has never done anything inappropriate to him or anyone he knows. "He's not sexual with kids. He's not a molester, he's not a pedophile. He just likes to help children."

In fact, Ahmad says Jackson's bed can get quite crowded: "He sleeps with his kids. Anybody. He sleeps with his makeup artist. He just sleeps this way. He's a very loving person."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/one-boys-story-22-11-2003/




Based on my research these are the people who either shared a room with MJ's and spent the night with him, or shared a bed with MJ at some point.
When he said ANYONE can come to my bed he was pretty much telling the truth.
The list is based on claims made by these people or claims made by MJ.

Dr. van Valin
Brandi Jackson
Stacee Brown
Corey Feldman
Frank Cascio
Eddie Cascio
Aldo Cascio
Dominique Cascio
Marie Nicole Cascio
Theresa Golsalves
Joy Robson
Chantal Robson
Wade Robson
Marie Barnes
Karlee Barnes
Brett Barnes
Sean Lennon
Mark Ronson
Alison V Smith
Simone Jackson
Rijo Jackson
Bill Bray
Jane Goodall
Liz Taylor
Nicole Richie
Lisa Marie Presley
Mac Culkin
Kirean Culkin
Dakota Culkin
Quinn Culkin
June Chandler
Lilly Chandler
Jordan Chandler
Gavin Arvizo
Star Arvizo
Prince Jackson
Paris Jackson

and I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg

 

[myosotis]

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

Most humans are perverts. They had an oversexualized mind. They hear bed and they think sex. That's the reality and we should not ignore that.

That is quite an extraordinary view of the human race. It might be true of adolescent males aged maybe 15-19, but I am certain that it is not the view of 'the human race'. If you look at the sales figures of sex-oriented magazines like 'Nuts', 'Zoo' etc, they had a brief moment in the sunlight, and after the novelty wore off, they are now declining and closing. People are interested in 'gossip' hence the widespread availability of celebrity magazines. it is more about wanting to know that celebs are not 'more beautiful', cleverer' or happier than 'ordinary' people, hence eg interest in celeb weight loss and plastic surgery.