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

This news today made me go watch Gavin and MJ again, the holding hands, Gavin literally looked in love with Michael, resting his head on his shoulder etc.

Not a good look at all.
Gavin put his head on people when they were upset. Michael was upset in that video. Gavin does the same thing to him mom in the video she made supporting Michael: he puts his head on her shoulder. That's his way of calming people down I suppose.
 
If Robson wins the case, it won't look good for MJ and would signal the end of his music in mainstream. At this moment, Michael is still an alleged pedophile but Robson winning would mean that he is a convicted pedophile. There is a massive difference between alleged and convicted. That is why it is imperative that the Estate get the best legal team and prove MJ's innocence by any means necessary.

I am not going to lie. I am extremely worried.
I am not.
 
There are a few clear camps emerging in this forum: One group are ready to turn on Michael on a dime and start questioning his innocence. Another are willing to throw away all reason and act like everything he did was perfectly above board and acceptable. And then there are those who are a bit more balanced.

Michael and his enablers created this situation no matter how you cut it. I cannot be told that someone did not say to Michael, or that he did not intuit at any point, that having kids in his bedroom at night was entirely inappropriate. Clearly he didn't learn from 1993 so it all had to happen again ten years later.

The case 'for' Michael's guilt could be that it shows compulsion. It's as though he cannot stop himself from this behaviour. But I think the more likely explanation is, frankly, a bit of arrogance. "I am Michael Jackson, and if I want 13 year old friends, I'll have them."

There is no justification for lines like that to be crossed. He cannot have been ignorant to the fact that the world finds the behaviour to be deviant. And as such he should not at all have been surprised the kind of allegations that would come of it. But to do it AGAIN?

It's times like this I do get seriously frustrated with Michael. He surrounded himself with enablers and then rid himself of them as soon as any of them questioned him. But that's what good advisors SHOULD do - question you. He thought he could create his own universe with its own rules. Somewhere in Michael's life he needed a father figure - a father figure HE respected - that could put across hard truths to him in a way he'd abide.

Someone needed to say, "Michael, you can't be a 35 year old men having sleep overs with children" and Michael NEEDED TO LISTEN.

I am a huge Michael Jackson fan. Always will be. I grew up on his music. I play his music daily. But he's not an innocent victim. He may not be a child molester but he certainly didn't do everything he could to protect his reputation and to keep his nose clean.

And now we have another trial. I'd like Michael to win, but let me say this - LET TRUTH PERVAIL.

Whatever the truth is... let it stand once and for all and lets be bloody done with the whole subject.
He had kids in the 2 story room, not his bedroom. Maybe that's the problem. I believe McCauley Culkin explained this.
 
Gavin put his head on people when they were upset. Michael was upset in that video. Gavin does the same thing to him mom in the video she made supporting Michael: he puts his head on her shoulder. That's his way of calming people down I suppose.

I wish I remembered where I read it, but it was said that Bashir advised/told MJ and Gavin to hold hands. If true MJ should have just ignored him, but yeah. Not that there's anything wrong with holding the hand of a child you helped out, let's not forget the doctors had given up on him and when MJ took him under his wing he healed. So nice of him to stab him in the back after all that.
 
How's everybody doing?

I think I could only speak for me, but for me, as I get older, I'm understanding things a lot more. I never doubted Michael's innocence. His heart was in the right place, and never hid the fact that he prefers children over adults because a lot of adults do have motives for the wrong reasons. As a 40-year-old man myself, it's HARD being an adult, but that's how life is at times. However, with the stuff we see on TV, the internet, social media, magazines and the music we listen to, especially the news back then and now, things have gotten more complicated. Michael got tired of hearing the word "No," so that's where the "Yes" people came in. You don't have to be a celebrity to understand that, it applies to all people. Michael hardly ever got to experience the stuff a lot of us did as kids, so he tried to compensate for that. We never truly understood how it affected him, we could only speculate since none of us ever had a conversation with him. Michael could never take "no" for an answer, therefore, putting him in a vulnerable position...

After the allegations in 1993, he should've put the brakes on the sleepovers and stop getting too close to children. However, he opened the door to more accusations after the civil case was settled. I believe Michael wanted to take this to court, but way too many circumstances got in the way, his insurance company did the settlement...

Again, I never doubted Michael's innocence, but this is the sad truth, those accusations will stick forever. Maybe this won't go to trial, but if it does, the Estate will be ready, and all I can do is pray. I'm not worried about this because it's too obvious that these punks will stop at nothing to get what they want, and you know what's really sad about all of this? They make a total disregard to all of the true sexual abuse survivors out there. One bad apple, spoils the bunch! Also, I think they have a fatal attraction to Michael, they're obsessed, along with a few other who will remain nameless...!

As for Michael's legacy, no legacy is perfect... I can't recall who has the perfect legacy... I can't. He made a permanent mark in this world that no one can take away, NO ONE! It's everywhere, and these haters can still hate all they want to. If you think Michael's legacy is tarnished, that's on you, you're trying yourself, I mean, "Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?" Get those thoughts out of your head.

Michael Jackson is not going anywhere, EVER!
He did. He was excited that Evan basically committed extortion but for some reason when they did the final negotiations they cancelled pursuing the extortion case. I don't know why. I also think Mike's lawyers were prepared for when Evan dropped his lawyer and got another one not bound by the NDA.
 
It's probably coming out next year. I believe he's playing "chess" with Dan Reed. I expect Dan will start his nonsense again soon with part II.

Wouldn't be shocked at all of that loser does that. But who is he gonna cover? Gavin? Let him do that, the MJFam has the receipts, it was a 100% win for Michael, let him do that.
 
Gavin put his head on people when they were upset. Michael was upset in that video. Gavin does the same thing to him mom in the video she made supporting Michael: he puts his head on her shoulder. That's his way of calming people down I suppose.
This news today made me go watch Gavin and MJ again, the holding hands, Gavin literally looked in love with Michael, resting his head on his shoulder etc.

Not a good look at all.

If you look at Michael Jackson throughout his life, he was holding hands with fans, he was holding hands with sick people he visited, holding hands is a way showing affection and care - NOT in a sexual way!

Also the holding hands during the Bashir interview was staged by Bashir, he was the one that directed that to happen when the they filmed it! MJ maybe could have declined, but we know how naive he was and always wanted to please everybody etc.

In this video you will hear Aphrodite explain several times how Martin Bashir was the one setting up the scenario of Gavin Arvizo to be at Neverland and to hold Michael Jackson's hand.

 
That is so naive. Just because something is not illegal makes it ok to do them. Thats why the public doubts Michaels behaviour, its morally not ok as an adult to hang around with kids. Thats all im saying.

So you're telling me that if your neighbor is friends with lots of kids its wrong (Even if its innocent like Michael) but if Michael does it its fine because its 'MICHAEL JACKSON' and he raised money for charity.
Adults hang around kids all the time. My job as a teacher might be on the line. Scout leaders, Big Brother/Big Sister mentors, camp counselors, etc. I guess we're all immoral... What?
 
Some of my posts are provocative but I'm just far too frustrated by some of the content that I'm seeing on here.

I have an opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Does anyone know of the band The 1975? The lead singer was a massive MJ fan, he thinks he's a Paedophile.

And what an upstanding guy that lead singer is. Clearly he should be our moral compass.
 
One personal thing about "sleepovers": last year I took in refugees (Mother, Grandmother, 2 kids (2 and 5 years)) from Ukraine into my house. We played, went shopping for toys, I took them to playgrounds etc. I was kind of there hero and we had a great time together. But when it was time to go to bed the 5 year old would have a tantrum since he insisted on going to sleep in my bed - and yes on occasions I let him sleep with me. Does that also make me a Pedophile? Seriously, it all depends on the circumstances.
A pedophile molests children. Just having a child in or near ones bed doesn't make one a pedophile.
 
I think it is important to be protective for children because they are vulnarable and people with kids can relate to the fear that something bad (or real pedophiles) happens to them or do them harm.

I understand michaels perspective on his message of spreading love and loving the innocence of children. The reason why he wanted to hang out with kids are logical considering his childhood combined with all his humanitarian work related to children in need. And obviously building Neverland, a place for (ill) children to have the time of their lives. Also he was fully open with it, which makes it less suspicious than trying to hide it.

There is only one thing that bothers me a little bit is that people here think it is 'ok' for an adult to hang out with children and act like this is normal. Even with Michael, and all the things I just mentioned, and that people are protective of children and that an adult hanging with children it simply a little odd in our current society, which makes it morally wrong to do. People think his behaviour was questionable for a reason, which indicates that we don't 'accept' it in our (western) society. (I dont know how other parts of the world though about these topics)

But most people here agree that Michael is innocent and have done their research, which is very important. But if people have an open mind and a different opinion, we shouldn't call them ''trolls'', people can have some valid points.
Hanging out with children is normal. Pedophilia is not.
 
How's everybody doing?

I think I could only speak for me, but for me, as I get older, I'm understanding things a lot more. I never doubted Michael's innocence. His heart was in the right place, and never hid the fact that he prefers children over adults because a lot of adults do have motives for the wrong reasons. As a 40-year-old man myself, it's HARD being an adult, but that's how life is at times. However, with the stuff we see on TV, the internet, social media, magazines and the music we listen to, especially the news back then and now, things have gotten more complicated. Michael got tired of hearing the word "No," so that's where the "Yes" people came in. You don't have to be a celebrity to understand that, it applies to all people. Michael hardly ever got to experience the stuff a lot of us did as kids, so he tried to compensate for that. We never truly understood how it affected him, we could only speculate since none of us ever had a conversation with him. Michael could never take "no" for an answer, therefore, putting him in a vulnerable position...

After the allegations in 1993, he should've put the brakes on the sleepovers and stop getting too close to children. However, he opened the door to more accusations after the civil case was settled. I believe Michael wanted to take this to court, but way too many circumstances got in the way, his insurance company did the settlement...

Again, I never doubted Michael's innocence, but this is the sad truth, those accusations will stick forever. Maybe this won't go to trial, but if it does, the Estate will be ready, and all I can do is pray. I'm not worried about this because it's too obvious that these punks will stop at nothing to get what they want, and you know what's really sad about all of this? They make a total disregard to all of the true sexual abuse survivors out there. One bad apple, spoils the bunch! Also, I think they have a fatal attraction to Michael, they're obsessed, along with a few other who will remain nameless...!

As for Michael's legacy, no legacy is perfect... I can't recall who has the perfect legacy... I can't. He made a permanent mark in this world that no one can take away, NO ONE! It's everywhere, and these haters can still hate all they want to. If you think Michael's legacy is tarnished, that's on you, you're trying yourself, I mean, "Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?" Get those thoughts out of your head.

Michael Jackson is not going anywhere, EVER!

Very good post, I don't have much else to add. It's definitely true about the yes man, sadly. Lisa said this too. He had too many yes men around him, too many snakes. It's just damn sad.

With all the flat out lying, different stories, inconsistencies by Wade you'd think he won't stand a chance. Let's just hope this low burden of proof won't become too big of a thing.

Many of these lies can easily be proven too, hell they are posted almost on daily basis on Twitter. And I'm sure the estate will be ready with it. I mean the mofo tried to make it look like he was burning a jacket he allegedly got from MJ. Only for Julien's Auctions to come forward saying they have the real jacket. All Wade does is lie and nothing but lie.

At times I wish MJ had been a selfish person that didn't to share his wealth with other families and their children. He has given so many sick children the time of their lives at Neverland and these parents will always be grateful for it, but sadly some real disgusting snakes managed to enter his life too. And I absolutely agree that he made himself a target, but he genuinely believed it was fine, as long as "you're not Jack the Ripper", and I genuinely believe he meant well too.

If everything had kept going their way (Chandler, Arvizo) there never would have been accusations. Same with Wade, had he been part of the musical he would still be saying MJ is the most amazing person ever, a thing he has said several times. This hopefully is all ammo for the estate too. James would still have been in debts because of his own stupid ass, but Wade wouldn't have opted the idea to stab MJ in the back then, because he'd be making money.

Sigh.
 
Did you even read my post? My english isn't that bad.. my points are literally in there.

Ask any person on the street and ask the question 'is it normal if a grown up adults likes the regularly hang out with unrelated kids?' Guess what people are going to say, they so no. Why? Because people are protective of kids and we dont want people to do them harm.

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.

2 Question to you bacause you apparantly think its not weird and I'd like to know your views too (different opinions are fine, we can discuss and enlighten each other):
1. Would you allow your kids to hang out with adults? (in the park, in their house, in your house, whatever)
2. What would you think when one of your adult neighbours is regularly hanging out with kids? Would you think thats normal or think its a little weird?
I don't think you know the layout of the house and his security detail and that may be your problem. Michael had more security on him than the president especially at Neverland because as you may know, Sycamore Ranch was wide open. There were plenty of ways to get on the ranch. It wasn't like Havenhurst. Michael was to be guarded at all times. Security could see people in the home, not in bedrooms or bathrooms but walking around. Also there were plenty of adults in the home when the kids were there.for Michael to be alone with children who were not his without a chaperone for them makes him liable for anything that would have happened to them, like injuries, illnesses. People could in and out of any room and guests had access to the room codes. Just keep in mind Michael was investigated for over a decade. If he was guilty of anything we'd certainly know it by now.
 
I think in his mind he was not doing anything wrong and that the public's view was wrong. He also stated that in multiple interviews. Keeping his relationships with kids even after the first allegations was not smart in the aftermath resulting in another allegation.

But what I do understand is that is he thinks he wasnt doing anything wrong or that he was even doing the right thing, then that he didnt have to stop. Maybe he didnt expect another kid to accuse him. A lot of people would argue indeed that it wasnt smart and maybe he shouldve stopped.

But I think that a big part of Michaels joy in life was reliving his lost childhood and live with the innocence and fun life of kids. Image if that's what makes you happy in life, then I understand that he didnt want to stop because some people tried to extortionate him. Its what made him happy. I think he did make a mature decision, he choose his happiness.
Y'all act like Michael played with kids all the time. He was a busy man. He didn't have that kind of time.
 
Adults hang around kids all the time. My job as a teacher might be on the line. Scout leaders, Big Brother/Big Sister mentors, camp counselors, etc. I guess we're all immoral... What?
We discussed this earlier in the threat, it is a matter of context.

having relationships or hanging out with children who are simply family, when helping children in need, for a job like teachers, mentors, sportstrainers, whatever, obviously I am not saying that thats immoral.

I argued that when an adult is looking to have friendly relationship with kids, instead of surrounding himself with people of his own age, is a little weird and possibly ''immoral'.

Why immoral? The general public perceived Michael Jackson hanging out with kids (Even in a innocent way) as a little odd and weird. Some people didnt accept that behaviour.

An example: if your kid is playing in the playground and there is a random adult there playing with them. Next, your kid comes home with that guy and asks can we play video games? What is your first though? 'Who the F is that guy and why is he with my son?'

Obviously spending time with kids in a lot of circumstances is normal. But an adult who mainly seeks relationships and hanging out with kids is just a little weird.

In michaels case I understand it because I know his life story, however I still don't fully support that part of his life.
 
Potentially a paedophile is the same as an alleged one. What's your problem?

Good reason - the multiple allegations, and behaviour.

It's not unreasonable for someone to come to that conclusion.

Your problem is that you cannot accept criticism of MJ.
An allegation is not proof.
Is that really true about the 50.01%? Because that's insane and it would really show how messed up things are in the USA. The man is gone, long gone, can't defend himself. Yet here we have two opportunists, with a history of lying, perjury even, making shit up left and right without any proof, claiming it's not about money, yet they sue for tons of money, their agenda is so clear. This is not victim behaviour, because a real victim has no need to make new lies, change their story and what not.

It's unbelievable what is happening here. Things were going so well, the BS from W & J got dismissed every damn time, but then it was decided to have it go to trial. It's a little unclear to me, but did actually three judges decide this or was it one? My head is spinning because of all this, if it's actually three, then wtf?

Leads me to something else. Let's say in worst case scenario things aren't going well for the estate, can they settle but without admitting any guilt on MJ and their part? Basically like the settlement Michael made with the Chandlers? After all he never ever admitted any guilt. Or does it not work that way with things like these? I really don't want these two pieces of shit to get any money though.

Man, let's just hope it can be at least FAIR, because it sure isn't sounding like it. Can Michael at least have that? Just unbelievable really, completely false allegations, zero evidence, nothing and yet here we go. They destroyed this man's life, he had to freaking die for the world to love him again and two utterly rotten to the core backstabbers are ruining even that.

Yeah, I really want to believe their day will come, a special place in hell for them. Please. It's truly the only thing they deserve.
Settling is what got Michael in trouble the first time..this is exactly why you don't settle.
 
We discussed this earlier in the threat, it is a matter of context.

having relationships or hanging out with children who are simply family, when helping children in need, for a job like teachers, mentors, sportstrainers, whatever, obviously I am not saying that thats immoral.

I argued that when an adult is looking to have friendly relationship with kids, instead of surrounding himself with people of his own age, is a little weird and possibly ''immoral'.

Why immoral? The general public perceived Michael Jackson hanging out with kids (Even in a innocent way) as a little odd and weird. Some people didnt accept that behaviour.

An example: if your kid is playing in the playground and there is a random adult there playing with them. Next, your kid comes home with that guy and asks can we play video games? What is your first though? 'Who the F is that guy and why is he with my son?'

Obviously spending time with kids in a lot of circumstances is normal. But an adult who mainly seeks relationships and hanging out with kids is just a little weird.

In michaels case I understand it because I know his life story, however I still don't fully support that part of his life.
That's your issue them. Take it up with your therapist
 
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.
He bought a $1.6M home in Hawaii after LN. He put it under his grandfather's name. 🙄 Yeah, it surely isn't about the money!😂
 
Thats low. You dont have to react like that when I have a different opinion than you.
It's not a difference of opinion I'm taking issue with. You're painting adults who spend time with children with a broad brush and no proof! That's irresponsible and you should be called on it. Plenty of adults spend time with children and do no harm to them. Michael was a babysitter as a teenager for gods sake. And coming from such a large family, he knows what it's like to be responsible for younger people. He's an older brother to two and a cousin and an uncle and great uncle to plenty. He's used to kids.
 
It's not a difference of opinion I'm taking issue with. You're painting adults who spend time with children with a broad brush and no proof! That's irresponsible and you should be called on it. Plenty of adults spend time with children and do no harm to them. Michael was a babysitter as a teenager for gods sake. And coming from such a large family, he knows what it's like to be responsible for younger people. He's an older brother to two and a cousin and an uncle and great uncle to plenty. He's used to kids.
Please read my earlier post again..

I totally agree with your argument here, but its irrelevant to the point I tried to make.
 
Sorry, the Mexican boys from the late 80s
It was one and his name was Jason Francia. His mother was a maid at Neverland. At trial, he said that Michael tickled his crotch. When asked to point out his crotch he pointed to his stomach, not his actual crotch. Michael allegedly paid $2M for this probably because he just had Paris and didn't want the publicity to overshadow Paris' birth, but Jason Francia said he never received any money.
 
Please read my earlier post again..

I totally agree with your argument here, but its irrelevant to the point I tried to make.
I don't think you even know what you're talking about.
Sorry, the Mexican boys from the late 80s
It wasn't boys it was a boy. Jason Francia. His mother worked as a a maid at Neverland. She accused Michael of molesting her son and was supposedly paid $2M probably to go away because Paris was just born and Michael didn't want that to ruin the publicity around her birth. On the stand in 2005, Jason Francia claimed Michael tickled his crotch, but when asked where his crotch was he pointed to his stomach and not his crotch. It is believed Sneddon kept the boy and his mother in protective custody and in therapy until they could come up and testify for this trial, but Jason basically said Michael didn't molest him. It is also important to nite that Jason stated he never received any money from Michael and didn't know about any settlement. Maybe his mom kept it from him. Now why do you suppose she would do that?
 
Some of my posts are provocative but I'm just far too frustrated by some of the content that I'm seeing on here.

I have an opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Does anyone know of the band The 1975? The lead singer was a massive MJ fan, he thinks he's a Paedophile.
Why did you randomly ask about Matt Healey ? Your opinion is quite rare to be fair. You and Matt take the same opinion on this.
 
I originally found these Pluto videos bc @Lightbringer posted some on another thread. I think they are really good, very clear, very helpful. This one is specifically about the $15m settlement that Michael made in 1994. The media likes to pretend that Michael 'paid off' the Chandlers but he didn't. It might not look like a good decision now and Michael did say in later years that it was a mistake (or that he regretted it, I can't remember exactly how he phrased it) but it's important to remember that, at the time, he was caught between a rock and a hard place.

The lawyer in this video is not a civil litigation lawyer. Civil law is not her field of expertise. But she is a lawyer and she knows how to read and interpret a contract / agreement / settlement.

The video is 24m 48s



There is also this:

"One of the myths regarding this settlement is that “Michael Jackson bought his way out of a criminal indictment“. The fact is, however, the settlement resolved the civil proceedings, not the criminal. In fact, under American law one is not allowed to settle a criminal case. The criminal proceedings proceeded after this settlement and nothing in the settlement prevented the Chandlers from testifying against Jackson in a criminal court. Los Angeles district attorney, Gil Garcetti said right after the Chandler settlement in January 1994:


In a press conference, right after the settlement the Chandler’s lawyer, Larry Feldman himself stated that “nobody’s bought anybody’s silence”:


which comes from this blog which I already flagged upthread:

My understanding was that it was not a settlement because it wasn't a deposition or case. There was no judge. It was a negotiation and that's why they brought in Johnnie Cochran to negotiate with the Insurer on a claim of neglect.
 
The truth is......we
Why did you randomly ask about Matt Healey ? Your opinion is quite rare to be fair. You and Matt take the same opinion on this.
because I had recently watched an interview on YouTube with him and he said those words.

My opinion is rare? There are millions of people who think MJ is guilty.

The truth is, we can trade insults, produce articles that state this or that but nobody apart from Michael and those boys will know what truly happened.
 
Back
Top