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

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

"Both drugs and alcohol are also used as a means of seduction, reducing the child's inhibitions for sexual excitement."

Only a very evil and cold person would ply a cancer stricken child with alcohol in order to disable them and molest them. The kind of pedophile that would do something like this is the same kind that would harm their victim after molesting them; The Jefferey Dalmer or Richard Allen Davis type. These offenders are considered the "dangerous" type. Even people who believe that MJ was guilty don't believe that he was this kind of offender.
 
dannyboy72;4089084 said:
"Both drugs and alcohol are also used as a means of seduction, reducing the child's inhibitions for sexual excitement."

Only a very evil and cold person would ply a cancer stricken child with alcohol in order to disable them and molest them. The kind of pedophile that would do something like this is the same kind that would harm their victim after molesting them; The Jefferey Dalmer or Richard Allen Davis type. These offenders are considered the "dangerous" type. Even people who believe that MJ was guilty don't believe that he was this kind of offender.

Especially not if you read how MJ talked about Gavin in 2001.




SB: I said to someone today that the attention you give to children with cancer seems very healing to them. I've seen it. You know when you give that kid attention that you can heal them?
MJ: I love them. I love them.
SB: It's also the fact that you are very famous and suddenly you channel all that attention that you normally get and you stick it onto someone else, and it is like this beam of light. I don't deny that
celebrity can have a restorative effect, but if often has a very corrosive effect.
Do you try to use your celebrity to help these kids?
MJ: I love them so much. They are my children, too. I remember we were in Australia and we were
in this children-with-cancer ward and I started giving toys. And I'll never forget this one boy who was
like eleven and when I got to his bed he said "It's amazing how just seeing you I feel so much better. I really do." I said "Well, that's so sweet". That's what he said and I have never forgotten it. It's amazing and
that's what we are supposed to do.
SB: Your devotion to Gavin is impressive. I have spoken about it in a thousand forums now. That was one of their nicest things I have seen. That you tried to help him and his family.
MJ: He's special. I spoke to Gavin last night and he said "Michael, you don't know how it hurts me, it hurts" He started to cry on the phone and he said I know you understand how it feels. It hurts so bad, I said
"Well how many more do you have?" He said "Maybe four. But the doctor said maybe more after that".
It took his eyebrows and his hair. We are so lucky aren't we?
SB: Do you feel that when you speak to people like Gavin, part of the pain goes away for them?
MJ: Absolutely. Because every time I talk to him he is in better spirits. When I spoke to him last night he said "I need you. When are you coming home?" I said "I don't know" He said "I need you Michael"
Then he calls me Dad. I said "You better ask your dad if it is ok to call me that" He shouts "Dad, is it ok if I call Michael dad?" and he says "Yes no problem whatever you want" Kids always do that. It makes me feel happy that they feel that comfortable.
SB: Do you feel like a universal father to children, that you have this ability to love them and appreciate them in a way that others don't?
MJ: I always feel that I don't want the parents to get jealous because it always happens and it rubs fathers in a strange way. Not as much as the mothers. I always say to the Dads "I am not trying to take your place. I am just trying to help and I want to be your friend" The kids just end up falling in love with my personality. Sometimes it gets me into trouble, but I am just there to help.
SB: I asked you what parents can learn from children and you identified a few things -- love and fun innocence, joy. What other things can we learn from children? For example, when you are around Gavin what do you learn from him? Are you just there to help a child who has cancer? What do you get from the experience? Is it just you showing pity, compassion for a child who is in trouble? Or do you feel this is the reason you are alive?
MJ: I feel that this is something really, really in my heart that I am supposed to do and I feel so loved by giving my love, and I know that's what they need. I have heard doctors, and his doctors, say it is a miracle how he is doing better and that's why I know this magic of love is important. He got cheated out of his childhood and I think I can reflect on a lot of that because of my past. When you were ten you weren't thinking about heaven and how you are going to die and he is thinking about all of that.
I had little Ryan White in my dining room telling this mother at the table "Mother when you bury me, I don't want to be in a suit and tie" He said "Don't put me in a suit and tie. I want to be in jeans and a T-shirt". I said "Exuse me. I have to go to the bathroom" And I ran to the bathroom and I cried. Imagine a 12-year old boy telling his mother how to bury him. That's what I heard him say. How could your heart not go out fo someone like that?
SB: Since you were deprived of that childhood and now you are trying to confer it as a gift to all these children, do you heal yourself through that?
MJ: Yes, yes I do. Yes I do. Because that's everything. I need that to keep living. Do you see what Gavin wrote in the guest book about his hat? It's a sweet story.
SB: I have told that story all over the world.
MJ: I like giving them that love that pride to feel that they belong and they are special. He was hiding and he was ashamed that he had a bald head and he had cancer. Everybody has made him feel like an outcast and that's how he came here and I want him to let go. He is such a beautiful child, he doesn't need that hat. I told him "You look just like an angel. Your voice sounds like an angel. As far as I am concerned you are an angel. What are you ashamed of?"
MJ: Adults appreciate me artistically as a singer and a songwriter and a dancer and a performer, What is he like? Who is he? He's weird and he sleeps in an oxygen chamber and all those crazy horrific stories that people made up that had nothing to do with me.
SB: The children see right through that and they reciprocate your love. I saw that with Gavin.
MJ: They just want to have some fun and to give love and have love and they just want to be loved and held.

http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books-jetzi-04/tape/tape106.html

You read this and then you read why they arrested him
"The mere fact of forty-five-year-old Jackson’s three-year-long interest in the adolescent Gavin is corroborating in itself; it would strike a reasonable person as grossly abnormal."
and it just just boils your blood how rotten people can be.
This guy poured his heart out and he got crucified for it.

It reminds me of what David Nordhal said about MJ: It's just such a shame someone who means so well is so persecuted, why is that I wonder?

And you think about the story of him crying over the memory of sick kids in hospitals when he was only 14, and crying while watching starving kids and telling his mom when I grow up I'm gonna do something about this and that tape with him talking about building a children's hospitals and you realize that he never changed, no matter how old he was he always wanted to help suffering kids.


Of course if these tapes had been played in court Arvizo would have just rewritten history and say that MJ didn't help me that much at all.
I suppose that's why he bombarded him with cards and letters after they left the ranch calling him daddy Michael and that's why he threw a tantrum in March 2003 because he couldn't be in Neverland anymore.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

So no word yet??
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

So no word yet??


No, still waiting

323178d1419563881t-ultimate-leak-waiting-room-waiting.jpg
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I was thinking about all the contradictory reports about what Chandler actually said in his so-called description and it hit me that
not one includes anything about ANY actual physical features regarding size or shape.

Only things which could be concluded based on the fact that he was a black dude suffering from vitiligo who had very little body hair.

If someone sees a male genitalia "from every possible angle" multiple times as Ray Chandler's book states
he or she should know things like the area of the glans covered by the foreskin, the size and shape of the area covered with public hair,
the size of the penis and the scrotum and their ratio.

If you look a these two uncircumcised guys you will understand what I mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_reproductive_system#/media/File:Flaccid_penis_cropped.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis#/media/File:Penis_Flaccid.jpg

They are totally different.


Chandler claimed that they took a bath together naked which means he saw MJ's placid penis, he can't say oh I only saw him in an erect state, that's ridiculous.
He absolutely should have known whether his penis was longer than his scrotum and whether one or the other testicle was lower than the other and
he should have known the shape of the area covered with hair.

Still he said nothing about those things.


As for Robson and Safechuck, the fact that the best evidence they could present is the dubious words of three tabloid whores (Francia, Micheals and the Quindoys)
whom every competent lawyer could discredit in two seconds pretty much proves that they have no proof at all.
And that's astonishing given how many times they talked on the phone with MJ. There is not one incriminating recorded phone call?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yeah, I've always wondered how comes the most obvious thing - the size and length, was never mentioned by them.

That's something you'd think anyone would be asked, if this whole thing were being taken down by police and was considered a serious real thing.

They did it with some of the minor celebs who were being accused of being pedophiles in the UK.

And even Gavin tried to come up with some BS about his size - claiming MJ was 5 inches when erect, which interestingly enough, didn't warrant a police search. As though Sneddon knew there was no way that could be true and didn't bother. It's not like he didn't seek to humiliate him otherwise. But he must've known that humiliating MJ would only serve to humiliate himself.
 
la_cienega;4089324 said:
And even Gavin tried to come up with some BS about his size - claiming MJ was 5 inches when erect, which interestingly enough, didn't warrant a police search. As though Sneddon knew there was no way that could be true and didn't bother. It's not like he didn't seek to humiliate him otherwise. But he must've known that humiliating MJ would only serve to humiliate himself.

Didn't Gavin say he did not see MJ's penis? I think they made sure that Gavin did not have to "remember" MJ's penis. He did not claim for example that he had to perform oral sex on MJ. And of course the whole alcohol thing was convinient - that way he could claim not to remember such details.

Maybe somewhere earlier during his police interviews he made such a claim about 5 inches (anyone who's ever seen the Gold Pants will find that claim ridiculous) but of course because Sneddon knew the pics from 1993 he would know that's very much off, so later they rather formed his story so that he did not have to "remember" MJ's penis.


Castor wrote:

Displaying to potential victims?
It somehow didn't hit them that neither Chandler not Francia ever mentioned such magazines, neither did any person , adult or child who have ever been in Neverland (and it's a sure thing the tabloids would have loved a story about MJ and his porn collection).
Also, Star Arvizo also claimed that MJ showed him porn magazines, how does that fit into the theory that
he showed porn to lower his victim's inhibition? Star Arvizo was his victim too?

The whole claim with MJ keeping porn magazines to groom victims with them never made sense to me. As well as the Arvizos story about it never made sense to me. Supposedly the whole goal of that is to lower the inhibitations of victims and arousing them before molesting them. The Arvizos story was that MJ allegedly showed them porn magazines two times. The brothers contradicted each other on several details of the story though:


  • Gavin claimed the first occasion happened on the same day they got back from Miami (February 7) and the second occasion about two weeks later. Star claimed the first time happened “after the Calabasas hotel” which would be after March 2 and the second occasion was “a few days later”.
  • About the first occasion Gavin claimed that Jackson told them the briefcase that contained the material was Frank Cascio’s and he made fun of Cascio while showing them the magazines. Star claimed Jackson did not make any comments while showing them the material.
  • About the second occasion Gavin claimed they went through the full content of the briefcase (“we saw, like, practically everything”) and the whole thing lasted about 30 minutes to one hour. Star claimed they saw only about three or four magazines.
  • About the first occasion Star first claimed the briefcase was open when they first saw it, then later in his testimony he claimed it was closed.

Gavin claimed MJ told them it were Frank Cascio's magazines and made fun of him:

9 Q. Now, when you first saw the suitcase, where
10 was it in that room.
11 A. It was next to -- it was to the left of that
12 couch thing.
13 Q. And did you ever see Mr. Jackson pick up the
14 Exhibit 470.
15 A. Yeah, like I was hanging out with him in
16 there, and he was like putting on his makeup or
17 something, I don’t know. And then he -- he grabbed
18 the -- grabbed the suitcase, and then he told me --
19 he told me it was Frank’s. And he showed me, he was
20 like, “This is” --
21 Q. Okay. Well, what did he show you.
22 A. He was, like, “Look at the” -- “Look at this
23 stuff. Frank’s stinking a-s-s.” Frank’s
24 stinking -- it was S- -- Frank’s stinking ass.
25 Q. All right. What was inside the suitcase.
26 A. Adult materials.

Both occasions are described as MJ showing them magazines and then putting them away and nothing further happening. But that does not make any sense as grooming or as how pedophiles usually use such magazines - ie. to arouse boys. How does it make it sense as "grooming" when MJ supposedly told Gavin the magazines were Frank's and made fun of him for those? How does it make it sense as arousing when supposedly MJ just showed them a couple of magazines and then put them away and nothing further happened on those occasions? Pedophiles use such magazines to arouse kids in order to be able to molest them. Gavin did not claim that MJ showed him magazines to arouse him right before allegedly molesting him. The magazine stories were totally independent from his alleged molestations. Gavin claimed MJ showed them the mags some time in early-mid February but the molestations happened according to him towards the end of their stay at NL, some time in March. The story does not make any sense as grooming and arousing.

You know how the story makes a lot more sense? If we take Michael's version for it. The Defense said that Michael never showed them anything, in actuality he once caught the Arvizo kids going through that briefcase and took the magazines away from them and then locked them in the briefcase. In that context it would make a lot more sense if MJ told Gavin they were Frank's (to distance himself from them in front of kids) and it would make a lot more sense for MJ to make remarks about how this was a bad thing and "stinking" or something like that (not necessarily exactly the way Gavin represents it, but something similar). As grooming and arousing those remarks do not make any sense. They only make sense if MJ indeed took away the magazines from the Arvizos instead of showing them.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I cannot believe judge hasn't given his ruling yet!
I started to think whether judge said "I'll give ruling in next few days" at all?
Maybe that was work of imagination of Radar staff who wrote it?
17 days has come and cone, but we are still waiting?
Maybe he gives his ruling the same time when he decides demurrer on 30th June?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

And even Gavin tried to come up with some BS about his size - claiming MJ was 5 inches when erect,

When did he say that?
Not during his testimony for sure.
Actually in the Statement of probable cause it is said that Gavin never saw MJ's penis.


The brothers contradicted each other on several details of the story though:


Could you show the links for those statements?
Exactly when and where did the brothers say those contradictory things about the magazines?
 
Last edited:
Could you show the links for those statements?
Exactly when and where did the brothers say those contradictory things about the magazines?

It's in their court testimonies. Read those parts from Gavin's testimony first, then from Star's and put them next to each other. You will see the difference.

ETA:

Gavin claimed the first occasion happened on the same day they got back from Miami (February 7) and the second occasion about two weeks later. Star claimed the first time happened “after the Calabasas hotel” which would be after March 2 and the second occasion was “a few days later”.

Gavin:


11 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to the first time
12 you saw it downstairs - okay. - in that room that
13 you described where he puts his makeup on, things
14 like that, do you remember whether that occurred
15 before or after Calabasas.
16 A. Well, while we were in there. That was
17 like --
18 Q. The first time.
19 A. Me and Michael only. When he showed me the
20 thing I said about Frank.
21 Q. Right.
22 A. Okay. That was like the same day that we
23 got back -- no. Yeah, the same night we got back
24 from Miami.

25 Q. All right. What about the second incident
26 where you were upstairs. When was that in
27 relationship to Calabasas.
28 A. A few weeks -- a week later, probably, or 1645
1 two weeks.

Star:

7 Q. Tell us what happened.
8 A. Just walked in the room and it was open. It
9 was -- there used to be a couch right there.
10 Q. Yeah.
11 A. And -- well, it wasn’t really a couch. It
12 was like a chair. And it was on there, and it was
13 open.
14 Q. All right. And then what happened.
15 A. Michael just started to show us magazines.
16 Q. You say “show” you. Tell us what he did.
17 A. He handed them to us.
18 Q. All right. And did you look at them.
19 A. Yes, with him.
20 Q. And did you look at them one at a time or
21 did everybody have a different one at a different
22 time. How did it happen. Tell us what happened.
23 A. We all looked at them one at a time.
24 Q. Did anybody make any comments about
25 anything.
26 A. No.
27 Q. Do you remember how many of them you saw.
28 A. A couple. 1154
1 Q. How long was it that you were there going
2 through them.
3 A. I don’t know. Probably ten minutes.

4 Q. Now, when did that take place, when you saw
5 these for the first -- that suitcase for the first
6 time.
7 A. When.
8 Q. Yeah.
9 A. I think after the Calabasas hotel.

[...]

11 Q. Do you recall how many -- how much time
12 elapsed between the first time you saw the materials
13 downstairs till the time you saw them upstairs.
14 A. A few days.


About the first occasion Gavin claimed that Jackson told them the briefcase that contained the material was Frank Cascio’s and he made fun of Cascio while showing them the magazines. Star claimed Jackson did not make any comments while showing them the material.

Gavin:

9 Q. Now, when you first saw the suitcase, where
10 was it in that room.
11 A. It was next to -- it was to the left of that
12 couch thing.
13 Q. And did you ever see Mr. Jackson pick up the
14 Exhibit 470.
15 A. Yeah, like I was hanging out with him in
16 there, and he was like putting on his makeup or
17 something, I don’t know. And then he -- he grabbed
18 the -- grabbed the suitcase, and then he told me --
19 he told me it was Frank’s. And he showed me, he was
20 like, “This is” --
21 Q. Okay. Well, what did he show you.
22 A. He was, like, “Look at the” -- “Look at this
23 stuff. Frank’s stinking a-s-s.” Frank’s
24 stinking -- it was S- -- Frank’s stinking ass.
25 Q. All right. What was inside the suitcase.
26 A. Adult materials.

Star:

14 Q. All right. And then what happened.
15 A. Michael just started to show us magazines.
16 Q. You say “show” you. Tell us what he did.
17 A. He handed them to us.
18 Q. All right. And did you look at them.
19 A. Yes, with him.
20 Q. And did you look at them one at a time or
21 did everybody have a different one at a different
22 time. How did it happen. Tell us what happened.
23 A. We all looked at them one at a time.
24 Q. Did anybody make any comments about
25 anything.
26 A. No.



About the second occasion Gavin claimed they went through the full content of the briefcase (“we saw, like, practically everything”) and the whole thing lasted about 30 minutes to one hour. Star claimed they saw only about three or four magazines.


Gavin:

16 Q. And do you recall, where in the bedroom was
17 the suitcase when you first saw it that time.
18 A. The first time I saw it, it was in the rest
19 room kind of thing. And then the second time we --
20 I don’t know if we brought it up there or, like,
21 Michael brought it up there or something. I don’t
22 know. But it was up next to his bed. And we were
23 all going through the thing and we were making fun
24 of Frank.
25 Q. Did you look at the magazines.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. How many magazines do you think you saw.
28 A. We saw, like, practically everything, but 1644
1 there was a few we didn’t look at.

2 Q. How much time do you figure you were looking
3 at all those things.
4 A. 30 minutes to an hour, probably.
5 Q. Did Mr. Jackson make any comments during the
6 time -- other than the ones you’ve talked about, any
7 other comments that he made at any of the
8 photographs or the magazines.
9 A. Not really. We just were, like, making fun
10 of Frank.

Star:

13 Q. And then what.
14 A. He pulled the magazine out and started
15 showing us.
16 Q. How many magazines do you think you saw that
17 time.
18 A. Four. Three. I don’t know.
19 Q. Did you look through the entire magazines.
20 A. No. It was probably a section or something
21 like that.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Looks like TM missed a lot of things in his closing argument.

He never made this argument and he didn't mention the changing number of molestions either.
He never mentioned that initially Star Arvizo also claimed he was molested.

He never referred to the Statement of Probably Cause either, even thought several elements there contradicted the Arvizo's later claims.

In case the Robson case goes to trial I sure would want to see a lawyers who uses every bit of ammunition against Arvizo, if he shows up to testify.
There are so many things to discredit that bastard it's ridiculous.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Looks like TM missed a lot of things in his closing argument.

He never made this argument and he didn't mention the changing number of molestions either.
He never mentioned that initially Star Arvizo also claimed he was molested.

He never referred to the Statement of Probably Cause either, even thought several elements there contradicted the Arvizo's later claims.

In case the Robson case goes to trial I sure would want to see a lawyers who uses every bit of ammunition against Arvizo, if he shows up to testify.
There are so many things to discredit that bastard it's ridiculous.



Yet he still was acquitted damn
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Actually, I notice that Gavin does not say the second occasion was one-two weeks after Miami, but one-two weeks after Calabasas (which is even later):

25 Q. All right. What about the second incident
26 where you were upstairs. When was that in
27 relationship to Calabasas.
28 A. A few weeks -- a week later, probably, or 1645
1 two weeks.


Now, the Arvizos came back from the Calabasas hotel on March 2 and they left NL for good on March 12. So this would put this second occasion around March 9-12, the very last days of their stay at NL.

So acc. to Star only a few days elapsed between the first time and the second time:

11 Q. Do you recall how many -- how much time
12 elapsed between the first time you saw the materials
13 downstairs till the time you saw them upstairs.
14 A. A few days.


But in Gavin's account more than a month elapsed between the first time (February 7) and the second time (March 9-12).

Also, if this second occasion happened during their last days at NL, did MJ molest him first and only then groomed him with showing him porn? LOL.

BTW, MJ wasn't at NL on March 7-8 and possibly March 6.

Moreover phone logs presented by the prosecution towards the end of the presentation of their side of the case inadvertently revealed that in early March Jackson stayed a few days at the Beverly Hilton hotel using the pseudonym Kenneth Morgan (as celebrities often use pseudonyms to avoid attention). From the logs it appears he was there at least on March 7-8, but possibly also on March 6, while the Arvizos were at Neverland.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

btw, istnt it "symbolic" that the ruling of Robsons case is so close to the verdict in 2005? I personally dont see it only symbolic..., its something more imo, I simply cant get rid of the conspiracy thought. Too many coincidences! The judge has given too many chances to Cock.son and Selff*ck, repeatedly.
The similarities are shocking!
The 10 year period:
1993-2003 (Orpah interview vs. LWMJ)
2003-2013 (Number Ones album vs. CdS)
2005-2015 (verdict vs. "new trial")


5ac1e2527c4e858ac0f279f57596822c.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Rereading all this Arvizo and Chandler stuff drives me crazy. The Chandler case is full of contradictions because it's not true. The Arvizo case is full of contradictions because it's not true. That's why Michael wasn't charged with Chandler and not convicted with Arvizo.
Robson and Safechuck are full of contradictions because they're not true.


I cannot believe judge hasn't given his ruling yet!
I started to think whether judge said "I'll give ruling in next few days" at all?
Maybe that was work of imagination of Radar staff who wrote it?
17 days has come and cone, but we are still waiting?

I'm sick of this taking so long!!! Physically and mentally sick. I think this is absurd now. It's time to end this.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I cannot believe judge hasn't given his ruling yet!
I started to think whether judge said "I'll give ruling in next few days" at all?
Maybe that was work of imagination of Radar staff who wrote it?
17 days has come and cone, but we are still waiting?
Maybe he gives his ruling the same time when he decides demurrer on 30th June?

The quotes from the judge are not coming from Radar Online. There are coming from this article:

http://mynewsla.com/hollywood/2015/...leging-sex-abuse-by-michael-jackson-in-1990s/

To my knwoledge it was the only media report after the hearing. Could it be that the judge did allready the ruling, but nobody is reporting ?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I'm sick of this taking so long!!! Physically and mentally sick. I think this is absurd now. It's time to end this.

I'm now the same way. That judge is gotta be an idiot and I believe he's just doing this on purpose to make us wait even more which is causing us frustrations. How infuriating!!!
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The quotes from the judge are not coming from Radar Online. There are coming from this article:

http://mynewsla.com/hollywood/2015/...leging-sex-abuse-by-michael-jackson-in-1990s/

To my knwoledge it was the only media report after the hearing. Could it be that the judge did allready the ruling, but nobody is reporting ?

Thanks Annita. That same quote was in radar article too, so there must have been at least two people who heard judge saying that he gives his ruling in next few days, so it is not imagination then.
I went to check online news in case judge has taken ill on even worse because we are still waiting:)
He seems to be very much well and alive as he is involved with other cases too.

If he posted a ruling, I think that Dylan Howard and Daily Fail wouldn't have waited to post some rubbish article of how MJ got away because time limits and poor Wade have to live with his condition (whatever that might be).

Ps, see what I did there, to me there is no option that judge gives green light to Wade.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I'm sick of this taking so long!!! Physically and mentally sick. I think this is absurd now. It's time to end this.

I'm now the same way. That judge is gotta be an idiot and I believe he's just doing this on purpose to make us wait even more which is causing us frustrations. How infuriating!!!

first of all please relax. Normally this would take 2-4 weeks and even longer at times. So it's normal for it to take this long. The only reason we waited for a decision earlier because media claimed judge said he would rule soon. again it's normal.

Could it be that the judge did allready the ruling, but nobody is reporting ?



I went to check online news in case judge has taken ill on even worse because we are still waiting:)
He seems to be very much well and alive as he is involved with other cases too.

If he posted a ruling,

We can check the case summary which should at least show that there is an order filed - there is nothing on the case summary as of today. I guess one possibility is that judge might have ruled and notified the parties but it did not show up on the system yet. court system isn't perfect and at times it is delayed to show the developments. Plus how fast the media reports depends on if the media is waiting for it in real time - meaning waiting at the court house or not. Radar has always reported everything a few days to a week later. TMZ is they follow a case and report stuff as it happens but I don't think they follow this case that closely. Remember safechuck case, court system showed judge's ruling but it took 7 days before any media reported on it. so long story short, perhaps the judge ruled but the only reason we don't know it is because it isn't showing on the court system and/or media isn't following the developments closely.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^I know, and thank you for the calming words. But it just feels like this agony has been going on for 22 years and it has. I just can't relax any more.:(
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^I know, and thank you for the calming words. But it just feels like this agony has been going on for 22 years and it has. I just can't relax any more.:(

You're right. It just seems never ending. MJ has been gone now nearly six years, and still there's this nonsense. Just thought or had this fantasy that the only time I'd hear anything else about molestation and MJ, is that one of his former accusers would come forth and finally tell the truth. Never ever thought it would be just the opposite.

But I do think we can remain completely positive about the judge's decision on this.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

IMO, the judge will rule in the Estates favour, but will allow WR to set up the case against the MJs companies, which will be in the end pointless, even if the trial was allowed, there is no way how Wade would "succeed and win the trial" this way.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

IMO, the judge will rule in the Estates favour, but will allow WR to set up the case against the MJs companies, which will be in the end pointless, even if the trial was allowed, there is no way how Wade would "succeed and win the trial" this way.

What are you talking about?
If he allows the case against the companies the trial would be pretty much the same : the issue would still be whether Wade was molested or not even if technically they should decide whether the companies indeed knew about the abuse and
facilitated it.

What makes you think that the judge will allow the case against the companies?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Not sure why people are getting so stressed out about the judges decision, it doesn't end here, it will still go on for awhile.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Not sure why people are getting so stressed out about the judges decision, it doesn't end here, it will still go on for awhile.

It doesn't end here, but it is still an important decision. Actually, the probate case would end here. Robson would only have his lawsuit against the companies left. Which I do not see how could go to court if the probate case does not. The probate decision also gives us an idea of the judge's leanings. Of course, whatever the decision is there will be probably appeals from the losing side etc, but make no mistake this IS an important decision.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Not sure why people are getting so stressed out about the judges decision, it doesn't end here, it will still go on for awhile.
For me, personally, I feel if the judge rules against Robson and with the right reasons, the whole thing , inc Safechuck, company claims, appeals, etcetera will fall like a house of cards.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

For me, personally, I feel if the judge rules against Robson and with the right reasons, the whole thing , inc Safechuck, company claims, appeals, etcetera will fall like a house of cards.

Yes. And if there is a decision in favour of Robson then we will know that the US justice system once again let MJ down after 1993 (the Judge not letting the civil case being pushed back behind the criminal) and 2005 (the whole joke of a search warrant and an indictment with such an incredibly ridiculous case).

I think the decision should be in favour of the Estate, but with the US justice system you never know. I'm always prepared for it throwing a curve at us. I am kind of used to it when it comes to MJ. :(
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

What are you talking about?
If he allows the case against the companies the trial would be pretty much the same : the issue would still be whether Wade was molested or not even if technically they should decide whether the companies indeed knew about the abuse and
facilitated it.

What makes you think that the judge will allow the case against the companies?

Not quite the same trial.
The content and the defendant would be different, imo.
How could the entity like MJJ Production have known if WR had been molested by MJ, the person?, the trial wouldnt be about MJ but the company, and not about proving the abuse by the company, and the judge would have to exclude many issues and questions concerning MJ as the person and a posibble molester... because he would not be the defendant and the one who was convicted of anything, imo.
On the contrary..., imo, it would be easier to defend MJ this way.

If I am mistaken... well, I will just sit and wait...
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Didn't Gavin say he did not see MJ's penis? I think they made sure that Gavin did not have to "remember" MJ's penis. He did not claim for example that he had to perform oral sex on MJ. And of course the whole alcohol thing was convinient - that way he could claim not to remember such details.

Maybe somewhere earlier during his police interviews he made such a claim about 5 inches (anyone who's ever seen the Gold Pants will find that claim ridiculous) but of course because Sneddon knew the pics from 1993 he would know that's very much off, so later they rather formed his story so that he did not have to "remember" MJ's penis.

I looked it up, and it was Star in one of the police interviews.

They did claim that they saw MJ naked remember - that time they claimed MJ ran into the room or out of the room naked or with socks on or saying something or not saying something, they couldn't decide, but that's where they claimed he had an erection and was naked in front of them, and why Star claimed MJ was about 5 inches erect.
 
Back
Top