Latest on MJJC

Michael Jackson v. Wade Robson, a new trial to be held

Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Exactly! And this is one of the many things the estate should show. If actual justice isn't gonna be done then it's a embarrassment for the USA justice system. But this is a incredibly serious subject, and only 50.01% needed is not good. For such a thing the burden of proof should be way higher, because if they rule guilty they are condemning someone who isn't here to defend himself, it's impossible to proof but it's very possible to show what kind of people we're dealing with.

Hope to god they see this too. But these are different times now with, someone gets accused and is pretty much guilty immediately, in 2005 it was a different time in terms of that.
Click to expand...
But the trial doesn't directly involve whether Michael is guilty right? The trial is about the responsibility of the estate in looking after the 'employed' children and that they played a role in 'luring' children (not sure of thats the right word). So the estate/production company has to defend that statement.

Suing the production company is the only and hopefully last way Wade and James can try to earn the big bucks in court because all their trials direcly on Michael have been thrown out.

Its also so obivous that they are trying all possible was to sue Michael to earn some money, how does the court not see it. Still ironic how Wade said on TV (I think on Oprah) that "it wasnt about money". That motherfucking has ben sueing for money for 10 years now.
 
MJImpeccable said:
But the trial doesn't directly involve whether Michael is guilty right? The trial is about the responsibility of the estate in looking after the 'employed' children and that they played a role in 'luring' children (not sure of thats the right word). So the estate/production company has to defend that statement.

Suing the production company is the only and hopefully last way Wade and James can try to earn the big bucks in court because all their trials direcly on Michael have been thrown out.

Its also so obivous that they are trying all possible was to sue Michael to earn some money, how does the court not see it. Still ironic how Wade said on TV (I think on Oprah) that "it wasnt about money". That motherfucking has ben sueing for money for 10 years now.
Click to expand...

That's true. But let's say for now the worst case scenario happens and they rule in favor of Wade. Basically meaning the companies are guilty of that, and you can bet your ass the media and probably quite a lot of people who only listen to the media will go "ah, see, then that means he DID do all of that."

Don't get me wrong, never ever will it sway me to start believing these two losers, until my dying day I will fight for Michael, but that would be really horrible and the media would for sure report MJ as being guilty after all.

As for the money part, yep, they are demanding 1.5billion, but it's never about money. 😂

Plus they refused to cooperate with the court when they were asked to do a polygraph test. I actually had forgotten about that. Just heard it here, good video.


I don't agree with her though when she goes "do I think the estate will win if it goes to trial? Duh" she seems to underestimate or not even take into account the low burden of proof thing.

Also the part later about how Michael back in the 90s wanted the criminal case to go first, while the Chandlers wanted the civil case to go first. And the judge refused to listen to Michael.

Apparently Wade's lawyer has mentioned "witnesses" such as Adrian and at that point you gotta be kidding. That bitch got destroyed in court, she admitted on the stand she made everything up. So surely as hell she can't be called in as witness, right? Lmfao. What a clown show yo!!
 
MJImpeccable said:
But the trial doesn't directly involve whether Michael is guilty right? The trial is about the responsibility of the estate in looking after the 'employed' children and that they played a role in 'luring' children (not sure of thats the right word). So the estate/production company has to defend that statement.

Suing the production company is the only and hopefully last way Wade and James can try to earn the big bucks in court because all their trials direcly on Michael have been thrown out.

Its also so obivous that they are trying all possible was to sue Michael to earn some money, how does the court not see it. Still ironic how Wade said on TV (I think on Oprah) that "it wasnt about money". That motherfucking has ben sueing for money for 10 years now.
Click to expand...
I'm really struggling with this one. How is it possible to sue the estate without having a guilty verdict (of MJ)? It just doesn't make any sense to me!
 
Its America, they sue everything they can. America is lawyer heaven.
Its also a society dominated by money, they have lost their way - money is the goal of all assclowns and they don't care who they have to hurt to get it.

Plus as for suing an estate of a man who was not found guilty, let us not forget one thing. Michael Jackson was a Black man, the USA has proven time and time again, that Black people have no rights and no respect there. Do you think Michael would have all these allegations, and other bullshit thrown at him to the same degree if he was a White man?

Of course, they see a Black person who has done well and they do everything they can to tear them down off that pillar.
 
librariangirl:) said:
I'm really struggling with this one. How is it possible to sue the estate without having a guilty verdict (of MJ)? It just doesn't make any sense to me!
Click to expand...

None of it makes sense. We have two opportunists here who can't stick to one story, who have NOT been cooperating with the court by denying a polygraph test. You'd think their luck would have run out by now, but here we are with chances high of it actually going to trial.

Clown world, it really is.
 
librariangirl:) said:
I'm really struggling with this one. How is it possible to sue the estate without having a guilty verdict (of MJ)? It just doesn't make any sense to me!
Click to expand...
It's a different case. Michael's Not Guilty verdicts are only in relation to the Arvizo 2005 case. With WR and JS, they count as new accusers. Those 14 Not Guilty verdicts should make it harder for WR and JS to get the result they want but it doesn't stop them from bringing a case.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
None of it makes sense. We have two opportunists here who can't stick to one story, who have NOT been cooperating with the court by denying a polygraph test. You'd think their luck would have run out by now, but here we are with chances high of it actually going to trial.

Clown world, it really is.
Click to expand...
To be fair: as a true crime fanatic I would never agree to a polygraph, it's very unreliable.
 
zinniabooklover said:
It's a different case. Michael's Not Guilty verdicts are only in relation to the Arvizo 2005 case. With WR and JS, they count as new accusers. Those 14 Not Guilty verdicts should make it harder for WR and JS to get the result they want but it doesn't stop them from bringing a case.
Click to expand...
Yea, but it's a different case and many people may think that since he was accused in the past (guilty or not) there must be something there.
 
librariangirl:) said:
Yea, but it's a different case and many people may think that since he was accused in the past (guilty or not) there must be something there.
Click to expand...
hey estate, it's time for this one
"Innocent Man"Michael Jackson
Brad Buxer
  • Written and recorded in 1994
  • Lyrics leaked online
  • Reworked in 2008
  • The chorus is "If they won’t take me in Cairo, then Lord knows where will I go, I’ll die a man without a country and only God knew I was innocent now."
en.wikipedia.org

List of unreleased songs recorded by Michael Jackson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Hot_Street said:
hey estate, it's time for this one
"Innocent Man"Michael Jackson
Brad Buxer
  • Written and recorded in 1994
  • Lyrics leaked online
  • Reworked in 2008
  • The chorus is "If they won’t take me in Cairo, then Lord knows where will I go, I’ll die a man without a country and only God knew I was innocent now."
en.wikipedia.org

List of unreleased songs recorded by Michael Jackson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

That song, I was thinking of it the other day. The man indeed was 100% innocent and there is zero reason to doubt it. Especially, especially if that's solely based on Wade and James. Two bigger losers and liars have yet to be found, disgusting opportunists with absolutely no shame at all.

Why did Michael have to meet these rotten souls? It's only a few, opposed to countless of level headed, actual normal upstanding human beings that visited him and knew him. But these few rotten apples sure did some damage to an amazing human being.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
That song, I was thinking of it the other day. The man indeed was 100% innocent and there is zero reason to doubt it. Especially, especially if that's solely based on Wade and James. Two bigger losers and liars have yet to be found, disgusting opportunists with absolutely no shame at all.

Why did Michael have to meet these rotten souls? It's only a few, opposed to countless of level headed, actual normal upstanding human beings that visited him and knew him. But these few rotten apples sure did some damage to an amazing human being.
Click to expand...
When you say there is zero reason to doubt it , not even his behaviour? and the fact that this is now what the 6 or 7th person to accuse him?

Can you not see why people might be suspicious? Not even the slightest bit?
 
librariangirl:) said:
Yea, but it's a different case and many people may think that since he was accused in the past (guilty or not) there must be something there.
Click to expand...
oh for sure, people assuming Michael is guilty just bc he's been accused in the past ... well, I guess that ship already sailed as soon as that 1994 settlement was made. So many people think he's guilty bc of that even if LN had never happened.
 
BuffaloBill87 said:
When you say there is zero reason to doubt it , not even his behaviour? and the fact that this is now what the 6 or 7th person to accuse him?

Can you not see why people might be suspicious? Not even the slightest bit?
Click to expand...
Bro, I really dont mind you having an open mind (I like those discussions), and being on the fence after reseach is your opinion, and I also dont really support Michaels friendly relationships with all those children.

But I dont think these (valid) critical questions will work on this forum. People are very protective of Michael. I have also tried to be a lil critical and that discussion didnt really work out. It just ruins the mood and people here won't listen to your points and I think some are valid.

So maybe its better to be a little more nuanced because most dont really appriciate these question/opinions😅.

Also yes I 100% people think it was suspicious, but those people have the media as only reference.
 
BuffaloBill87 said:
When you say there is zero reason to doubt it , not even his behaviour? and the fact that this is now what the 6 or 7th person to accuse him?

Can you not see why people might be suspicious? Not even the slightest bit?
Click to expand...

As long as one has done the research, knows all the facts, then yes, zero reason.

If someone totally not in the know about the cold hard facts sees this and more than two accusers....of course this person is gonna start to think he could be guilty. That's when you start doing research, you read up on how all these accusers were motivated by money, how they got wrecked in court, started adding new stuff to their story, one story more ridiculous than the other as we saw during 2005 trial.

Research IS key. The facts matter, they don't lie, people sure do. Victims don't lie, it's really as simple as that. You might not agree with his lifestyle, but ultimately that matters nothing. What matters is what these accusers are all about. None of them are normal, none of them that don't have an agenda. These are ALL snakes that Michael was unfortunate enough to have crossed paths with.

Ever since LN I've been trying to let people see this on Twitter, those that blindly sided with the two criminals, but many of them don't listen. That's their problem. Countless of families have visited Neverland, stayed there, you don't see them coming out with allegations that are actually credible, because they ARE upstanding people.

All it takes are a few rotten apples, motivated by money, it's just that simple.
 
MJImpeccable said:
We know Michael and he was loving and caring, but would I let my children play with a random adult? Absolutely fk no.
Would I hypothetically let my children hang out with Michael? possibly, but even then I'd keep an eye on them.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much it, MJ did become close with these people. He pretty much treated the Chandler's as his family for a long while. It was more like Jordan was unofficially adopted for a hot minute.

It was Evan who got nothing and then concocted the scheme. The media after the fact became the ones who represented it as so dangerous.

The parents should get more scrutiny. They were the ones who didn't show much discretion. In the Arvizios, they seemed to just want to take..and then after that they wanted to get.
 
Last edited:
MJImpeccable said:
Bro, I really dont mind you having an open mind (I like those discussions), and being on the fence after reseach is your opinion, and I also dont really support Michaels friendly relationships with all those children.

But I dont think these (valid) critical questions will work on this forum. People are very protective of Michael. I have also tried to be a lil critical and that discussion didnt really work out. It just ruins the mood and people here won't listen to your points and I think some are valid.

So maybe its better to be a little more nuanced because most dont really appriciate these question/opinions😅.

Also yes I 100% people think it was suspicious, but those people have the media as only reference.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's the problem, they let the (tabloid) media poison their minds. It's unbelievable how many times I've seen the Vanity Fair article posted on Twitter and these gullible folks all eating it up. Then I saw people trying to show them how it's all BS but often they either don't care, or throw childish insults, call the person obsessed or like most of the time........dead silence. It's telling. I've given up on that too, it's a waste of time.
 
I'm not one to believe in conspiracies easily, but now I really think it can't be right.
The judges who previously handled the case let it be known that they had never heard such nonsense, and now suddenly this judge who handels the appeal form this liar sees things differently? Is he bought?
Really want to know what the estate lawyers are thinking right now and I think Steinspair did a really good job.
 
BuffaloBill87 said:
When you say there is zero reason to doubt it , not even his behaviour? and the fact that this is now what the 6 or 7th person to accuse him?

Can you not see why people might be suspicious? Not even the slightest bit?
Click to expand...
Or consider the fact that the first accuser (look at the evidence) made the whole thing up for money (examine the facts) and got exactly what he wanted... Then you might see that EVERY other accuser to come afterwards is in it for one thing.

I don't buy your whole 'no smoke without fire' argument when the fuel for that fire is very clearly money and greed.

Michael didn't make a mistake by spending his time with children. His legal team made the mistake of settling the Chandler case out of court 😔
 
knigofpop said:
Or consider the fact that the first accuser (look at the evidence) made the whole thing up for money (examine the facts) and got exactly what he wanted... Then you might see that EVERY other accuser to come afterwards is in it for one thing.

I don't buy your whole 'no smoke without fire' argument when the fuel for that fire is very clearly money and greed.

Michael didn't make a mistake by spending his time with children. His legal team made the mistake of settling the Chandler case out of court 😔
Click to expand...
Settling out of court with Chandler was the worst decision he's ever made. I'm sure there was quotes from MJ himself later in life saying the same.

It all stems from this 93 case. It changed everything.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
As long as one has done the research, knows all the facts, then yes, zero reason.

If someone totally not in the know about the cold hard facts sees this and more than two accusers....of course this person is gonna start to think he could be guilty. That's when you start doing research, you read up on how all these accusers were motivated by money, how they got wrecked in court, started adding new stuff to their story, one story more ridiculous than the other as we saw during 2005 trial.

Research IS key. The facts matter, they don't lie, people sure do. Victims don't lie, it's really as simple as that. You might not agree with his lifestyle, but ultimately that matters nothing. What matters is what these accusers are all about. None of them are normal, none of them that don't have an agenda. These are ALL snakes that Michael was unfortunate enough to have crossed paths with.

Ever since LN I've been trying to let people see this on Twitter, those that blindly sided with the two criminals, but many of them don't listen. That's their problem. Countless of families have visited Neverland, stayed there, you don't see them coming out with allegations that are actually credible, because they ARE upstanding people.

All it takes are a few rotten apples, motivated by money, it's just that simple.
Click to expand...
This was also me, after LN: I was really torn and didn't know what to believe anymore. For a normal honest person it's incomprehensible how someone can lie like this (and in this case it was not only WR and JS but their families too). So I started to do all the research and I was chocked to learn of all the lies and greed regarding the allegations (Chandler, Arvizo etc.). And I came to the conclusion that MJ was the most bullied person on earth, but also that he didn't have the best taste in people he surrounded him self with. Research is key!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top