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

[aldebran]

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

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.

What I said all along.

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.

Yes because that's the reality. Someone who is accused of mastrubating with a kid, and slept with that kid while didn't have an adult partner with him
cannot effectively defend himself by saying: oh yeah I mastrubated but alone. You seriously cannot think that argument would work.

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?

No. Because they think a sexual man would not spend months let alone years without having sex with a person and because most people associate sharing a bed with sex.
By sexual man I mean a man who is interested in having sex with other people not someone who simply mastrubates.
Again, remember what Juror number 1 said. "I just don't believe they only watched TV for a whole year. That doesn't make sense to me. "
That MJ might have simply mastrubated alone didn't even cross his mind!

Frankly, we just cannot tell from these two versions which is true.

It's not relevant whether the jury can know it for sure or not.
What matters is whether they can accept it as a plausible explanation.
The "lonely mastrubator who is otherwise an sexual man with constant desire to have sex with others" version is not plausible because the kid is in the damn bed, and like it or not, most people associate bed with sex.
However if you can demonstrate that MJ simply wasn't interested in sex with anyone for years, that it was a non issue for him , then it doesn't matter if the kid is in the bed.
MJ simply didn't have sex with anyone for months and that's it. It happened before, the fact that the kid was in the bed changed nothing.

 

[aldebran]

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?

I'm setting Zonen as an example what Robson's lawyer would likely say during a trial, in case you missed that obvious point. :doh:
And you better come up with a defense against that because Zonen's argument is what many Americans thought and still think about MJ , like it or not.
You know the type of people who may end up on the jury.


The question is not whether you or other Jackson fans see eye to eye with Zonen or Robson but whether the average American juror would.

 

[MJresearcher]

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

Well this is fun...

 

[passy001]

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

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?

MJ never made a secret of sharing his bed with children. he never made a secret of his affection for children. Guess what? There is no evidence whatsoever that he's abused children. NONE. ZERO. and that is precisely why he got acquitted in the first place. it had nothing to do with his lack of intimacy with women. that is also why the Arvizos did not proceed with a civil suit after his acquital. they were so badly discredited during the criminal proceedings.

 

[aldebran]

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

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:

So how are you going to convince a jury with all those magazines that he was not interested in sex?

Here we go again.
How many times do I have to explain that the issues is sex WITH ANOTHER PERSON?


Not magazines, not mastrubation, no interest in sex but sex with SOMEONE.

Zonen's argument should have been countered with obvious facts:
1. just because someone has adult magazines does not mean he or she is a sexual person.
2. even if someone is sexual does not mean that he can't go without sex for months or years.
People who don't have sex outside of marriage because of religious reasons.
Or people with a serious skin disease.
Vitiligo patient Arthur Wright, for example, became de facto celibate because of his condition.
People who are demi-sexual.
People who focus on work. Like when Dennis Tompkin and Michael Bush said that MJ was married to his art sex didn't drive his life.
Or the sheer physical toll of touring.
Plenty of possible reasons why someone would not have sex with anyone for months or years.

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!

I NEVER said that the argument should be MJ didn't have interest in sex.
I said that he could go without sex with a person for years.


There are plenty of people who mastrubate, watch porn, make dirty jokes, but would never or rarely touch another person.

He was not interested in sex with children.

Joe Q's question: if he didn't have interest in sex with children then why did he sleep with those boys for 30 day 60 days whatever while noone saw him with an adult partner?
Your response:
version 1: just because noone saw her doesn't mean she was not there.
version 2: he mastrubated alone so he didn't need an adult partner and didn't need to have sex with kid either

Good luck with either of those.

 

[HIStory]

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

What I said all along.

However if you can demonstrate that MJ simply wasn't interested in sex with anyone for years, that it was a non issue for him , then it doesn't matter if the kid is in the bed.
MJ simply didn't have sex with anyone for months and that's it. It happened before, the fact that the kid was in the bed changed nothing.

I get what you are saying but the problem is that you are making your own argument messy when throw in "asexual", "low libido" and "not interested in sex". Those are speculative terms in this regard. Yes, you can show that it was no problem for MJ to not to have sex for months or years. And that happened with or without children in his room. But leave those heavily loaded and heavily speculative terms out of it. You do not know if MJ was asexual or had a low libido or was not interested in sex or he did not have sex for some other reason. It's enough to say that it was not a problem for him to not to have sex for months or years, everything else is superfluous.

No. Because they think a sexual man would not spend months let alone years without having sex with a person and because most people associate sharing a bed with sex.

Newsflash: There are many, many fully functional, fully healthy, sexual and not at all perverted men in this world who for one reason or another go on without sex for years. That won't turn them into child molesters.

 

[dannyboy72]

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

If any other single black man in America had a bunch of girly magazines in his home, people would look at him like a normal guy, but when Michael Jackson does it, all of a sudden it's not for him. It's for the young boys who visited his home even though there was no proof that he showed children the material except for the claims made by Gavin and Star Arvizo who were not only found to have lied in the past, but were caught in numerous lies on the witness stand. Common sense tells you that the porn was for him. Of course he wasn't asexual. He never claimed to be. He had sexual urges just like the rest of us, and seeing how he was such a recluse and found it hard to find love because of his fame and trust issue, it makes sense why he would have a house full of porn. Some men, particularly single and lonely men, look to porn as a way to sexually satisfy themselves. They find it hard to get laid or maintain a stable relationship, so the porn is used for their own sexual satisfaction, kind of like sex toys. This would explain why he had so many copies; over 100 in total plus videos. I highly doubt that a pedophile would try to groom a young boy with "over 50 and plump" magazines..lmao

 

[aldebran]

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

MJ never made a secret of sharing his bed with children. he never made a secret of his affection for children. Guess what? There is no evidence whatsoever that he's abused children. NONE. ZERO. and that is precisely why he got acquitted in the first place.

Yes that's what you and I know and accept as a fact. But we are not the general public whose members would sit on that jury.
For people like juror number 1 and that old lady who didn't like Janet's finger snapping the fact that there was no proof MJ ever abused anyone didn't really matter.
3 jurors only voted not guilty because the other 9 convinced them that the Arvizos were not credible.
So no you are wrong that the lack of proof was the reason why he was aquitted.
Remember if all 12 jurors had the same attitude as juror number 1 MJ would have been convicted.
Trust me there are more than 12 Americans who believe MJ is guilty simply because he slept with kids and didn't have sex with women (as they believe)

it had nothing to do with his lack of intimacy with women. that is also why the Arvizos did not proceed with a civil suit after his acquital. they were so badly discredited during the criminal proceedings.

But a civil trial involving Robson and Safechuck won't be about the Arvizos and their obvious bullshit.
And it won't be about reasonable doubt.
It will be about bed sharing and Robson being dropped off at MJ's apartment, and MJ inviting the Robsons to the ranch in Dec 1993
and MJ supposedly asking Safechuck's mother whether Jimmy can sleep with him (a big fat lie of course).
Unless thre's enough smoking gun evidence against the them (like photo showing Robson in Atlanta on Feb 7 1990 for example)
or witnesses testifying that MJ wasn't even in Neverland between Feb 5-10 etc.
you better explain what the heck MJ was doing sexually if he wasn't interested in boys otherwise you can throw in the towel.

 

[aldebran]

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

If any other single black man in America had a bunch of girly magazines in his home, people would look at him like a normal guy, but when Michael Jackson does it, all of a sudden it's not for him.

That's the sad reality yes. I always make this point to haters.
The idiots argue that he had those magazines to groom boys.
Zonen himself made that argument. Why does he have these magazines? Because he has boys in his bedroom! :banghead

Nevermind that no boy's fingerpints were found on any of those magazines except the Arvizo boys and we know how those got there.
Nevermind that he also had Plumpers and Over 50 not just Barely Legal and Playboy.
Nevermind that he kept buying them after the Arvizos had long left the ranch.
Nevermind that he had more than 80 copies.
Nevermind that he had nude photos of M. Monroe and Bo Derek that no boy ever claimed to see.
Nevermind that his hard drives only had hetero adult pictures and pictures of naked women.
Nevermind that he had two articles about the G-spot cut out.

Somehow none of that proves that he had an eye for the ladies.
But one out of print book about gays, two artbooks with naked men sent to him by photographers, and two books with naked boys he didn't even buy and for 10+ years didn't even own hell yeah!
That proves he was a gay pedo.

Once I ran into a hater who said none of this was true. That I was a liar he didn't have that hetero stuff at all.

Desiree's explanation is my favorite: he was gay and he had the hetero magazines because he looked at the studs.

The lunacy just never stops.

Meanwhile, he kept buying those nude women pictures:

He also bought a bunch of old nude stuff-clipped out pictures from nudist magazines and old shots of posed nude women.

http://chuckprophet.com/blog/michael_jackson_visits_recycled_records_-_by_andrew_rush/

 

[aldebran]

Passy001, can you remind me what previous complaints Taj had?

Aldebran, you are continuing to confuse my statement. I never said all civil trial strategies are equal so, there is no need for the AEG comparisons. The Chandler civil trial strategy was Michael had the opportunity to commit such acts. Michael would not be successful in the civil trial because he had countless opportunities.

The AEG comparison is correct because the laws regarding liablity are the same.
In law, you are legally liable when you are legally responsible for something.
Feldman's strategy was not to show that MJ had the opportunity, that's not even a legal strategy for that matter.

Under the law you cannot be found liable just because you had the opportunity to do something.
It has to be more likely than not that you actually caused damage.

You have attempted to use Michael’s religion and deeming him asexual to explain his travel companions.

I did no such thing. I did not deem him aseuxal and certainly not because he didn't have adult companions while he was with Brett or the Cascio boys.

You incorrectly posted that Michael did not have access to children when he did.

What I said is that he didn't merely had access. He intentionally was with Brett, Jimmy, Frank, Eddie etc. Not the same thing.

Do you see how that could be equated conveniently to opportunity in a civil trial?

No, opportunity is not enough to establish liability. You are wrong.

 

[dannyboy72]

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.

Yes you are correct. Those three elephants you mentioned are the reasons why the suspicions will never end and will be a part of Michael Jackson's legacy forever. He really dug himself into a very deep hole by telling Martin Bashir, in front of the camera that's going to air on national tv, that he slept with "many children" and that it was "very right" and "very loving". He opened himself up to more suspicion, and then several months later, the same boy who appeared in the film accused him of sexual abuse. This is what I was saying in my previous post. When you tell the world as a 40 year old man that it's ok to sleep with kids who aren't even your own and then when these same kids come out and say you molested them, people are going to put two and two together. They are going to come to the conclusion that the sleepovers are sexual and you are guilty, because like I've stated before, it is not normal behavior. It is very questionable and this is why so many people felt that he was guilty before his trial had even started. Wade and James have both slept in bed with MJ and are claiming sexual abuse. This does not look good in the eyes of a jury who doesn't know the facts like we do. They are going to think "All these boys slept with him for many nights and they are claiming sexual abuse, so he has to be guilty". There are a lot of closed-minded people out there that are not willing to look past the whole sleepover issue.

 

[passy001]

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

Yes that's what you and I know and accept as a fact. But we are not the general public whose members would sit on that jury.
For people like juror number 1 and that old lady who didn't like Janet's finger snapping the fact that there was no proof MJ ever abused anyone didn't really matter.
3 jurors only voted not guilty because the other 9 convinced them that the Arvizos were not credible.
So no you are wrong that the lack of proof was the reason why he was aquitted.
Remember if all 12 jurors had the same attitude as juror number 1 MJ would have been convicted.
Trust me there are more than 12 Americans who believe MJ is guilty simply because he slept with kids and didn't have sex with women (as they believe)

Juries are required to convict or acquit on strict rules, including rule of evidence presented. otherwise it's ground for appeal. so if the jury had acquitted because they love MJ, the prosecution would have appealed the decision as it was not based on facts/evidence or law. similarly if MJ was convicted because he was hated, the decision would most likely have been appealed and overturned by a higher court.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that the jury UNANIMOUSLY acquitted MJ. That's what the history book will remember. Not what some delusioned member of the jury thought during deliberations.

But a civil trial involving Robson and Safechuck won't be about the Arvizos and their obvious bullshit.
And it won't be about reasonable doubt.
It will be about bed sharing and Robson being dropped off at MJ's apartment, and MJ inviting the Robsons to the ranch in Dec 1993
and MJ supposedly asking Safechuck's mother whether Jimmy can sleep with him (a big fat lie of course).
Unless thre's enough smoking gun evidence against the them (like photo showing Robson in Atlanta on Feb 7 1990 for example)
or witnesses testifying that MJ wasn't even in Neverland between Feb 5-10 etc.
you better explain what the heck MJ was doing sexually if he wasn't interested in boys otherwise you can throw in the towel.

That is completely immaterial and does not make sense. You have child molesters who have wives and kids and still that has not stopped them from molesting children.

The reality is that MJ is not here to defend himself. Without him who happens to be the ONLY other witness to the alleged incident, the trial makes no sense. Secondly Robson / safechuck will have to prove that MJ actually molested them. you'll need more evidence than some random photos in hotels. in fact photos means nothing.

 

[Gaz]

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

Guys seemed I needed to take some action here to calm a few things in this very sensitive situation, please if I can ask for calm - keep it factual and respectful.

Carry on

 

[Tygger]

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

No need for me to re-explain that opportunity was indeed the strategy to be used for the Chandler civil trial and it was indeed enough to find Michael liable.

Good timing.

 

[ivy]

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

From civil case

04/10/2015 at 08:30 am in Department 51, Mitchell L. Beckloff, Presiding
Status Conference - Off Calendar

so no hearing today

From probate case

04/21/2015 at 08:30 am in department 51 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion for Summary Judgment

04/10/2015 Declaration - Probate ( BY MATTHEW A. SLATER )
Filed by Attorney for Claimant
04/10/2015 Supplement ( SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF ADD'L UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )
Filed by Attorney for Claimant
04/03/2015 Response (RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO MOTION )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
04/03/2015 Declaration - Probate (OF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY RONALD J. ZONEN )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

So I think probate hearing is April 21.

 

[MJJA]

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

Let's just be careful in here with connecting being gay to pedophilia.
They are not connected and I just feel it is really important to make that point.

 

[MJresearcher]

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

Let's just be careful in here with connecting being gay to pedophilia.
They are not connected and I just feel it is really important to make that point.

Yes, that is an important an point, I've often seen people try to relate the two but the evidence is pretty clear that it's not the same or even comparable.

 

[HIStory]

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

I think it was brought up earlier whether there would be a chance for the Estate to counter-sue these liars and make them pay for their lies. Like we know there is no defense in US law against the defamation of dead people, but maybe there could be another way. When Robson and Safechuck file a declaration they make a statement at the end under the penalty of perjury that what they claim is true. So if any of the claims they make in those declarations turn out to be not true and it gets proven, could that be a basis of a counter-lawsuit?

 

[ivy]

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

^^

that's perjury, you can file a complaint about it but it rarely ever gets prosecuted. Because the burden of proof is relatively high. Not only the lie should be about an important subject highly relevant to the issue at hand but you also need to prove that the person knowingly lied. Some even say if people respond with "I believe", "Best to my knowledge" etc. there won't be any grounds for perjury. Because people can make mistakes and/or forgive stuff and so on. The challenging part is to prove that they knowingly and intentionally lied.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

What about the interview?

 

[ivy]

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

What about the interview?

which interview?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

Wade's interview from 2013

 

[HIStory]

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

What about the interview?

The interview was not done under a penalty of perjury.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

The interview was not done under a penalty of perjury.

I see, but hypothetically speaking can they sue for defamation in that interview? or stop him from making more of these? Kind of like they did with CM (I know the law was on their side with CM, but is it possible with Wade too?)

 

[HIStory]

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

I see, but hypothetically speaking can they sue for defamation in that interview? or stop him from making more of these? Kind of like they did with CM (I know the law was on their side with CM, but is it possible with Wade too?)

You cannot defame the dead. There is no law against that. That's why I asked the declarations because those are under penalty of perjury, so if there was a way to after them and make them pay for their lies then I guess that would be it.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

You cannot defame the dead. There is no law against that. That's why I asked the declarations because those are under penalty of perjury, so if there was a way to after them and make them pay for their lies then I guess that would be it.

:ermm:
I hope you're right about the second part

 

[barbee0715]

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

You cannot defame the dead. There is no law against that. That's why I asked the declarations because those are under penalty of perjury, so if there was a way to after them and make them pay for their lies then I guess that would be it.

They are also defaming Michael's companies-maybe there's something they could do legally about that.

There should be some new laws in place about defaming the dead-it does affect legacies, estates, living heirs, etc.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

They are also defaming Michael's companies-maybe there's something they could do legally about that.

There should be some new laws in place about defaming the dead-it does affect legacies, estates, living heirs, etc.

Hey - I was just thinking about that too! Michael still makes money, he's a brand (sort of) and a company that makes money. You also can't sue a dead man, yet people still sue Michael's estate. I don't know why it doesn't work both ways.

 

[ILoveHIStory]

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

Can somebody confirm if these sites are really credible and trustworthy?

1/ https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/
2/ https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/

I just want to know if they are, because I have sent some of their links to articles on the net, and just want to know if we MJ fans can totally rely on this info.

 

[ILoveHIStory]

Oh, I see that some Aldebran was banned, its obvious that there are (a few, but very "profilic") anti-jackson trolls trolling on MJboards.

For those who are on MJstar.com, you can see the pattern of writing of such trolls´ comments citing "info" from MJfacts (naming MJ fans "his delusional pedophile loving fans").
I think that this board should warn other fans about this hater site, formerly known as "Desiree Speaks So Listen"

They are like worms infecting the system=MJcommunity, or like the actual online "war" of trolls of the Russia vs USA propaganda.
Its pretty obvious on many nonMJ sites like Topix and co.

On the other hand, Iam surprised that there are far more possitive comments on the articles than negative.