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

[barbee0715]

Hopefully you understand that a victory for the Estate in this possible civil trial(s) will only lead to similar creditors. Despite the believed futility of such claims, each frivolous action must be taken seriously by the Estate and each frivolous action drains Estate funds in the process.

If you think a victory for the Estate will only lead to similar creditors, you must also know that a loss would lead to a thousand percent more. What do you suggest they do? (Besides writing the will differently to protect assets-that's all in hindsight).

Thank you again for the clarification. I have not read Brown’s article but, if he is suggesting a legal strategy based on opportunity, he is indeed correct and that was the crux of my response. The strategy lead to settlement in the past..

You've posted this a few times-the strategy was only based on opportunity. It would have had to be greater than that, because the preponderance of evidence has to prove that it is more likely he did it than not-it can't just be opportunity-in that case, many of us have been with unrelated children alone-if we're accused, and the claimant's charge just uses opportunity, then many innocent people would be in prison.

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

In a civil trial, the Chandlers' legal team did not have to show Michael committed the acts he was accused of beyond shadow of doubt. The team only need to show that Michael had the opportunity to commit the acts. Michael had plenty opportune time with the child alone and it would have been extremely difficult to defend against those facts and guarantee a victory.

Tell me: how would Michael be victorious in the Chandler civil trial? Please do not confuse a civil trial with a criminal trial and respond you can prove Michael did not have an opportunity to commit the acts he was accused of.

First of all let me start by saying I agree with some points you made. In civil trials there is no requirement of beyond shadow of doubt. and at no trial there is a guarantee of victory.

However I disagree with the "only need to show that Michael had the opportunity to commit the acts" part. Civil trials still require the plaintiff burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence requires demonstrating that the proposition is more likely true than not true.

and also I'll copy this "This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended."

So I disagree that having opportunity to commit the acts or having alone time with the kids is enough to prove anything. for example just today I found a wallet in the restaurant. By your logic I had the opportunity and alone time to steal it but that doesn't prove I did. If this had been a case more evidence would be needed to show that I have more likely stole the wallet than I did not. (btw I gave the wallet to the restaurant owner )

The same thing for any sexual abuse claim. An adult spends alone time with a child. The possibilities are nothing happens or the adult abuses the child. the plaintiff still needs to prove -with additional evidence- that the abuse is more likely than nothing happening.

Yes burden of proof is a lot less in a civil trial when compared to criminal trials but it not that easy to win civil trials either. I guess we all know that based on previous examples, don't we?

 

[Tygger]

What do you suggest they do?

Barbee0715, my desire is the judge does not allow the claims first and foremost.


Barbee0715, Ivy, sigh, you are confusing a legal strategy with the purpose of a civil trial. I have never said the only way to be victorious in a civil trial is to show opportunity so it is unclear why you have repeated such. I have consistently repeated that opportunity was the STRATEGY for the Chandlers’ legal team and it may be the strategy for Robson/Safechuck’s legal team provided this judge allows the claims.

Pretend for a moment you are Cochran…

...Chandler described Michael’s genitals. Can either of you detail how you would persuade a civil trial jury that Michael did not have the opportunity to exposed himself to the child? You may chose to suggest to jurors that Michael’s vitiligo would cause spotting and his religious and cultural background does not dictate circumcision and that most likely influenced the child’s description. Maybe you would like to suggest a conspiracy and his parents influenced the child’s description. Maybe you have another suggestion. Regardless, Feldman reminds the jurors Michael had opportune time to expose himself to the child - repeatedly - and that dictates the child's description. Who does the jury believe? Are you willing to risk Michael’s personal well-being and his full professional career on a 33% chance the jurors will accept your suggestion(s)?

Yes burden of proof is a lot less in a civil trial when compared to criminal trials but it not that easy to win civil trials either. I guess we all know that based on previous examples, don't we?

Would you be referring to the AEG civil trial? One of the strategies of the plaintiffs was to portray the doctor as being conflicted due his finances. One of the strategies of the defense was to portray Michael as a long term addict who used his celebrity to coerce doctors and other medical professional to do his bidding. The jurors were more inclined to believe that the doctor who killed Michael was not conflicted, was competent, and was coerced by an addict effectively absolving AEG. See the difference between a strategy and the purpose of a civil trial?

By the way, we will have to wait for the Supreme Court's decision before stating AEG has truly been successful.

 

[ivy]

I have consistently repeated that opportunity was the STRATEGY for the Chandlers’ legal team and it may be the strategy for Robson/Safechuck’s legal team provided this judge allows the claims.

that's fine and my point has been just having opportunity as a strategy wouldn't be enough.

...Chandler described Michael’s genitals. Can either of you detail how you would persuade a civil trial jury that Michael did not have the opportunity to exposed himself to the child? You may chose to suggest to jurors that Michael’s vitiligo would cause spotting and his religious and cultural background does not dictate circumcision and that most likely influenced the child’s description. Maybe you would like to suggest a conspiracy and his parents influenced the child’s description. Maybe you have another suggestion. Regardless, Feldman reminds the jurors Michael had opportune time to expose himself to the child - repeatedly - and that dictates the child's description. Who does the jury believe?

well his description wasn't a match so actually this isn't a good example. It could have been easily debunked with "well it's not a match" and the jurors would think given his wrong description he more likely did not see MJ naked. but for the sake of the discussion let's assume he gave a correct description for a minute. first of all burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, not the defense. Defense doesn't even need to provide a defense - as TMez mentioned in his last interview, they can even have the strategy of arguing plaintiff hasn't met burden of proof.

anyway to go to your question as I said before "Feldman reminding jurors Michael had opportunity to expose himself to anyone" would NOT be enough proof to any sexual abuse. At best it could be proof of indecent exposure. There are many reasons why someone can see another person naked. Such as defense might argue that the kid walked in on michael when he was getting dressed. It's a thing that regularly happens to a lot of people - accidentally walking in on a person naked. It happened to me. I had taken a shower and was dressing when my college roommate excitedly ran into my room to give me some news and walked in on me while I was naked. Plus seeing a person naked doesn't necessarily mean you had sex with them and/or they abused you. So in this instance the plaintiff still would have been required to convince a jury with at least 51% certainty that the kid saw him naked during an sexual abuse situation. I believe in a case of he said - he said , in other words one party claiming "I saw his privates while he was abusing me" and "he saw my privates because he walked in on me while I was dressing after a shower", the jury would have been 50-50 split and it wouldn't satisfy the Preponderance of the evidence requirement of civil trials. Like I said, yes burden of proof is a lot less in civil trials but it's not as easy to win a civil trial as some people portray on this thread.

33% chance

how did you come up with this number?

Are you willing to risk Michael’s personal well-being and his full professional career

As for the 93 civil claim, I don't think the issue was the odds of winning or losing but that the civil trial was set to happen before a possible criminal trial and that put MJ in a lot of disadvantage. I personally think that contributed a lot to the settlement.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Barbee0715, my desire is the judge does not allow the claims first and foremost.

I agree with this. This is the only logical and legal resolution to this problem.

Would you be referring to the AEG civil trial? One of the strategies of the plaintiffs was to portray the doctor as being conflicted due his finances. One of the strategies of the defense was to portray Michael as a long term addict who used his celebrity to coerce doctors and other medical professional to do his bidding. The jurors were more inclined to believe that the doctor who killed Michael was not conflicted, was competent, and was coerced by an addict effectively absolving AEG. See the difference between a strategy and the purpose of a civil trial?

Thank you for clarifying what you meant by strategy in the civil trial. I don't think the genital example was good, because the description was inaccurate, and the Chandler family more than likely knew that Michael had vitiligo-therefore, it would have been pretty easy to guess what his genitals looked like. They would still have to have a very credible witness or very credible evidence of wrongdoing to make the jury believe it was more than likely that Chandler was molested than not. Maybe the very fact that there were sleepovers could have been something-but again, the defense would have had all sorts of witnesses on the other side-whole families-who would have testified that they also participated in harmless sleepovers, so I don't know.

Re the AEG strategy-Yes, the plaintiffs chose to portray Murray as being financially strapped and conflicted, but they also chose to portray the doctor as being controlled by AEG and therefore, did AEG's bidding, But that was impossible to believe since the supporting evidence and witness testimonies showed that Murray had a history with Michael and he had no history with AEG. In fact, testimony and evidence showed that AEG preferred to hire a doctor in London, rather than Murray.

 

[Tygger]

that's fine and my point has been just having opportunity as a strategy wouldn't be enough.

Your point is I did not say strategies, plural. Interesting.

Ivy, Barbee0715, you both responded identically that your issue is with the example instead of stating what you would do as defense attorney, Cochran, in that situation. Continuing with the flawed example, in your view, do you believe Feldman would have been prepared to explain how a minor would not be able to give a description with pin-point accuracy? What would be your response then? Do you truly believe because the description did not match that Feldman would not discussed the description at trial? You would be mistaken and may cost your client his personal and professional life.

anyway to go to your question as I said before "Feldman reminding jurors Michael had opportunity to expose himself to anyone" would NOT be enough proof to any sexual abuse.

Where did I say it would be enough to find Michael liable with one example? I personally would not gloss over an adult having an opportunity to expose himself to a minor in the fashion Chandler described.

So in this instance the plaintiff still would have been required to convince a jury with at least 51% certainty that the kid saw him naked during an sexual abuse situation.

Not true; the child did not have to see Michael naked during an abuse situation. Hopefully you understand there is an issue with that particular child seeing Michael naked provided that actually happened which I do not believe it did.

how did you come up with this number?

Please see my response to Respect77.

Allow me to correct your addition. There is at least a 33% chance of a hollow victory for the Estate in a possible civil trial which leaves at least a 66% chance of a monetary remedy for Robson/Safechuck (settlement or civil award). That is a total of 99% probability. Feel free to decide which of the three scenarios will weigh greater with the remaining 1%.

As for the 93 civil claim, I don't think the issue was the odds of winning or losing but that the civil trial was set to happen before a possible criminal trial and that put MJ in a lot of disadvantage. I personally think that contributed a lot to the settlement.

I already discussed the impact of the civil trial occurring before the criminal trial and how that affected the settlement in previous posts in this thread. If you would like to dismiss Cochran settling the civil trial because he told Michael personally he could not guarantee a win as a somewhat minor factor, tis your choice.

Re the AEG strategy-Yes, the plaintiffs chose to portray Murray as being financially strapped and conflicted, but they also chose to portray the doctor as being controlled by AEG and therefore, did AEG's bidding, But that was impossible to believe since the supporting evidence and witness testimonies showed that Murray had a history with Michael and he had no history with AEG. In fact, testimony and evidence showed that AEG preferred to hire a doctor in London, rather than Murray.

Glad you understand the difference between legal strategy and civil trial purpose. Your response shows you believed AEG’s strategy as jurors did: the doctor who killed Michael was not conflicted, was competent, and was coerced by an addict.

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

instead of stating what you would do as defense attorney, Cochran, in that situation.

I did though. If you need a short reminder see below. For more details see the previous post.

Such as defense might argue that the kid walked in on michael when he was getting dressed. It's a thing that regularly happens to a lot of people - accidentally walking in on a person naked.

do you believe Feldman would have been prepared to explain how a minor would not be able to give a description with pin-point accuracy? What would be your response then?

simple. all you need is doubt, all you need is jury to think that either explanation is equally likely. yes the plaintiff side could argue a kid or anyone might not be able to give a perfect description of something they witnessed. Defense could argue perhaps the reason the description wasn't correct was because the kid did not see him naked. That would be enough doubt for the jury as either explanation would be equally possible. Like I said Preponderance of the evidence is still required in civil trials. As long as the jury thinks either one is a possibility , 50-50 chance, they shouldn't be ruling in favor of plaintiff.

I personally would not gloss over an adult having an opportunity to expose himself to a minor in the fashion Chandler described.

Not true; the child did not have to see Michael naked during an abuse situation. Hopefully you understand there is an issue with that particular minor child seeing Michael naked provided that actually happened.

why do you sound like you assume such exposure was intentional by the adult? why not consider even if it happened it might have been accidental and due to the actions of the kid such as entering into the private bedroom without knocking and such? Or the kid hanging at the backstage and saw something during wardrobe change and so on? I guess we are having an eye of the beholder issue here. You think a kid seeing an adult naked equals to something wrong / something problematic / something serious. I think even if it happened it might be accidental / unintentional and hence not problematic.

Please see my response to Respect77.

still not clear how you came to those percentages. also I still don't understand why you give 66-33 advantage to the accusers rather than a 50-50? In my perspective none of these people had/has any strong claims, proof, credibility to make me think that they are more likely to win. Due to the unpredictability of the jurors I would classify it as 50-50 :for every case not limited to MJ related cases. Or allow me to ask like this: think about AEG trial, you agreed with jacksons strategy, you believed lawyers were perfect, you thought jacksons should win but they did not. so my question is do you think any of these accusers are more likely to win than Jacksons in AEG trial? I don't know if I am able to express what I'm trying to say.

If you would like to dismiss Cochran settling the civil trial because he told Michael personally he could not guarantee a win as a somewhat minor factor, tis your choice.

I would not classify it as a "minor factor" but I'll classify it as a regular factor. No one can guarantee a win in any case. and yes that's one of the reason why settlements are recommended in trials. My point was "cannot guarantee a win" wasn't and isn't specific to these civil cases.

 

[HIStory]

Respect77, Castor, I never suggested Robson’s memories were repressed. Impairment equates to damaged memory. Memories can be impaired through manipulation, brainwashing, etc. as per Robson’s comment from the Today show posted below. Again, the statute of limitations for perjury has lapsed for Robson's 2005 testimony so there will be no legal repercussions.

You said:

Robson’s legal team has already laid the foundation that Robson’s memory was impaired which would be presented by his legal team as he did not fabricate his testimony. In other words: he believed his testimony at the time to be true and he currently believes differently.

Robson was asked very specific questions at the trial. For example this thing about whether he showered with Michael. Other than repressed memory how is it possible for him to believe in 2005 that he did not shower with Michael and believe now that he did? You did not say in your previous post that he was manipulated into believing that it was not wrong (which is what he actually claims). You said "he believed his testimony at the time to be true and he currently believes differently". In case of such specific questions as the above one (but there are many others) that is only possible if he had repressed memory which he does NOT claim.

Can you show that Mesereau did not pay attention to that detail?

Can you show me where did I say Mesereau did not pay attention to detail?

 

[HIStory]

...Chandler described Michael’s genitals. Can either of you detail how you would persuade a civil trial jury that Michael did not have the opportunity to exposed himself to the child? You may chose to suggest to jurors that Michael’s vitiligo would cause spotting and his religious and cultural background does not dictate circumcision and that most likely influenced the child’s description. Maybe you would like to suggest a conspiracy and his parents influenced the child’s description. Maybe you have another suggestion. Regardless, Feldman reminds the jurors Michael had opportune time to expose himself to the child - repeatedly - and that dictates the child's description. Who does the jury believe? Are you willing to risk Michael’s personal well-being and his full professional career on a 33% chance the jurors will accept your suggestion(s)?

I'm not sure what you are saying here because Jordan's description did NOT match. So in case the description had been introduced then it would not have been a back and forth about MJ having the opportunity to expose himself to Jordan, but they would have simply showed the jury the photos and then showed them the description and then the jury would have decided whether to them it was a match or not.

This was the worst possible example that you could bring not only because this is material evidence, not testimony, and not only because it was NOT a match, but also because the description most likely would NOT have been a subject of the civil trial as Larry Feldman asked for the barring of the photos from the civil trial.

Ivy, Barbee0715, you both responded identically that your issue is with the example instead of stating what you would do as defense attorney, Cochran, in that situation. Continuing with the flawed example, in your view, do you believe Feldman would have been prepared to explain how a minor would not be able to give a description with pin-point accuracy? What would be your response then? Do you truly believe because the description did not match that Feldman would not discussed the description at trial? You would be mistaken and may cost your client his personal and professional life.

Well, we know the answer to that since Feldman asked for the barring of those photos from the civil trial.

 

[Tygger]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Such as defense might argue that the kid walked in on michael when he was getting dressed. It's a thing that regularly happens to a lot of people - accidentally walking in on a person naked.

It would have been a civil trial focusing on sexual abuse so the chances of this child seeing Michael naked (which again I do not believed happened) would most likely not be a one-time event as you continually suggest.

Defense could argue perhaps the reason the description wasn't correct was because the kid did not see him naked. That would be enough doubt for the jury as either explanation would be equally possible.

I seriously disagree with you that the argument would be that simple. Again, it would most likely not be a one-time event.

I guess we are having an eye of the beholder issue here. You think a kid seeing an adult naked equals to something wrong / something problematic / something serious. I think even if it happened it might be accidental / unintentional and hence not problematic.

I never said such so there is no value in you implying such. My responses are focused on Michael and a minor who accused him of horrific acts where you have expanded your responses beyond that. What you seem to be purposefully missing is the civil trial focused on abuse so there is no action where Michael was naked in the presence of a minor who accused him of horrific acts could conveniently be explained away as you are stating.

still not clear how you came to those percentages. also I still don't understand why you give 66-33 advantage to the accusers rather than a 50-50?

Three results for civil trial: settlement, liable, not liable. Two options for a monetary remedy for plaintiffs out of those three results: settlement, liability.

Or allow me to ask like this: think about AEG trial, you agreed with jacksons strategy, you believed lawyers were perfect, you thought jacksons should win but they did not. so my question is do you think any of these accusers are more likely to win than Jacksons in AEG trial? I don't know if I am able to express what I'm trying to say.

I believe you are being a bit rude as I never any lawyer was perfect: not Panish, not Cochran, not Putnam, not Weitzman, not one.

With that being said, the percentages are the same; Jacksons with 66% to AEG with 33%. I also said previously that I did not believe the trials to be comparable because one was a wrongful death trial and one focuses on sexual abuse of a minor. Again, I prefer the judge does not allow the claims for Robson/Safechuck so I am not comparing AEG chances of success against Robson/Safechuck as you are because I prefer the latter's claims not be allowed.

My point was "cannot guarantee a win" wasn't and isn't specific to these civil cases.

I understand your point however; Michael himself spoke about the discussion he had with Cochran. While Michael wanted to fight, Cochran encouraged a settlement because he could not guarantee Michael a victory. That was and remains fact.

In case of such specific questions as the above one (but there are many others) that is only possible if he had repressed memory which he does NOT claim.

Not true; it can happen with impaired memory as well which is what Robson is claiming.

Can you show me where did I say Mesereau did not pay attention to detail?

I did not suggest they should focus on "conspiracy theories" but I do suggest they should pay attention to every detail. Retaining the key was only one part of the story.

Adding: Respect77, I posed a hypothetical example to Ivy and Barbee0715 and asked what they would do if they were Cochran.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Not true; it can happen with impaired memory as well which is what Robson is claiming.

Please show us how. Please show that through the shower example. Other than repressed memory how is it possible for him to not believe in 2005 he showered with Michael, but to believe it now.

I did not suggest they should focus on "conspiracy theories" but I do suggest they should pay attention to every detail. Retaining the key was only one part of the story.

And where did I say in this quote that Mesereau did not pay attention to details, like you claimed in your previous post?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Why are we still going on and on about how the defense would handle a description of Michael's genitals when there never was one? You're raising a problem that never existed and then argue because you don't like how people try to solve it. Let me make it simple: To this day no one was able to give an accurate description of Michael naked therefore no one needs to explain how it's possible.

I think this discussion is harmful and may lead readers to believe there's a need for an explanation of why it happened when it actually never happened.

 

[Tygger]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Please show us how.

I posted Robson's words from the Today show. Direct your frustration at Robson if he did not provide enough detail in your view.

And where did I say in this quote that Mesereau did not pay attention to details, like you claimed in your previous post?

Interesting you would refer to my previous post. In that post I asked you specifically if you could show Mesereau did not pay attention to that detail of Francia having the key. You were not able to show such and instead are attempting to twist my original post to generally say Mesereau did not pay attention to detail.

Why are we still going on and on about how the defense would handle a description of Michael's genitals when there never was one?

There was a description and Michael was photographed for comparison. The civil trial proceedings did not continue because of the settlement. Again, I posed a hypothetical example to Ivy and Barbee0715 and asked what they would do if they were Cochran.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

There was a description and Michael was photographed for comparison. The civil trial proceedings did not continue because of the settlement. Again, I posed a hypothetical example to Ivy and Barbee0715 and asked what they would do if they were Cochran.

Not an accurate one. If the description doesn't match why does anybody have to explain it?

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I posted Robson's words from the Today show. Direct your frustration at Robson if he did not provide enough detail in your view.

But it was your view that Robson laid the foundation for such an argument. My view is that saying something that is logically incoherent is not laying the foundations for anything. You said that in your view what Robson says is logically sound and possible ("Not true; it can happen with impaired memory as well which is what Robson is claiming."). I asked you to show how. Referring me back to Robson is not an answer to my question about how YOU think that it's possible for him to not believe in 2005 that he showered with Michael and believe it now - other than repressed memory.

Interesting you would refer to my previous post. In that post I asked you specifically if you could show Mesereau did not pay attention to that detail of Francia having the key. You were not able to show such and instead are attempting to twist my original post to generally say Mesereau did not pay attention to detail.

This is simply not true as anyone can see who reads back. This is what I replied to:

The judge assigned to the MJ Estate did not view Branca retaining documents he should have surrendered upon his termination with suspicion. As I said, it is not unusual for a terminated employee to retain property after termination. I understand you have suspicion for Blanca retaining the key and may believe there was a conspiracy between herself and SBPD. Fortunately Mesereau did not focus on conspiracies targeting Michael by anyone other than the Arvisos as that may have left a negative aftertaste for some jurors.

To which my answer was:

I did not suggest they should focus on "conspiracy theories" but I do suggest they should pay attention to every detail. Retaining the key was only one part of the story.

"I do suggest they should pay attention to every detail" - present tense. I meant the current defense of Michael, not Mesereau. Trying to twist my words into meaning that Mesereau did not pay attention to details was you, not me.

 

[castor]

Respect77, Castor, I never suggested Robson’s memories were repressed. Impairment equates to damaged memory. Memories can be impaired through manipulation, brainwashing

But Robson very clearly stated that he never forgot anything MJ did to him, it's just that the didn't believe it was wrong and it was abuse and it didn't affect him negatively.
Nowhere does he talk about "damaged memory". He claims that he was brainwashed to believe that it was expression of love, or his fault or whatever bullshit he comes up with trying to explain the unexplainable.

Can you show that Mesereau did not pay attention to that detail? As I said before, it is not unusual for a terminated employee to retain property after their termination.

But it would not make any sense for MJ to give a key to this particular cabinet if he indeed wanted to hide those books from everyone.
That was the whole argument. That the books were there because he wanted them to keep as a secret.
So if that's the case why on Earth would he let anyone let alone the mother of a boy he supposedly molested have a key and thus the opportunity to learn that he had those books?
And how would the police know that Blanca F. of all people had a key?
And why didn't they simply break it like the broke everything else, doors, safes you name it.
Also, what other property did Fracia "retain" and why? If only this key why only this key?

In a civil trial, the Chandlers' legal team did not have to show Michael committed the acts he was accused of beyond shadow of doubt. The team only need to show that Michael had the opportunity to commit the acts

That's not true.
If that was the case anyone who was ever alone with MJ anywhere could sue him and win.
Sean Lennon could sue him because he slept in his bed.
So could Frank Cascio or the Culkins.
Or Nicole Richie or Simone Jackson or Brett Barnes.
In fact any person who is ever alone with anyone could be sued for sexual assault because hey he had the opportunity to rape me.

The Chandlers should have convinced the jury that for MJ sleeping in a bed with a kid was because he wanted sex.
But then they should have explained why should anyone believe that Chandler was molested when Brett Barnes, Robson, Lennon, the Cascios, Nicole Richie, Brandi Jackson the Culkins
or Corey Feldman were not.

What the heck made Jordan Chandler so special?

Well one thing certainly did: he had a bipolar violent father who hated his ex-wife and was $60 000 behind in child support, was mad that MJ no longer returned his phone calls and "he didn't have to do that", hated to be a dentist and wanted to make movies for which he didn't have the money, and was on tape talking about a plan that was not just his, he paid people who were waiting for his phone call, he hired the nastiest SOB in town to destroy everyone in sight unless he gets what he wants and he demanded 20 million from MJ on Aug 4 1993 which MJ refused to pay.

Now that makes Jordan Chandler very very special!

No bipolar greedy father behind Lennon or Culkin or Cascio or Jonathan Spence or Emmanuel Lewis.

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Hate for the estate is so strong that I think someone is done suggestion that Michael exposed himself to a boy. And that we all have hearing problems and can't read

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Hate for the estate is so strong that I think someone is done suggestion that Michael exposed himself to a boy. And that we all have hearing problems and can't read

Exactly - What the F?

 

[Bubs]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Hate for the estate is so strong that I think someone is done suggestion that Michael exposed himself to a boy. And that we all have hearing problems and can't read

Once the fake Will theorists understand the truth about MJ's will, the bottom of their existence drops off.
At the end of the day, they only exist to hate executors, MJ means nothing to them.

There are that kind of people that calls themselves MJ fans, but waste no time going on Supporters of Wade Robson and other victims of MJ facebook expressing their liking for Wade and feeling sorry for him.
It doesn't surprise me to find one of them here.

 

[castor]

...Chandler described Michael’s genitals. Can either of you detail how you would persuade a civil trial jury that Michael did not have the opportunity to exposed himself to the child? You may chose to suggest to jurors that Michael’s vitiligo would cause spotting and his religious and cultural background does not dictate circumcision and that most likely influenced the child’s description. Maybe you would like to suggest a conspiracy and his parents influenced the child’s description. Maybe you have another suggestion. Regardless, Feldman reminds the jurors Michael had opportune time to expose himself to the child - repeatedly - and that dictates the child's description. Who does the jury believe? Are you willing to risk Michael’s personal well-being and his full professional career on a 33% chance the jurors will accept your suggestion(s)?

It doesn't matter how many times Feldman would have remined the jurors the fact remains that the description didn't match the photos and one big difference along with
Chandler's interview with Dr. Richard Garner, which would have been in evidence, would have proved that he lied.

1.Chandler claimed MJ was circumcised.
2.Chandler told Dr. Garner that he mastrubated MJ about 10 times:

But he had me masturbate him."
"On how many occasions?"
"About ten.

https://jacksonaktak.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/j-chandler-gardner-interview.pdf

3. Chandler was Jewish and he admitted that he mastrubated on his own. So he knew how a circumcised penis looked and FELT during mastrubation.
4. The foreskin moves during mastrubation like this:
https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=11315
It's simply impossible to miss it!
5. The strip search revealed MJ was not circumcised.
6. The mastrubation part disappears from the post-strip search declaration on Dec 28!

When I make this argument to haters they don't have an answer or something really stupid like
Jordan intentionally lied about the circumcision.

If the mastrubation part was a fabrication why the hell should anyone believe any other part of the story?

Using your logic the Chandlers had the opportunity to plot against MJ, to know that his skin was splotchy and he had vitiligo, to create a molestation story (they both were writers for god's sake, no shortage of vivid imagination and they were helped by their SOB lawyer Barry Rothman who just happened to have some history with child sex abuse claims).
They had the opportunity to demand 20 milliom from MJ and try to extort him.
And since there's no physical evidence, no eyewitness and no other alleged victim but a bunch of other kids saying yes I slept in his room but nothing happened it's more likely than not that the whole thing was extortion not sex abuse.

Your response shows you believed AEG’s strategy as jurors did: the doctor who killed Michael was not conflicted, was competent, and was coerced by an addict.

Actually nowhere did the verdict include that he was not conflicted let alone that he was coerced by an addict.

The reason why AEG was found not liable was that they found Murray competent when AEG hired him. That's it. Everything else after that was Murray's responsibility not AEG's.

There was nothing about coercion or addiction on the verdict form.

For one thing it wasn't even established that MJ was addicted to propofol let alone that he coerced Murray to do anything.
How exactly would he have coerced him anyway? He didn't hold a gun to his head.

 

[ivy]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It would have been a civil trial focusing on sexual abuse so the chances of this child seeing Michael naked (which again I do not believed happened) would most likely not be a one-time event as you continually suggest.

Again, it would most likely not be a one-time event.

if you don't believe it happened why all of your responses sound like not only you think it happened but it was intentional and now multiple times?

As to your point regardless of what Chandler might have claimed - even seeing MJ naked multiple times - doesn't mean the jury would believe it or accept it as fact. Alternative explanations are possible and could have provided enough doubt for the jury.

What you seem to be purposefully missing is the civil trial focused on abuse so there is no action where Michael was naked in the presence of a minor who accused him of horrific acts could conveniently be explained away as you are stating.

no I'm not missing anything. just interestingly you believe a person accused someone of sexual abuse + give a description of them naked = proof of something bad happened. I think there could be many other explanations such as accidentally see the person naked + lie about the abuse = extortion for money attempt.

I still don't get why do you think sexual abuse civil lawsuits are somewhat easier to win. I think the opposite, with no physical evidence and just being a he said versus he said situation, such cases are more like 50-50. I would think that a case like AEG's where there are written contracts, generally accepted HR practices and such would be a lot more clear cut than a sexual abuse claim.

 

[SarahJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Once the fake Will theorists understand the truth about MJ's will, the bottom of their existence drops off.
At the end of the day, they only exist to hate executors, MJ means nothing to them.

There are that kind of people that calls themselves MJ fans, but waste no time going on Supporters of Wade Robson and other victims of MJ facebook expressing their liking for Wade and feeling sorry for him.
It doesn't surprise me to find one of them here.

After reading through the last couple of pages of this thread, I have to agree.

 

[myosotis]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/idK3UAnZj][/URL]

The above item is currently up for auction with Julien's: I thought Michael's added wording was very prescient.

'For animation, create a gull who is a student of Jonathan, who admires Jonathan's flying ability but grows jealous and leaves the (training) to return to the flock to conspire to kill Jonathan Seagull'.

For 'conspire to kill' read 'conspire to kill the reputation of'......

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

http://

The above item is currently up for auction with Julien's: I thought Michael's added wording was very prescient.

'For animation, create a gull who is a student of Jonathan, who admires Jonathan's flying ability but grows jealous and leaves the (training) to return to the flock to conspire to kill Jonathan Seagull'.

For 'conspire to kill' read 'conspire to kill the reputation of'......

How appropriate here!

Also I always think of this:

Always wanting something for nothing
Especially what they don't deserve
Reaching in my pocket
I just got to stop it
Even though they got a lot of nerve

Am I in a bad situation
People taking me to the extreme
They don't use rejection
So I need protection
To keep my equity

(Things I Do For You)

 

[barbee0715]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I already discussed the impact of the civil trial occurring before the criminal trial and how that affected the settlement in previous posts in this thread. If you would like to dismiss Cochran settling the civil trial because he told Michael personally he could not guarantee a win as a somewhat minor factor, tis your choice.

Glad you understand the difference between legal strategy and civil trial purpose. Your response shows you believed AEGs strategy as jurors did: the doctor who killed Michael was not conflicted, was competent, and was coerced by an addict.

I am sorry to take so long to respond, and I feel like I need to respond but reading this has made me both heartsick and speechless. I really don't know what to say.
Re Cochran: if the genital description had been allowed, I would have pointed out the blatant circumcision difference. I would have pointed out the splotch, had Michael roll up a sleeve or pant leg and say that was a lucky guess, based on his obvious skin condition. No match is because Chandler didn't see it. Period.
I also think Michael wanted to be guaranteed a 100% win and Cochran could not do that so they went the settlement route.

Now, re AEG: I did agree that Murray was a competent doctor when he was hired and he had financial problems.

But I have never ever felt that Michael was a drug addict in any way, shape or form (save a brief period in 93 where he told the world) and both the autopsy and the AEG trial proved that I was and always had been correct about that.

 

[Doo Doo Head]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I actually don't know I myself read it on another forum but there is no source

And as Michael said him self. 'You don't need a bed to have sex'!
http://www.lipstickalley.com/showth...Out-With-Related-Kids-To-Avoid-Trouble/page13

Michael has never said this. I think it's just a terrible misquote.

 

[HIStory]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

On a more positive note I'd like to point out this:

UK

Top 100 Sales

#38 Thriller (NE) : 1Wk

Top 100 Streaming

#42 Number Ones (RE) : 4Wks
#48 Bad (+3) 7Wks : New Peak


Top 50 Music DVD'S

#33 Moonwalker (=) 260Wks : (Top 50) : 303Wks (Top 200)
#34 Live At Wembley (+14) 28Wks : (Top 50)

Michael Jackson's 'Thriller' re-enters the Official UK Album Chart at #39 this week, 32 YEARS after release!

The reason why I mention this here is because it just shows how Robson's strategy of bashing Michael in the media with the help of his media buddys won't work in terms of ruining the Estate's business. Michael's artistic legacy is too strong for that. Despite of all the negativity and crap thrown at him last week by Stacy Brown and Co. you have Thriller in the UK Top 40 again and of course Michael's two or three albums always feature on the Billboard 200 as well.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^Hooray!!!!! This is as it should be too!! Always and forever.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate


You can try to stop me, but it won't do a thing
no matter what you do, I'm still gonna be here
Through all your lies and silly games
I'm a still remain the same, I'm unbreakable

 

[Krshna28]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Apart from having to read pages and pages of debates (and some ridiculous arguments)........

Can somebody please tell me what's exactly going on in the trial/hearing thingy.

And are we close to seeing an ending to this?