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

[Soundmind]

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

That in fact says NOTHING about how MOST people and especially MOST AMERICANS think of MJ TODAY.
And the jurors would be Americans who no doubt would have their prejudice about MJ sleeping with kids.
Yes Robson's claim is crazy every rational person can see it but when I saw a juror whose biggest problem with the Arvizo case
was that Janet snapped her finger and another who completely ignored Brett Barnes's, his sister and his mother's testimony and decided that he was
probably molested because it simply didn't make sense to him that MJ would sleep in a bed with him for 365 days and do nothing just watch TV
I knew that many Americans are still idiots and should not be anywhere near a courtroom.

A civil trial would not require a unanimous verdict and with a lower burden of proof such prejudice could be fatal.

how do you guarantee that someone like Jason, Arnie's lover, wont find it his opportunity to rehash his stories of wild sex with MJ? do you understand that MJ is dead and it is very hard to dispute any claim? It wont make any difference as the magazines alone say a different story.

 

[aldebran]

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

aldebran please explain how are you going to prove in court a person doesn't mastrabute.

Why in the world should that be proved?

The issues is whether MJ could go without sex with another person for months or not!
Not whether he mastrubated. That's irrelevant.

Safehuck's lawyers would make the exact same argument as Zonen: months with a boy in his bed and no adult companion in the picture.
Joe Q will conclude that MJ must have had sex with a boy unless someone proves that MJ could in fact go without sex for months.
Believing anything else is wishful thinking.

 

[aldebran]

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

Michael did NOT spend continuous months with these boys, damn.

You cannot build a defense on an assumption (MJ being asexual) that might not even be true. THAT is what does not fly!

I didn't say that he was asexual. I said "practically asexual" which meant that he could go without sex for months even years.

And yes he in fact spent months with the Casio boys and Brett Barnes. Not 365 but months yes.

 

[Soundmind]

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

Why in the world should that be proved?

The issues is whether MJ could go without sex with another person for months or not!
Not whether he mastrubated. That's irrelevant.

Safehuck's lawyers would make the exact same argument as Zonen: months with a boy in his bed and no adult companion in the picture.
Joe Q will conclude that MJ must have had sex with a boy unless someone proves that MJ could in fact go without sex for months.
Believing anything else is wishful thinking.

according to the mental Wade , MJ was molesting him during his marriage to Lisa Marie and only stopped in 1997 . So?

 

[aldebran]

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

I find your whole "defense" theory ridiculous and absurd, but no, these do not need to be addressed.
You are putting the cart before the horse.
What needs to be addressed is the statue of limitations shutting these cases down once and for all.

It was obvious that the issues of bed sharing only will have to be explained if the case goes to trial.
Are you pretending to be stupid or you actually are?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

I don't. But it's irrelevant. Robson would not have a criminal trial but a civil trial. Understand the difference?
What worked in 2005 would not be enough for a civil trial.

And you cannot possibly know whether it fits MJ or not. Based on all available evidence it's reasonable to conclude that he wasn't that much interested in sex with another person.
You have said nothing that would show othewise. Speculation about prostitutes, maids and what not if less convincing that his own words and the fact that
no woman other than Lisa Marie ever claimed to have sex with him.

Well unless you count the Billie Jeans and Theresa Gonsalves.

AGAIN. I didn't make any claim about Michael, I don't claim I know what did or didn't happen in his room 24/7. I don't have to prove anything or give you evidence, you are the one who's making ridiculous claims. You're the one with no proofs to his claims.

Clearly, you don't understand how defense works.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Why in the world should that be proved?

The issues is whether MJ could go without sex with another person for months or not!
Not whether he mastrubated. That's irrelevant.

Safehuck's lawyers would make the exact same argument as Zonen: months with a boy in his bed and no adult companion in the picture.
Joe Q will conclude that MJ must have had sex with a boy unless someone proves that MJ could in fact go without sex for months.
Believing anything else is wishful thinking.

Why should it be proved? Because if your defense is "Michael Jackson is asexual and therefore he didn't not have sex with children" you have to prove he's asexual. Say you don't have any adults who had sex with a person, how are you going to prove he has never mastrabuted.

 

[aldebran]

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

And what does Wade lawyers expect to have in that declaration that was not ALREADY shown in COURT and public when that trial was going on along with the FACT Wade testied on MJ's behalf?

QUINDOY MICHAELES did not testify in 2005.
As far as I know QUINDOY didn't give deposition in 1993 either. Or did he?

 

[aldebran]

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

All of these people received tabloid money (Francia and Michaels from Hard Copy) when they came up with their claims. Interestingly Charli Michaels was never called to testify in 2005.

Was Michaels fired or left on his own?

 

[aldebran]

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

Why should it be proved? Because if your defense is "Michael Jackson is asexual and therefore he didn't not have sex with children" you have to prove he's asexual. Say you don't have any adults who had sex with a person, how are you going to prove he has never mastrabuted.

1. There are asexuals who mastrubate. Asexuality means no sexual attraction to other people. Two different things.

2.I don't know how many times I have to tell you that the issue is not whether he was asexual but whether he could go without sex with another person for months.
Understand the difference?

And yes based on everything that publicly known about MJ today it's reasonable to conclude that he in fact did not have sex with anyone for years.
Do you have any proof to the contrary?

And as I explained earlier mastrubation is not the issue. The issue is sex with another person.

 

[HIStory]

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

I don't. But it's irrelevant. Robson would not have a criminal trial but a civil trial. Understand the difference?
What worked in 2005 would not be enough for a civil trial.

And you cannot possibly know whether it fits MJ or not. Based on all available evidence it's reasonable to conclude that he wasn't that much interested in sex with another person.
You have said nothing that would show othewise. Speculation about prostitutes, maids and what not if less convincing that his own words and the fact that
no woman other than Lisa Marie ever claimed to have sex with him.

Well unless you count the Billie Jeans and Theresa Gonsalves.

So you want to build Michael's defense on MJ not having much sex with women? How is that going to work? Just because someone does not have much sex with women it does not defend him from accusations of pedophilia. A jury is always unpredictable. You may have a jury that actually would have a problem with MJ not having many (visible) girlfriends and finding THAT suspicious. And then your suggested strategy may actually backfire.

If we are worrying about the low burden of proof at a civil trial I admit I am too worried about that but I'm more worried about all those liars like Blanca Francia, Charlie Michaels, Neverland 5 testifying for Robson/Safechuck. They were torn apart at a criminal trial, but a civil one is always more shaky and at a civil trial it may be enough for a jury that they say they witnessed things and now the kids say that too, so even if their testimonies were full of contradictions and even if they got money from tabloids when they first made these claims, still the fact that now Robson and Safechuck are endorsing their claims may be enough for a civil trial jury. It probably still would not fly at a criminal trial due to the many contradictions in those stories and the financial motive of these people to make up these claims, but a civil trial... I'm worried about that (much more than this whole asexual thing).

This is why it is so incredibly unfair and it should be thrown out. If not then it would be so unfair to both MJ and his Estate on so many levels. Michael is not here to assist his defense, so that is already a disadvantage for his defense. Then you are discussing a basically criminal matter but under the more lax rules of a civil trial, which is not very fair to the defendant considering the seriousness of the stigma this may attach to the accused. I remember I once read a legal analysis about this matter: about how unfair it is for people to get labelled a child molester under the more lax rules of a civil trial, because such allegations are criminal allegations and as such they should always be discussed under criminal laws. It was a pretty interesting article and it showed the whole unfairness of discussing criminal matters under civil law.

 

[HIStory]

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

And yes he in fact spent months with the Casio boys and Brett Barnes. Not 365 but months yes.

You were there? You know for a fact that they spent every single night together, every moment together, so MJ did not have any opportunity for a little time alone and do whatever he wanted in his privacy?

 

[aldebran]

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

AGAIN. I didn't make any claim about Michael, I don't claim I know what did or didn't happen in his room 24/7. I don't have to prove anything or give you evidence, you are the one who's making ridiculous claims. You're the one with no proofs to his claims.

What you call ridiculous claims was made by Zonen himself in an effort to convince the jurors that the boys who said they slept in MJ's bed and claimed nothing sexual happened were in fact liars.
And unfortunately that argument worked for 3 jurors!

Can you imagine what that "ridiculous claim" could do in a civil trial where Robson talks about rape?
Get real!

I have proof that no woman other than Lisa Marie ever claimed that she had sex with MJ.
I have proof that noone testified in 2005 about any adult companion with MJ during the Dangerous tour.
I have proof that MJ himself said in 1991 he didn't have sex with any of the women he was involved with.
That is far more than speculation about maids, prostitutes.

That certainly would not work in a courtroom.

Clearly, you don't understand how defense works.

Clearly you don't understand why most people believed MJ was guilty despite the not guilty verdict.
No it wasn't just the media.
It was those three elephants in the room:
-bed sharing
-settlement
-Chandler's description

You really think the defense in a civil trial should not address the issue of MJ sleeping with boys for months without an adult partner being present in his life?
You really think by saying he mastrubated would work?
Seriously.

 

[HIStory]

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

Was Michaels fired or left on his own?

I don't know but apparently she was trying to sue MJ along with the Neverland 5. And of course also got her money from Hard Copy for her story.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

you know I think I'm going to leave until some news breaks you all have a nice day

 

[ivy]

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

Honestly given that there are developments in this case could we keep the discussion related to the developments and not defense strategies for a case that's not even determined to go to trial? What is being posted and argued here right now is highly irrelevant and nothing more than assumptions. I feel everyone has already made their point, expressed their opinions and it's clear we don't agree. so rather than beating a dead horse, can we move on?

and @aldebran please use multi quote function and respond to multiple posts in one post. Posting multiple posts right after each other isn't really a nice forum etiquette

 

[LindavG]

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

Try to make that argument and the next thing the jurors will think sure he mastrubated with the boy!
Seriously? You don't see the obvious?

Again, that's an absurd leap in logic. I can guarantee you most of those jurors would be "guilty" of masturbation themselves and wouldn't dream of ever masturbating with or in front of children. I'm sorry but if you really think this is how the average Joe thinks, you have a very twisted view of reality. The mere thought of having sex with children repulses anyone who is not a sick sexual pervert.

To claim that Michael was asexual or never masturbated would be a lie (unless you think he read those porn mags for literary purposes) and is a very weak defense as most experts will tell you child sexual abuse is more about power and control than it is about sexual gratification.

The fact that you are the ONLY person who thinks this is a reasonable argument should ring a bell for you. But keep telling yourself that we are stupid and missing the "obvious". I can only hope you're not claiming this stuff to non-fans.

People don't think that someone who has another person in his bed for months will satisfy his urges by mastrubating alone. That argument would not fly.

You think MJ had a kid in his bed night after night for months on end? I'm starting to think we're being trolled here.

This thread already has 700 pages, let's just move on from this discussion because you're not going to get anyone to agree with you.

 

[aldebran]

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

You were there? You know for a fact that they spent every single night together, every moment together, so MJ did not have any opportunity for a little time alone and do whatever he wanted in his privacy?

Frank and Eddie and Brett were there and they said it and wrote about it.
It doesn't have to be every single moment to sway the jury.
Just that he was with these boys day after day for months.
And don't have any doubt that Jimmy will claim the same, true or not that yes he spent every night in MJ's room.
If you can't show some adult partner in the picture you know what the average American will conclude.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

1. There are asexuals who mastrubate. Asexuality means no sexual attraction to other people. Two different things.

Read quoted part in my previous post about pedophiles.

2.I don't know how many times I have to tell you that the issue is not whether he was asexual but whether he could go without sex with another person for months.
Understand the difference?

You can ask me if I understand for a hundreds more time, I do understand what you're saying. I simply think it's not a good point. Do YOU understand the difference? It's not a point at all because you never proved MJ was asexual. Saying Michael didn't have sex with adults was not, is not and will not help to prove Michael is innocent of molesting boys. Do you even know what Pedophilia means?

Do you have any proof to the contrary?

For the third time, I don't have to give you any proof. I didn't make any claim. YOU DID. There's no proof MJ had low libido.

And as I explained earlier mastrubation is not the issue. The issue is sex with another person.

Just because you say it's not an issue doesn't make it right. You still fail to explain how you're going to prove a person is asexual.

And yes based on everything that publicly known about MJ today it's reasonable to conclude that he in fact did not have sex with anyone for years.

Nothing to add.

 

[passy001]

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

What you call ridiculous claims was made by Zonen himself in an effort to convince the jurors that the boys who said they slept in MJ's bed and claimed nothing sexual happened were in fact liars.
And unfortunately that argument worked for 3 jurors!

Can you imagine what that "ridiculous claim" could do in a civil trial where Robson talks about rape?
Get real!

I have proof that no woman other than Lisa Marie ever claimed that she had sex with MJ.
I have proof that noone testified in 2005 about any adult companion with MJ during the Dangerous tour.
I have proof that MJ himself said in 1991 he didn't have sex with any of the women he was involved with.
That is far more than speculation about maids, prostitutes.

That certainly would not work in a courtroom.



Clearly you don't understand why most people believed MJ was guilty despite the not guilty verdict.
No it wasn't just the media.
It was those three elephants in the room:
-bed sharing
-settlement
-Chandler's description

You really think the defense in a civil trial should not address the issue of MJ sleeping with boys for months without an adult partner being present in his life?
You really think by saying he mastrubated would work?
Seriously.

Surely you are not suggesting that people who are not engaged in any relationship with a woman are therefore pedophile or likely more than not be pedophiles. If that was indeed the case, half the U.S population would be sitting in jail right now.

 

[aldebran]

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

Again, that's an absurd leap in logic. I can guarantee you most of those jurors would be "guilty" of masturbation themselves and wouldn't dream of ever masturbating with or in front of children. I'm sorry but if you really think this is how the average Joe thinks, you have a very twisted view of reality. The mere thought of having sex with children repulses anyone who is not a sick sexual pervert.

It doesn't matter whether you think it's illogical. You are biased for MJ.
The only thing that matters what a non-fan would think if you tried to argue: oh yes he was in bed with the kid and he had a sex drive but he mastrubated alone.
A non-fan would find this argument absolutely ridiculous. Go try it in the real world let's see whether you can convince anyone.

To claim that Michael was asexual or never masturbated

Who the heck said that?? You are putting words in my mouth.

The fact that you are the ONLY person who thinks this is a reasonable argument should ring a bell for you.

The fact that you keep ignoring what Zonen did and what Robson's and Safehuck's lawyer will most likely do if this goes to trial and the fact that Zone's argument did in fact sway at least
3 jurors should ring a bell for you.

You think MJ had a kid in his bed night after night for months on end?

That's exactly what Brett Barnes said yes. Not to mention Karlee Barnes. And we know that Frank and Eddie were with MJ for months too since Frank wrote about it.

This thread already has 700 pages, let's just move on from this discussion because you're not going to get anyone to agree with you.

I'm pretty sure you don't even understand what you disagree with since you seem to ignore even what happened in 2005.

 

[aldebran]

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

Surely you are not suggesting that people who are not engaged in any relationship with a woman are therefore pedophile or likely more than not be pedophiles.

Of course not. But it's not relevant what I think.
What matters if what a jury of 12 non-fans would think.

And yes there are plenty of Americans who think MJ was a pedo simply because he was accused, he slept with kids and he didn't have publicly known sexual relationships with women.
You bet they do think that way.
I hear it and saw it on boards every day.

Just answer these questions:

You really think the defense in a civil trial should not address the issue of MJ sleeping with boys for months without an adult partner being present in his life?
You really think by saying he mastrubated would work?

 

[LindavG]

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

Let's say you have established that MJ could go for years without sex with any women. How does that help you prove he had no sexual interest in children?

 

[aldebran]

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

Read quoted part in my previous post about pedophiles.

That quote is not relevant to the issue that you confused asexuals with people who do not mastrubate.
You completely twisted what I said by equating the two.

You can ask me if I understand for a hundreds more time, I do understand what you're saying.

Apparently you don't since you keep repeating that the argument that MJ is asexual would not work.
What's your point?
I never said that should be the argument so you are beating a dead horse.
I said that he could go without sex with another person for years.
Understand the difference?

I simply think it's not a good point. Do YOU understand the difference? It's not a point at all because you never proved MJ was asexual.

You see? Here it is again.

Saying Michael didn't have sex with adults was not

And again. Who the heck said that MJ didn't have sex with any adult? Not me. Move on already.

For the third time, I don't have to give you any proof. I didn't make any claim. YOU DID. There's no proof MJ had low libido.

Low libido is not relevant. That was just an expression I used to indicated that MJ was not much interested in sex with anyone, based on what we can know about him.

Just because you say it's not an issue doesn't make it right. You still fail to explain how you're going to prove a person is asexual.

And again. I never said that the defense should prove MJ was asexual. Get it?

And yes based on everything that publicly known about MJ today it's reasonable to conclude that he in fact did not have sex with anyone for years.

Nothing to add.

Yes there is something to add.
The jurors would be members of the public not MJ's close intimate fiends. What they know about MJ does matter like it or not.
If they believe that MJ had no women in his life and was with boys for months and they believe he had an avearge sex drive
guess what they will conclude?

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

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

Why is this ridiculous discussion going on for pages and pages?! I'm pretty sure we're being trolled, that argument is too ridiculous not to be.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Pedophiles. Not mastrubation.

Since you're missing the point on purpose, I'll give you a little help

Educate yourself
www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/explaining-pedophilia

There's no absolute profile of pedophiles sexuality. Some have sex with adults. Some don't.[/QUOTE]

Let's say you have established that MJ could go for years without sex with any women. How does that help you prove he had no sexual interest in children?

Exactly, it doesn't.

Why is this ridiculous discussion going on for pages and pages?! I'm pretty sure we're being trolled, that argument is too ridiculous not to be.

 

[HIStory]

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

You really think the defense in a civil trial should not address the issue of MJ sleeping with boys for months without an adult partner being present in his life?
You really think by saying he mastrubated would work?

Let's try to break this down.

Your argument seems to be that MJ could go on without sex for months or years. If that means without having sex with another person, that is probably true. However you do not know, and none of us does how much he could go on without releasing sexual tension (ie. masturbating). Yet, you said in one of your posts that to say he masturbated to release sexual tension is not a good argument because then the jury will think he masturbated with kids. Well, unless those kids were with him 24/7 even in places like the bathroom then I'm sure he could find a way to solve that without having to do it in front of kids.

The reason why some people have doubts about MJ being able to spend that much time with kids and not touch them sexually is because they think a man needs to release sexual urges somehow, right? So the only two answers to that are either your "MJ just had a very low libido" theory or that he found a way to release sexual tension through masturbation (and no that did not have to be in front of kids, geez). Frankly, we just cannot tell from these two versions which is true. If MJ was here he would be able to tell more about his sexuality to a jury, but without him to make such highly speculative things the corner stone of your defense is just very shaky grounds.

 

[aldebran]

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

Let's say you have established that MJ could go for years without sex with any women. How does that help you prove he had no sexual interest in children?

It kills the notion that just because he spent months with a kid who slept in his bed and had no adult partner with him he must have had sex with the kid.
That's precisely why Juror number 1 said on TV that MJ was probably a pedophile but the Arvizo case was questionable.
He specifically cited Brett Barnes and the 365 day story totally ignoring Barnes's own words.
When an alternate juror was asked about that on MSNBC he started to hesitate and said yes well it's hard to go beyond reasonable doubt.

Is that what you want the jurors to think if this goes to trial?



I'm not talking about a hypothetical situation this happened in 2005 with at least three jurors who voted guilty during the first vote.

If you try to argue that for months he mastubated on his own while the kid slept in his bed you will be laughed out of the room.
If you try to argue that he did have sex with some adult except noone knows who the heck she was you will be laughed out of the room.

Again, remember what Pellicano told Orth. He made a very similar argument. If he is not interested in sex one way or the other the bed sharing is not an issue.
Remember when Zonen asked you really think he is asexual and reminded the jury of his adult magazines.
He know if the jurors perceive MJ as someone who can go without sex it could be fatal for the prosecution.

Zonen understood that. Why don't you?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

:hysterical: You're setting Zonen as an example and want us to think it's the best defense MJ could have?

How dare we not see eye to eye with Zonen?

 

[HIStory]

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

It kills the notion that just because he spent months with a kid who slept in his bed and had no adult partner with him he must have had sex with the kid.
That's precisely why Juror number 1 said on TV that MJ was probably a pedophile but the Arvizo case was questionable.
He specifically cited Brett Barnes and the 365 day story totally ignoring Barnes's own words.
When an alternate juror was asked about that on MSNBC he started to hesitate and said yes well it's hard to go beyond reasonable doubt.

Is that what you want the jurors to think if this goes to trial?

Yes, the bed sharing will always going to be an issue to some people, but your argument is just not the solution for that. Because if you argue that MJ was asexual/not interested in sex/had low libido (whichever version you use) then the opposing lawyer will just do exactly what Zonen did:

Remember when Zonen asked you really think he is asexual and reminded the jury of his adult magazines.

So how are you going to convince a jury with all those magazines that he was not interested in sex? I guess everyone else will be "laughed out at court" with whatever argument, but you when you say that MJ was not interested in sex despite of regularly buying adult magazines. Good luck with that!

He was not interested in sex with children. That's what they have to be convinced about not that he was not interested in sex, period. Because this latter is probably just not true.