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

[Bubs]

personally I don't think companies consider such specifics and for most of them allegations alone is enough to not work with people. I mean look to Cosby example. Allegations itself was enough for several firms to drop the upcoming tv shows etc they had with him. The companies did not sit down and think "ah he isn't being sued so it's okay" or "he hasn't been found guilty so it's okay". Same could be an example for MJ as well. Almost all of MJ's endorsement , partnership deals ended in 1993 demonstrating merely an accusation is enough for companies to act on. Sure verdicts and settlements etc will have some effect but I don't think it would be such an extreme effect. For example when Jeep decided to use MJ's music in their commercial they knew he had been accused and settled, accused and tried and found not guilty and there was a pending allegation against him.

I'm with Myosotis on this, but just a comment about deals that the estate may or may not be able to do if there is settlement. I actually didn't mean that it would totally be dead end for that kind of deals, but I think it sets them back for good few years in terms what they can do or cannot do.

You are right about that Jeep thingy, they did go ahead with their campaign with MJ's song even though Wade had already made his allegations, but would they have done it if the estate had settled?

Question, what was the reason MJ didn't have endorsements for TII (it was brought up it AEG trial)?

I would fight for MJ to my last breath. I hope that the Estate will too.

Me too:ciao:

In Branca's website, there read this bit:
Preserving and Enhancing Michael Jackson’s Legacy

If there is a settlement, that is not by any means preserving and enhancing Michael's legacy. I'm optimistic, so I'm expecting him to stand behind his words.

Anyways, to me settlement doesn't make any sense.

 

[LastTear]

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

We have not seen any evidence that the estate is even considering a settlement other than the rumours that have been spread by the estate haters, the same people who firmly believed that Robson's claims initially were a big plot by AEG to downgrade Michael's 'worth' and deflect attention from the trial.

 

[Bubs]

We have not seen any evidence that the estate is even considering a settlement other than the rumours that have been spread by the estate haters, the same people who firmly believed that Robson's claims initially were a big plot by AEG to downgrade Michael's 'worth' and deflect attention from the trial.

True, the whole speculation comes from TMezz, and I'm not happy with him at all.
This is what they said:
Famed attorney, Howard Weitzman, representing the Estate of Michael Jackson​, told Radar, “There are no settlement discussions with Mr. Robson nor do we anticipate any ever taking place.”

I suppose we get anxious and frustrated while waiting judge to throw out this rubbish claim, we have nothing else to do than join TMezz and speculate "what if's":blush:


Ps, nice to see your back on board

 

[LastTear]

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

And correct my memory but didn't Weitzman make that statement after TMez said what he said some time ago?

Lets just hope the judge declines the request for a trial. In my mind it's quite a difficult thing to defend someone who isn't here to defend themselves, I guess if it comes to it all they can do is dismantle and discredit the accusers.

 

[Bubs]

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

Yeah, they re-released that same statement after TMess speculations.

 

[ivy]

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

I'm with Myosotis on this, but just a comment about deals that the estate may or may not be able to do if there is settlement. I actually didn't mean that it would totally be dead end for that kind of deals, but I think it sets them back for good few years in terms what they can do or cannot do.

and I mostly agree with this. Just to clarify : I did not mean to say a settlement and/or a liable verdict would have no effect. It would. I just don't think it would be so extreme. unfortunately Michael endured the worst of it during his lifetime.

 

[Doo Doo Head]

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

Still nothing... ? I'd just like to remind people that a settlement should be impossible, according to Wade himself at least. In an interview he said he would never go away or be silenced "for the sake of money". :shifty:

 

[HIStory]

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

Still nothing... ? I'd just like to remind people that a settlement should be impossible, according to Wade himself at least. In an interview he said he would never go away or be silenced "for the sake of money". :shifty:

Oh, yeah, this is about speaking "his truth" as loud as he can. Which is why he asked the case to be kept under seal citing the privacy interests of the Defendant. And which is why he is making struggle attempts to somehow find a way to blame MJ's companies while he does not blame his mother. It's clear to see this is not about money. :smilerolleyes:

 

[Bubs]

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

Oh, yeah, this is about speaking "his truth" as loud as he can. Which is why he asked the case to be kept under seal citing the privacy interests of the Defendant. And which is why he is making struggle attempts to somehow find a way to blame MJ's companies while he does not blame his mother. It's clear to see this is not about money. :smilerolleyes:

and thats why I really would like to hear judges decision so we can start mullin' over the next step, and how Wade is going to go around that according to his claim, MJ set up company for just to molest him, and his staff was aware of it, but not Wade's mom that was driving Wade to MJ "whenever he was summoned" to visit:smilerolleyes:

I swear, these people around MJ are like some sort of soap opera people and to think that court system is even entertaining their ideas and allowing them to take space in the court system:bugeyed

 

[HIStory]

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

and thats why I really would like to hear judges decision so we can start mullin' over the next step, and how Wade is going to go around that according to his claim, MJ set up company for just to molest him, and his staff was aware of it, but not Wade's mom that was driving Wade to MJ "whenever he was summoned" to visit:smilerolleyes:

Yep, he went as far as setting up a company just to be able to molest Wade. Even though he actually did not need that company because Joy Robson freely and voluntarily took Wade to him even before that company existed. And in fact it was Joy who bugged him about getting theim green cards and to take them to the US.

And founding a company for what? To meet Wade once or twice a year for a couple of days each? Because that's about the amount of time MJ and Wade spent together. Which could have easily been done without a company too. And all that fuss, and then when they are on the set of Jam MJ does not even meet Wade outside of the set. Joy Robson herself told in various interviews how Michael was not really present in their life and how they had to do everything themselves. But yeah, he founded a company just to be able to be with Wade, except he did not spend that much time with Wade.

Such a ridiculous tale.

 

[barbee0715]

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

^^well one good thing if the judge doesn't dismiss it (which better happen) is that all their old interviews, depositions and testimony dispute everything they say now. And a lot of that is on film with no outside encouragement.

 

[Hess]

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

No news?

Any court day? - or when will this be dismissed??

 

[ivy]

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

No news?

Any court day? - or when will this be dismissed??

no one can answer that, judge can take as much time as he needs and we have no choice but to wait.

 

[Bubs]

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

Yep, he went as far as setting up a company just to be able to molest Wade. Even though he actually did not need that company because Joy Robson freely and voluntarily took Wade to him even before that company existed. And in fact it was Joy who bugged him about getting theim green cards and to take them to the US.

And founding a company for what? To meet Wade once or twice a year for a couple of days each? Because that's about the amount of time MJ and Wade spent together. Which could have easily been done without a company too. And all that fuss, and then when they are on the set of Jam MJ does not even meet Wade outside of the set. Joy Robson herself told in various interviews how Michael was not really present in their life and how they had to do everything themselves. But yeah, he founded a company just to be able to be with Wade, except he did not spend that much time with Wade.

Such a ridiculous tale.

That setting up a company just for getting job for Joy so they could proceed with visa is stupid. Michael had other companies, so he could have given Joy some sort of job in those companies if he wanted. There was no need to set up brand new company just for Joy, so those companies in question were set up because they were really needed.

That just shows how full of himself Wade is. He thinks he so important that MJ set up brand new company just to be able to molest him, but then again, Safejunk claimed Michael married him, which no one else has claimed, so they are all loonies:smilerolleyes:

 

[HIStory]

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

^ I feel Safechuck is overdoing it the most. He is going out of his way to include every tabloid myth there is (even if no other accuser has ever claimed those before, only tabloids - eg. the whole "secret closet" myth) and taking elements from past allegations is not enough for him but he is taking them to another level. Eg. now heterosexual porn is not enough, he felt the need to claim child porn - even though not one piece of child porn has ever been found in MJ's possession after extensive house searches with an army of police officers in both 1993 and 2003 and even though no other accuser has ever claimed that. Little Jimmy is being a bit too over-zealous in constructing these allegations IMO.

 

[Soundmind]

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

I agree with respect, even his claim that MJ used to call him to ask him about his sex life in late years was copied from Chopra's son story that MJ called him before his marriage to Lisa Marie to ask for sex advice. Obviously he tried to use media stories to build his case.

 

[barbee0715]

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

^^And doesn't his wedding story come from the fact they were photographed in a jewelry store back in the day. It's just so easy to see through.

 

[HIStory]

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

^^And doesn't his wedding story come from the fact they were photographed in a jewelry store back in the day. It's just so easy to see through.

Who knows, but yes, that's what I thought of immediately too. That was a big story at the time even shown on TV, so I guess he wanted to use that story too now to link it to alleged wrongdoings.

Also he goes out of his way to place preemtive measures in his story. Which only make it sound stupid. Eg. this whole thing about Michael making him practice how to dress up quickly (why didn't he do that with other boys?) He apparently needs to claim this to explain why no one ever saw anything even though there were cousins and friends with him at NL. Or the whole closet thing. Why the heck would MJ need that closet to molest him when they were supposedly sleeping in the same bed all the time anyway? It is clear he just wanted to include this because this was in the tabloids and he feels that including such things would "support" his story. Or MJ supposedly was so paranoid about being found out that he messed up Jimmy's bed to make it look like Jimmy slept there, but then the same paranoid MJ had no qualms to openly and voluntarily speak about sharing bed with kids on national TV. How does that make sense? Was he super secretive about it even in front of house staff or was he totally open about it on national TV? Also, supposedly he was that paranoid, but then supposedly Blanca Francia conveniently always managed to walk in on him while being in bed with kids with nude upper bodies.

 

[barbee0715]

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

^^I remember seeing the story back then. It seems to me that the two of them and their attys took every interview, news story or garbage tabloid junk and twisted it up in order for the judge to take it seriously, but the stories ended up sounding totally incredible.

That's another reason I'm annoyed that the judge is taking so long.

 

[la_cienega]

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

I think it's more likely he took it from Mesereau asking a witness if they remembered Safechuck getting married at Neverland, something the haters were obsessed with, and which was mentioned heavily all over the site they linked to Safechuck via facebook.

It was Spence who got married at Neverland and Mesereau had just been mistaken, but I think that's why Safechuck latched onto it.

And Safechuck took the idea of childporn from the haters too, because of those two books, and then the stories those liars resold to tabloids claiming they'd seen it and that MJ would play it in the theaters.

But yeah, I don't know why a real victim would need to use so many lies in their story. Why not tell the truth, even if it doesn't match up with a story some proven liar claimed for money years before?

 

[castor]

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

And Safechuck took the idea of childporn from the haters too, because of those two books, and then the stories those liars resold to tabloids claiming they'd seen it and that MJ would play it in the theaters.

What? I've never heard that. They said MJ played child porn in his movie theater???

 

[barbee0715]

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

I think it's more likely he took it from Mesereau asking a witness if they remembered Safechuck getting married at Neverland, something the haters were obsessed with, and which was mentioned heavily all over the site they linked to Safechuck via facebook.

It was Spence who got married at Neverland and Mesereau had just been mistaken, but I think that's why Safechuck latched onto it.

And Safechuck took the idea of childporn from the haters too, because of those two books, and then the stories those liars resold to tabloids claiming they'd seen it and that MJ would play it in the theaters.

But yeah, I don't know why a real victim would need to use so many lies in their story. Why not tell the truth, even if it doesn't match up with a story some proven liar claimed for money years before?

Really? That's so odd to me-I don't go to any websites like that-and only hear about them and their remarks here on this forum-it's bad enough to read the comments on YouTube and Yahoo News sometimes.

I don't even think of these people as "haters"-I think of them more as "trolls" that are just trying to get fans worked up. But if reader is just trying to learn the facts and goes to one of those websites, then I'm glad the defenders are there to set them straight.

And yes, pretty ridiculous to use in your claim, stories that have been totally debunked and proven lies in court and even in mainstream newspapers.

 

[passy001]

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

I think it's more likely he took it from Mesereau asking a witness if they remembered Safechuck getting married at Neverland, something the haters were obsessed with, and which was mentioned heavily all over the site they linked to Safechuck via facebook.

It was Spence who got married at Neverland and Mesereau had just been mistaken, but I think that's why Safechuck latched onto it.

And Safechuck took the idea of childporn from the haters too, because of those two books, and then the stories those liars resold to tabloids claiming they'd seen it and that MJ would play it in the theaters.

But yeah, I don't know why a real victim would need to use so many lies in their story. Why not tell the truth, even if it doesn't match up with a story some proven liar claimed for money years before?

Not even that, how are they going to prove it happened to them? The other witness is deceased. That means it's only their words as MJ is not here to confirm or deny these stories. This is precisely why the judge will throw out the case because it severely prejudices the decease. also, as many people have already said here, it will set a damaging precedent inviting people to claim all kinds of abuse the moment a wealthy person dies. there is nothing just and fair in this outcome.

 

[LastTear]

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

Not even that, how are they going to prove it happened to them? The other witness is deceased. That means it's only their words as MJ is not here to confirm or deny these stories. This is precisely why the judge will throw out the case because it severely prejudices the decease. also, as many people have already said here, it will set a damaging precedent inviting people to claim all kinds of abuse the moment a wealthy person dies. there is nothing just and fair in this outcome.

I hope you are right.

---

Didnt realise JS is claiming child porn was screened in the theatre.... That is so absurd!

 

[HIStory]

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

Didnt realise JS is claiming child porn was screened in the theatre.... That is so absurd!

Safechuck did not claim that. His claim is that MJ showed him child porn at the Hideout (his Wilshire Blvd. condo). The child porn shown at the theater story came from some tabloid and I think the source were either the Quindoys or another one of those usual suspects. The story was mentioned as a possible inspiration for Safechuck's story. But whatever his inspiration or reason was to claim this it is nonsense. No child porn has ever been found in MJ's possession in either 1993 or 2003. If he has shown child porn to Safechuck why did not he do that to any other accuser?

I already wrote this, but let me write it again:

Despite of them trying to take some elements from the earlier allegations, this would be the most patternless abuser ever. And you know, especially the development of the porn story shows very well how these allegations are formed. First let's see this in the order of how the allegations were made:

- The first accuser, Jordan never claimed such a thing because at the time no one was aware of MJ having hetero porn.
- Jason Francia never claimed such a thing because at the time no one was aware of MJ having hetero porn.
- Then Arvizo and his brother break into MJ's room, find his legal hetero porn stuff and all of a sudden it's part of a molestation story.
- Robson never knew about the porn on the stand in 2005, but now all of a sudden claims he was shown porn. Not only that, he also claims he was shown nude books by MJ as a child. Please note that the Arvizos did not claim such a thing because they did not find MJ's nude art books, only his porn, so they only claimed porn. But on the stand, due to the house search, nude books were shown as well. So, surprise, surprise, now that too is made a part of a molestation story by Wade. (With Wade possibly thinking that he was shown those books on the stand because the Arvizos claimed MJ showed them those. Well they did not claim that.)
- And finally Safechuck takes it to another level: it wasn't just hetero porn, weren't just books, but child porn as well - even though no such stuff was ever found in MJ's possession.

So what is more likely? That the guys who made their allegations in the above mentioned order took stories from each other and each one of them further embellished it compared to the last one or that MJ had this this patternless pattern:

- Showing hetero porn, nude books and child porn to Safechuck.
- Showing hetero porn, nude books to Robson.
- Not showing anything to Jason Francia.
- Not showing anything to Jordan Chandler.
- 10 years later showing only hetero porn to Gavin. No books. No child porn.

That pattern IMO is another one of the many givaways of this case. You can follow very well how one built on the other before him and how that story developed step-by-step with each accuser adding his bit to the last one. Well, that is if you follow the order of how they made their allegations. However if we take the order of how the molestations allegedly happened then it suddenly falls apart and does not make much sense any more. Showing child porn to the first kid, but never again to anyone else? And so on. Pedophiles escalate their actions over time and not the other way around.

 

[la_cienega]

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

Really? That's so odd to me-I don't go to any websites like that-and only hear about them and their remarks here on this forum-it's bad enough to read the comments on YouTube and Yahoo News sometimes.

Yeah, they were so obsessed they paid money on one of those PeopleFinder type websites to get his marriage certificate and everything to prove that it had never happened and Mesereau was lying.

When the truth was that he had made a mistake and meant Jonathan Spence.

Yes, Safechuck never claimed to have seen it in the theaters, but it was something those people who sold a story to Barressi claimed in their story. The whole thing was just absurd and crazy. But it was reprinted the month Wade came out with his story so I think that's why he latched onto the idea of child porn, as well as the hater's website acting as though it existed and was there.

And the thing with these books is that they weren't found in 1993 - most of them came from boxes from the 2003 raid. So if Wade claims he was shown certain books in 1991 for example, MJ didn't have them back then, unless they can travel through time.

-- And then on top of how obvious it is that they've all added to each other's stories - the molestation itself has clearly been something they all added on to each other with.

- MJ anally raped Safechuck and got him drunk
- MJ anally raped Wade, did not get him drunk
- MJ only did masturbation/oral with Jordan, did not get him drunk,
- MJ only groped that other maid's kid, did not get him drunk
- MJ only did masturbation with Gavin, got him drunk

The only pattern is that Wade/Safechuck clearly took it to extremes and copied off each other, as did the other three except they knew that claiming anything severe would require physical examination and proof, and obviously it didn't exist, so they only went with the one that required no proof.

 

[HIStory]

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

Yeah, they were so obsessed they paid money on one of those PeopleFinder type websites to get his marriage certificate and everything to prove that it had never happened and Mesereau was lying.

You know they are desperate when they need such things to catch Mesereau in a "lie" and they have to obsess over that so much. I mean Mesereau had no reason to lie about this. It was not something that was vitally important for anything. It was just passingly mentioned during the testimony of a maid (IIRC Kiki Fournier - the context was that Mez told her that Safechuck married at NL to which she answered she did not remember that). Meanwhile you have a prosecution's Statement of Probable Cause that contradicts even itself on lot more important things (eg. When did Janet Arvizo learn his son was allegedly molested? Was it in March-April 2003 and she told her sons "forgive and forget"? Or was it in September 2003? You cannot have it both ways but the prosecution's Statement of Probable Cause has it both ways. Let alone the numerous prosecution documents which were proven to be lies on the stand - often even by their own witnesses.) But yeah, Mesereau "lying" about Safechuck marrying at Neverland surely is the big lie of the case. It did not affect anything. Safechuck was not a subject of the trial and it was just a passing remark. Mez had no reason to lie about something that did not affect anything.

 

[barbee0715]

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

That's pretty stupid, IMO, to pay money for something that was just a name mixup. They must be extreme nut jobs.

What bothers me about all of this too, is how easy it is to take publicized stories and make them into your own story. Kinda like the Cosby deal or the Tiger Woods deal. Everybody just piling on. It's really not fair at all to real victims bc you just start to not believe anybody.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

I'm of the opinion that the judge issued his ruling and we just don't know what is

 

[ivy]

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

I'm of the opinion that the judge issued his ruling and we just don't know what is

could be. I was checking the court rules the other day and it mentioned judge's can issue tentative rulings, notify the parties and depending on the situation could take 20/30 days to prepare a written ruling. Public/media won't be aware of the ruling until the written ruling is filed by the clerk.

this is all speculation though. I checked the general rules which may not even apply to LA superior court.

btw monday is a federal holiday (memorial day) in USA so courts will be closed. We will see if the court system show anything tonight, if not the next possible day for a decision will be Tuesday.