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

[#MJforever57]

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

What we need is for this to end in summary judgement and not go to trial.

 

[terrell]

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

I do not know why I get the feelin that Wade and his people got "guest" or people up in here to see how we are examining his case.

 

[Goddess4Real]

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

I do not know why I get the feelin that Wade and his people got "guest" or people up in here to see how we are examining his case.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if that was the case, and visiting other forums, twitter accounts etc.....because he has thrown what's left of his career away...for him its go hard or go home at this point.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Wade should have gotting out a long time ago he has lie from day one now the truth will prevail. I can not see a judge let this case go to trial. The case is weak.


If Wade ppls or persons dealing with him i hope they are because we have in this thread expose every lie Wade has told so far and to show how this is all about the money because if Michael was here you would not even see this.

 

[8701girl]

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

My mate told me wade's case was dropped...anyone heard anything bout this?

 

[myosotis]

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

Is this section only for 'Trials' now...it's called 'The Trails...not sure why..?????

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

My mate told me wade's case was dropped...anyone heard anything bout this?

They are prob talking about the case against the person. The company case is on going

 

[#MJforever57]

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

The probate case was drop this is the civil case where Wade is trying to say that the companies are responsible for what happen to him and did nothing about it. We all know that companies are not ppls. Wade and his lawyers are say it a different way by calling Michael employee/shareholder Michael was remove from this case you can not sue a dead man. Now we are in the discovery part of the case.

Wade still can not prove that the companies had control over Michael.

 

[barbee0715]

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

Delete. Will post in help section.

 

[MJJC Mod Squad]

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

The discussion about the changes in MJJC is off topic. Please discuss it in help and information center or contact Gaz.

 

[barbee0715]

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

The discussion about the changes in MJJC is off topic. Please discuss it in help and information center or contact Gaz.

Sorry about that. I will delete.

 

[redfrog]

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

Yes - partially.
I don't know why you have this weird perception that American live, breathe, pay attention and memorize these allegations and/or negative stories about Michael. That's not the reality.

As I mentioned in my previous post, sure Robson will want to mention those however whether or not that will be allowed will depend on the "motion in limine" determined just before trial.

Another conflicting statements. If "Americans believe bed sharing to be proof of molestation" how are you going to convince them otherwise? It's one thing to convince people who are impartial, it's quite different thing to get people who believe to guilt to change their minds.

Furthermore what you are suggesting is retrying to 2005 trial again in a civil court.

I don't have such perception at all. I have the perception that many Americans have very superficial understanding of the allegations which is why they believe MJ was guilty or are not sure and all of that is the result of 23 years if slander which the American media has been really good at. Don't compare the 2005 to the current case. That was a criminal trial with a high burden of proof with someone's life being at stake. And if the jurors decided that Robson was abused but the companies were not responsible that would not be a victory at all.

That Robson shared a bed with MJ virtually every time they spent the night together and no motion will be able to stop him and his lawyer from talking about that during his testimony. As for the settlement most Americans know about it there has been tons of media coverage of it over the last 23 years you had to live under the rock not to hear about it. Same thing about the child porn story it was all over the media including TV and radio and Robson is accusing MJ of grooming him with books, magazines so of course the Estate should refute all of those, what else do you think they should do?

It's not a conflicting statement at all. They believe that because they don't know how and why MJ's sleepovers happen, they think about something intimate and that MJ invited boys to sleep in his bed. Tom Mez said he felt he did a good job discrediting the
ex-employees but felt it was still important to explain what kind of lifestyle MJ led so he called Brett Mac Wade Joy Karlee Lisbeth and Chantal to highlight that it wasn't just boys and the sleepovers were innocent. IMHO he didn't do a good enough job on that front as three jurors came away thinking that he was guilty but it was enough for a criminal trial.

Many issues which came up during that trial could come up yes, and even more such as whether MJ fit the profile of pedophiles. And Robson would try his best to bring in as much "smoke" one would be the magazines and books which you cannot effectively refute without explaining how Robson learned about their existence which directly leads to what the Arvizos did and how they discovered the magazines. Robson's story is further undermined by the fact that he was before Chandler but then you have to bring in Chandler's interview/declaration to show that he never mentioned any such magazines.

 

[barbee0715]

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

I was reading a story in the paper last night about the Cosby case and they brought up the statute of limitations law. Bc of this CA is now one of 30 states that has introduced a law having no statute of limitations for rape or sexual abuse. They expect it to be signed into law this month. I find this very worrisome. I don't know details. Of how the law affects deceased or companies.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

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

^ It's a criminal case in Pennsylvania against Cosby himself and he's alive. What does it have to do with the companies?

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Tal is right that is a criminal case.

 

[barbee0715]

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

^ It's a criminal case in Pennsylvania against Cosby himself and he's alive. What does it have to do with the companies?

It has nothing to do with the companies or with this case. Even if the law was changed, this case was filed long ago and would fall under laws in affect at that time.
However, as I said below (and I haven't read any of these new laws passed), I don't know how this will affect anything in the future. Without any kind of statute, it will affect both criminal and civil cases forever. Will it affect companies, churches, the deceased? I don't know.

I, for one, have been hoping that the Robson case will be thrown out due to the statute and then that will put a final end of this nightmare that has been going on for years, and years-no one else will ever consider it or try it if they know there is a statute of limitations in place that will stop it, but if the statute does not exist anymore, there may be little reason to hope for that.

I was reading a story in the paper last night about the Cosby case and they brought up the statute of limitations law. Bc of this CA is now one of 30 states that has introduced a law having no statute of limitations for rape or sexual abuse. They expect it to be signed into law this month. I find this very worrisome. I don't know details. Of how the law affects deceased or companies.

 

[barbee0715]

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

^ It's a criminal case in Pennsylvania against Cosby himself and he's alive. What does it have to do with the companies?

It has nothing to do with the companies or with this case. Even if the law was changed, this case was filed long ago and would fall under laws in affect at that time.
However, as I said below (and I haven't read any of these new laws passed), I don't know how this will affect anything in the future. Without any kind of statute, it will affect both criminal and civil cases forever. Will it affect companies, churches, the deceased? I don't know.

I, for one, have been hoping that the Robson case will be thrown out due to the statute and then that will put a final end of this nightmare that has been going on for years, and years-no one else will ever consider it or try it if they know there is a statute obut if the statute does not exist anymore, there may be little reason to hope for that.

I was reading a story in the paper last night about the Cosby case and they brought up the statute of limitations law. Bc of this CA is now one of 30 states that has introduced a law having no statute of limitations for rape or sexual abuse. They expect it to be signed into law this month. I find this very worrisome. I don't know details. Of how the law affects deceased or companies.

 

[HIStory]

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

The Cosby case has nothing in common with MJ's - I don't know why it is always being brought up here. Like InvincibleTal said that's a criminal case and against a living person. Whether the defendant is dead or alive makes a huge difference. You cannot sue a dead person, no matter what - regardless of statutes of limitations. So Robson can only sue companies. And companies are not people. Different rules apply to them.

 

[barbee0715]

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

^ It's a criminal case in Pennsylvania against Cosby himself and he's alive. What does it have to do with the companies?

I was reading a story in the paper last night about the Cosby case and they brought up the statute of limitations law. Bc of this CA is now one of 30 states that has introduced a law having no statute of limitations for rape or sexual abuse. They expect it to be signed into law this month. I find this very worrisome. I don't know details. Of how the law affects deceased or companies.

The Cosby case has nothing in common with MJ's - I don't know why it is always being brought up here. Like InvincibleTal said that's a criminal case and against a living person. Whether the defendant is dead or alive makes a huge difference. You cannot sue a dead person, no matter what - regardless of statutes of limitations. So Robson can only sue companies. And companies are not people. Different rules apply to them.

Well, that would make me feel better if that part stayed the same-regardless of getting rid of the statute of limitations.I would hate to see another 20 years of people suing the estate and just saying they were too overwrought to talk about it at the time.

I try not to bring up the Cosby case here, as I know they are very different. But I don't think of it as a rape case anymore-it has become a case of constitutional rights to me.

 

[HIStory]

However, as I said below (and I haven't read any of these new laws passed), I don't know how this will affect anything in the future. Without any kind of statute, it will affect both criminal and civil cases forever. Will it affect companies, churches, the deceased? I don't know.

The new bill is about criminal law. Nothing to do with civil cases.

[h=1]Inspired by accusations against Bill Cosby, California lawmakers move to lift time limits on rape cases[/h]

<time itemprop="datePublished" class="trb_ar_dateline_time" data-dt="August 30, 2016, 6:20 PM" datetime="2016-08-30T18:20:00PDT"></time>

In the wake of sexual assault accusations against comedian Bill Cosby, California may soon end the statute of limitations for prosecuting rape and other felony sex crimes.


The state Senate on Tuesday sent the governor a bill to end time limits for prosecuting crimes including rape and child sexual abuse.

Under existing law, such crimes generally must be prosecuted within 10 years unless DNA evidence emerges later. Sex crimes against minors must be prosecuted before the victim&#8217;s 40th birthday.


If the governor signs the bill, those crimes could be prosecuted at any time.


<aside data-mediaconductor-processed="true" class="trb_ar_sponsoredmod trb_barker_mediaconductor" data-adloader-networktype="mediaconductor" data-role="delayload_item" data-screen-size="desktop" data-withinviewport-options="bottomOffset=100" data-load-method="trb.vendor.mediaconductor.init" data-load-type="method" data-vendor-mc=""> </aside>SB 813 would not apply retroactively to crimes in which the statute of limitations will have expired by Jan. 1, 2017.


Sen. Connie Leyva (D-Chino) introduced the bill after news that dozens of women have alleged Cosby raped them. Most of their cases cannot be prosecuted because the statutes of limitations for those alleged crimes have expired.


"It&#8217;s called the Justice for Victims Act for one clear and specific reason: Victims should always have the opportunity to seek justice in a court of law after such a violent act," Leyva said Tuesday just before the California state Senate voted unanimously to send the bill to the governor.

Comparing rape and sexual assault laws by state can be difficult because definitions for those offenses can vary. But if the bill becomes law, California will join at least 16 other states that generally do not have time limits for prosecuting rape and sexual assault cases, according to data from Rainn, a sexual assault survivor advocacy organization that tracks sexual assault policies.

<aside class="trb_embed" data-content-id="82024580" data-content-size="small" data-content-type="story" data-content-slug="la-et-st-bill-cosby-allegations-sg" data-content-subtype="storygallery" data-role="socialshare_item imgsize_ratiosizecontainer " data-state="">

</aside>Three women who accused Cosby of sexual assault testified in support of the bill in April.


Lili Bernard, a Los Angeles actress, testified during a hearing in April that Cosby had drugged and raped her in the early 1990s, before New Jersey, where she alleges the crime occurred, lifted its statute of limitations on sexual assault cases. When she tried to press charges, she said she was told she missed the deadline.


&#8220;War criminals, no matter how many decades have passed, cannot evade prosecution,&#8221; Bernard told Senate committee members at the hearing. &#8220;I am asking you to do the same thing for us, rape survivors, who survived the war upon our body.&#8221;


When the bill passed the state Assembly earlier this month, Assemblyman Mike Gipson (D-Carson) called the bill "long overdue&#8221; and one that would &#8220;ensure that criminals be placed in jail."


The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the bill, arguing that the time limits protect innocent people from wrongful conviction.



&#8220;The statute of limitations is there for a reason,&#8221; said Natasha Minsker, director of the ACLU of California Center for Advocacy and Policy. &#8220;When a case is prosecuted literally decades after the event, it becomes much more ... difficult to prove that you are wrongfully accused."

Cosby is being tried in Pennsylvania after he was charged with several counts of felony sexual assault. The woman who is pressing charges filed them nine years after the alleged assault. Pennsylvania has a 12-year statute of limitations for rape cases.


Cosby has said his relationships with his accusers were consensual.


SB 813 is one of several bills passed by the Legislature prompted by high-profile assault cases. When Brock Turner, a Stanford University student, was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to six months in jail, many said he should have received a heavier punishment. In response, lawmakers sent the governor bills that would expand the definition of rape to include all forms of non-consensual sexual assault and impose new mandatory minimum punishments for rapists.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...tions-cosby-accusers-20160830-snap-story.html

 

[barbee0715]

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

^^ok-that answers that.

 

[redfrog]

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

What worries me, however, is that the Jury might still label MJ a "molester" - and that based on this low burden of proof that a civil trial requires which I find unfair in the case of criminal matters (and especially with the defendant not being here to defend himself). We can see that sometimes a "no smoke without fire" argument is enough to sway a civil trial Jury in cases like this.

And this is exactly why the smoke would have to be dispelled. Robson no doubt will try to throw the kitchen sink at MJ.
He will use everything from Blanca Francia to Boys will be boys, from the alarm to the "slept with boys" bullshit. His lawyer's interview with that Australian website gives you an idea how they would try to manipulate the jury with all the bedroom and rape language.
The primary target should be him and his credibility and the credibility of his supporting witnesses and I would torn them apart piece by piece asking the jurors is it more likely that Francia for five years saw those things and never reported it to anyone never tried to intervene and kept bringing his own son back to Neverland or is it more likely that she saw an opportunity to cash in when the media started to offer money for such stories?
Is it more likely that Robson until age 29 really thought that raping a child was consensual sex or is it more likely that he changed
his story in 2012 in hopes of getting a hefty settlement from the Estate?
Is it more likely that MJ had the alarm in the hallway because he was afraid of intruders or is it more likely that he put an alarm in the hallway to protect himself from the parents and staff who knew very well how the alarm worked and could have easily circumvent it?
They obviously didn't do that or couldn't do that for Kelly or the jury was stupid or evil
but it sure could be done for MJ as every piece of evidence against him is flimsy, contradictory, absurd
and he never had an accuser who didn't have ulterior motives and credibility issues. Focusing on the companies' responsibility would not be enough.
If Robson was not molested there is no injury if there is no injury there cannot be liability for that injury.

On the other hand I am not sure if a situation where they put "yes" next to that first question but eventually came back with a "non liable" verdict would be as detrimental to MJ's legacy as Redfrog believes it would (final nail in the coffin and things like that)

If Robson got a 12 to 0 victory with the jurors thinking that he was raped that would be a bigger hit on MJ's legacy than anything before yes.
Imagine the headlines Michael Jackson found liable for raping Wade Robson or something to that effect.
Do you think radio especially in the US would still play him after that? His name would become as toxic as Cosby's.
Yes he would still have reasonable people knowing the truth but as the 2005 trial showed most people are easily swayed by the media
and now they would get what they always wanted but didn't have before: a de facto guilty verdict.

 

[terrell]

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

And this is exactly why the smoke would have to be dispelled. Robson no doubt will try to throw the kitchen sink at MJ.
He will use everything from Blanca Francia to Boys will be boys, from the alarm to the "slept with boys" bullshit. His lawyer's interview with that Australian website gives you an idea how they would try to manipulate the jury with all the bedroom and rape language.
The primary target should be him and his credibility and the credibility of his supporting witnesses and I would torn them apart piece by piece asking the jurors is it more likely that Francia for five years saw those things and never reported it to anyone never tried to intervene and kept bringing his own son back to Neverland or is it more likely that she saw an opportunity to cash in when the media started to offer money for such stories?
Is it more likely that Robson until age 29 really thought that raping a child was consensual sex or is it more likely that he changed
his story in 2012 in hopes of getting a hefty settlement from the Estate?
Is it more likely that MJ had the alarm in the hallway because he was afraid of intruders or is it more likely that he put an alarm in the hallway to protect himself from the parents and staff who knew very well how the alarm worked and could have easily circumvent it?
They obviously didn't do that or couldn't do that for Kelly or the jury was stupid or evil
but it sure could be done for MJ as every piece of evidence against him is flimsy, contradictory, absurd
and he never had an accuser who didn't have ulterior motives and credibility issues. Focusing on the companies' responsibility would not be enough.
If Robson was not molested there is no injury if there is no injury there cannot be liability for that injury.




If Robson got a 12 to 0 victory with the jurors thinking that he was raped that would be a bigger hit on MJ's legacy than anything before yes.
Imagine the headlines Michael Jackson found liable for raping Wade Robson or something to that effect.
Do you think radio especially in the US would still play him after that? His name would become as toxic as Cosby's.
Yes he would still have reasonable people knowing the truth but as the 2005 trial showed most people are easily swayed by the media
and now they would get what they always wanted but didn't have before: a de facto guilty verdict.

Sorry but this will not fly. Bottom line, Wade DEFENDED Michael from the age of 13 and IN THE COURT OF LAW and until his death in 2009 (dancing in tributes to MJ and other things) and even defended MJ up until July 2012. That is the difference with MJ compare to Cosby and others as well. When Wade came out with his claim in 2013, Most of the AMERICAN public and media ignored this nut. Sorry but I think most people had the sense to see through that nonsense and can see through BS (in the minds of most people, MJ is dead and people need to let him rest and Wade is just looked at as a man who defended MJ but now trying to use a dead man to gain money because a dead man can not defend himself against a lie); but as usual, we give the haters the most attention.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Wade defend Michael up until 2012 you are right Terrell in 2005 Wade said nothing happen Do you think the ppls are going to believer him now i do not think so. It all about the money he is trying to sue a dead and him companies.

 

[terrell]

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

Wade defend Michael up until 2012 you are right Terrell in 2005 Wade said nothing happen Do you think the ppls are going to believer him now i do not think so. It all about the money he is trying to sue a dead and him companies.

Even when Wade came out with this, many people were makin a mockery about him for those who saw him. I loved the late night ABC show where the two host reported it but they had an expression on their face and tone on reporting it like "whatever" as if they are not buying it". look at when MJ cd came out, people were happy (and James was even more ignore by most of the press and MJ c's Xscape went on to sell millions and played on radios and other news outlet. Even on of Foxnews host sang MJ's song "love never felt so good" and received high marks from callers. these were FOXNEWS viewers). Like I said, I think most people ain't buying it and do not care but again, haters get the talking points (and who cares about internet trolls who trash everyone including babies like Blue Ivy and North west an others).

 

[8701girl]

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

Ohhh so this is against the companies..then why is the media making it out it's against mj?! Lol

 

[8701girl]

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

Someone needs to point that out to the media lol

 

[barbee0715]

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

Even when he came out with this, many people were makin a mockery about him for those who saw him. I loved the late night ABC show where the two host reported it but they had an expression on their face and tone on reporting it like "whatever" as if they are not buying it". look at when MJ cd came out, people happy (and James was even more ignore). Like I said, I think most people ain't buying it and do not care but again, haters get the talking points (and who cares about internet trolls who trash everyone including babies like Blue Ivy and North west an others).

Lol=that's certainly right about internet bullies-how people would be in real life if they could. It's scary knowing people are out there like that.

Right now it's really up to one person-the judge-and let's just hope he's one that thinks the whole thing is absurd and not falling for any of this malarkey being played out in the and trashy tabloid online sites.

 

[terrell]

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

Someone needs to point that out to the media lol

To be fair and honest, most people in the media is not even talking about this case. Only a few tabloid sites and papers.

 

[8701girl]

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

To be fair and honest, most people in the media is not even talking about this case. Only a few tabloid sites and papers.

Ha! Poor wade not even the biggest news media on tv are reporting bout this Lmao