HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)
Very true. People keep using the Chandler allegations as the supposedly "strongest" case against MJ, when in fact it is just a never tested, never cross-examined allegation. There is a reason why accused people have the right to face and cross-examine their accuser. It is only fair. The more transparent a case gets the more vindicated MJ is. That is always so.
Watch how haters almost never mention the Arvizo case (and in fact I have seen even them expressing doubt about that case) - that is because that case actually got tested and wasn't left as just as an allegation that was never cross-examined. It got exposed. Same with Francia, as Soundmind pointed out - the moment it went to court it fell apart. Settlement here or there.
This of course doesn't mean I want it to go to court. I think it is unfair to try someone on allegations like this (and that in a civil court on top of that) when he is not here to answer and when his accusers had all the opportunities in the world to accuse him when he was alive. So I think it would be fair to dismiss the case and that's what I am hoping for too. But IF it goes to court then I think it might be better to have Jordan testify (even if he sticks to his lies) than not. Then the defense should be given the chance to cross examine him and point out all the holes in his allegations rather than just Robson being allowed to use that case as a support for his allegations and being allowed to factually refer to Jordan as a "victim", while that case still remains untested and never cross-examined.
No one said him being deposed equals the truth coming out. But this leech has never ever been questioned on the claims he had made. It is a principle of justice that when you accuse someone, that someone has the right to face you and to question you on your claims. MJ never had that chance.
Very true. People keep using the Chandler allegations as the supposedly "strongest" case against MJ, when in fact it is just a never tested, never cross-examined allegation. There is a reason why accused people have the right to face and cross-examine their accuser. It is only fair. The more transparent a case gets the more vindicated MJ is. That is always so.
Watch how haters almost never mention the Arvizo case (and in fact I have seen even them expressing doubt about that case) - that is because that case actually got tested and wasn't left as just as an allegation that was never cross-examined. It got exposed. Same with Francia, as Soundmind pointed out - the moment it went to court it fell apart. Settlement here or there.
This of course doesn't mean I want it to go to court. I think it is unfair to try someone on allegations like this (and that in a civil court on top of that) when he is not here to answer and when his accusers had all the opportunities in the world to accuse him when he was alive. So I think it would be fair to dismiss the case and that's what I am hoping for too. But IF it goes to court then I think it might be better to have Jordan testify (even if he sticks to his lies) than not. Then the defense should be given the chance to cross examine him and point out all the holes in his allegations rather than just Robson being allowed to use that case as a support for his allegations and being allowed to factually refer to Jordan as a "victim", while that case still remains untested and never cross-examined.
Last edited: