Latest on MJJC

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

Hollywood_Tonight said:
Regardless of the outcome, Wade should be charged for lying under oath. That needs to happen, he broke the law.
Click to expand...
This.
He needs to charged, sued or something because not only did you break the law, but you could’ve easily gotten justice for others yet you didn’t.

On one hand I really can’t believe it, but on the other I’m not even surprised.
It seems that logic always goes out the door with Michael.

Whatever happens happens and the only thing I can do is just hope and pray that they can find a way to have it thrown out before trial or that his estate wins.

Everyone else can continue to follow , but I will go back to pre 2019 and will no longer be following this case and will no longer look for updates.
This mess has been draining and has gotten more time and attention from me than it should.
 
ksat9 said:
This.
He needs to charged, sued or something because not only did you break the law, but you could’ve easily gotten justice for others yet you didn’t.

On one hand I really can’t believe it, but on the other I’m not even surprised.
It seems that logic always goes out the door with Michael.

Whatever happens happens and the only thing I can do is just hope and pray that they can find a way to have it thrown out before trial or that his estate wins.

Everyone else can continue to follow , but I will go back to pre 2019 and will no longer be following this case and will no longer look for updates.
This mess has been draining and has gotten more time and attention from me than it should.
Click to expand...
If there’s anyone on this thread who has close ties to the MJ Estate, they need to bring this up. I can’t believe they haven’t tried it already, he has clearly broken the law.
 
Oldtimer said:
He claims abuse from age 7 to 14, I can't get my head around this. How old was he in 2005 when he swore nothing happened, The arvizo case was everywhere, he blatantly lied, he committed perjury no to ways about it,
Click to expand...
i think in his 30's or something like that
 
I find it interesting, to put it very mildly, that this idiot keeps picking important moments to the fan community to try and sue the Estate again.

This was announced about a week before August 29, Michael's birthday. Not only that, but if the case goes through next year, it'd be 15 years after Michael's death. Isn't that all just so curious?

It really feels like some form of attention-seeking supposed "revenge" due to Wade's lack of success. What an absolutely vile human being, is he gonna try this every 5 years now? I guess this is yet another reminder of how big of a clown he really is.
 
OnirMJ said:
What happened with public arbitration for MJ Estate vs HBO? When will that happen? Or a better question.. is that still happening? Please some info. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Can't remember if there are two threads on the HBO case or just this one. Anyway, @andjustice4some posts updates on Twitter / X when they are available. @Annita usually posts that info over here.

The Estate vs HBO

I haven't been following this very closely - what does this mean for the documentary? Will it halt the production of the sequel?
www.mjjcommunity.com www.mjjcommunity.com
 
F32QytkX0AAx9ET

statement from the estate on the appeal reversal
 
DangerousGal91 said:
I find it interesting, to put it very mildly, that this idiot keeps picking important moments to the fan community to try and sue the Estate again.

This was announced about a week before August 29, Michael's birthday. Not only that, but if the case goes through next year, it'd be 15 years after Michael's death. Isn't that all just so curious?

It really feels like some form of attention-seeking supposed "revenge" due to Wade's lack of success. What an absolutely vile human being, is he gonna try this every 5 years now? I guess this is yet another reminder of how big of a clown he really is.
Click to expand...

:(

https://twitter.com/x/status/1692750355421941773
 
Yes. Wade was an adult in 2005. And capable of knowing right from wrong on top of it. This man is not stupid. Simple as that. He was asked very specific, pointed questions about the times he spent with Michael. And he swore north, south, east, west and all points in between that nothing happened. He knew exactly what he was being asked about and what it all meant. His excuses for this bullish he’s doing are just that. Wade could have cracked and accused Michael from the stand. No. He made another accuser look like a liar to the jury. And it’s only because so many people still think Michael was guilty and got away with it that Wade and James are doing this now. Sure. Michael didn’t do himself favors with some of the things he did and said. But no matter what, he didn’t, (and still doesn’t), deserve to be lied on. And the media is not blameless for pushing alot of Michael Jackson rumors and innuendo, especially in the last 30 years. They’re the main reason he can’t rest in peace. Maybe if it wasn’t for them, most if not all of the public would have accepted the 2005 trial verdict and this stinking trash heap nightmare of a courtroom drama wouldn’t exist. Because these two men are hiding behind Michael’s tattered public image to advance this BS, in my opinion. They don’t have anything other than that. Like I said, if they really had to prove anything they are saying with cold, stone-hard physical evidence rather than talking well-scripted sob stories, this crap would have been done with for good around a decade ago.
 
Last edited:
Well said, will this be brought up, I hope so as I've said if he really was a victim, no way would or could he have stood and said nothing happened he has openly said he doesn't have repressed memory none of this garbage makes any sense
 
As I said before if they are telling the truth about Michael drop all the money side of things! Prove without a doubt that he was a monster and had this network of abuse suppliers and I know his fans would drop him like a hot brick ! However u carnt and won't so your just 2 main liars who are in this for money nothing more nothing less!
 
What can I say that hasn't been said already? I'm just so tired of this. Where does it end? It just doesn't. How the hell did it come to this? How the hell did these two assholes manage to get so many appeals? How tf is that normal? Jesus, the US surely is a rotten as can be when it comes to these things.

It got dismissed so many times, these two losers kept wasting precious time of the court with their bullshit, and now they are getting a trial. It's just unbelievable. This burden of proof sounds as corrupt and ridiculous as can be. Evidence? There is no evidence at all, if they had any kind of "evidence" they would have had that during LN. Instead all it had were lies, many provable too.

Truly, if the estate gets to present all their evidence of the constant changing stories by these two, the many provable lies, the many examples and proof of how Wade constantly defended him, danced to his music, gave "dance" classes to people inspired by his music......how tf could a jury or judge not dismiss it again? That low burden of proof bullshit needs to be investigated, it sounds very wrong.

Wtf changed for them to decide this now? Unbelievable. Man, fuck this world.
 
Judging by the number of media outlets who are reporting this today, I think there could be quite a lot of coverage of this trial. Not as much as 2005 obviously, but it's going to be very important that Robson and Safechuck lose. I fear if they win, that could finally lead to MJ's music being properly muted.

My understanding from hearing Charles Thomson on MJ Cast is that the burden of proof in a civil case means that the jury only have to be 50% sure that their allegations are true - i.e. much lower than in a criminal case. That is a big concern.

However, the number of lies and inconsistencies in their stories give me hope. The absolute best case scenario would be that they not only lose the case, but they somehow screw it up so badly that it's clear to anyone that they're lying - and that the media pick up on that too. But I suppose they're going to refine their stories now.

Question for anyone who knows about this sort of thing - regardless of whatever narrative they choose to go with in court, is there anything stopping the defence pointing out all of the provable inaccuracies they've said previously, like in the film and in previous statements. For example if Safechuck doesn't mention the train station in court, the defence can still bring it up themselves and make him look like a liar?
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1692652215226229246
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about the law so don't know if the content of this tweetX is true. I do know that when the appeal judges looked at the WR /JS lawsuits they had to proceed AS IF the allegations were true. Bc they were not trying to decide if WR and JS were lying. They were trying to decide if the case had a legal basis to go forward. That is my understanding, anyway. So the appeal courts constantly said, no, there is no basis for a case and now the California Court of Appeal has said, yes, there is.

AcerBen said:
My understanding from hearing Charles Thomson on MJ Cast is that the burden of proof in a civil case means that the jury only have to be 50% sure that their allegations are true - i.e. much lower than in a criminal case. That is a big concern.
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking I think it's 50.1% but that's neither here nor there. The burden of proof is much, much lower than it is in a criminal case. I have no idea why. It baffles me. I don't think it's an example of corruption (@Staffordshire Bullterrier ) bc, afaik, it applies to all civil cases in the UK and the US. It's just standard court procedure. But it is worrying.

AcerBen said:
Question for anyone who knows about this sort of thing - regardless of whatever narrative they choose to go with in court, is there anything stopping the defence pointing out all of the provable inaccuracies they've said previously, like in the film and in previous statements. For example if Safechuck doesn't mention the train station in court, the defence can still bring it up themselves and make him look like a liar?
Click to expand...
This is the sort of thing I want to know. Bc civil cases rest on the 'preponderance' of evidence I have often wondered if that's why LN was so detailed (I haven't watched the thing, only read about it). Was LN always intended to be part of the 'evidence' presented in a civil case? Or is that nonsense thinking? I just don't know.
 
I don't know whether us basically knowing what their "side of the story" is ahead of the trial is a good thing or a bad thing. Because surely they are aware now which bits don't look believable, so they'll be sure to iron out those inconsistencies and come up with a more coherent story for trial.

But then, if they do change their stories again, I would hope the defence can show video clips of them saying something completely different?

I mean, just watching and reading the stuff already online that debunks their claims, I can't believe anyone could be more than 50% sure they were telling the truth. It's still a scary thing though.

I hope that tweet above isn't true. How can you hold a company responsible for something that may not have even happened?
 
This kind of stuff

https://twitter.com/x/status/1686807850662641667

Or the fact that he wanted to marry his girlfriend on Neverland, at a time Michael was fighting for his life and freedom. Surely that has to count for something? How he begged the estate to be part of Circque du Soleil? I hope they estate can proof MJ wasn't even around at the times W&J claim they were abused.

The fact that they have to believe these allegations are true is all kinds of insane to me, but surely once that trial starts, that is of no importance anymore, right? Surely the estate can present all this evidence to argue the allegations? Because in the case they aren't even allowed to argue the allegations it's game over right there for estate, which would just be total insanity, I would like to believe it won't go like that.

Yeah the low burden of proof definitely is worrying. Let's hope that a jury won't be biased, if a jury happens. You would think that these two have a super hard time with their bullshit case once the estate gets to present everything they got on them?

Oh man I'm trying hard to stay calm and I'll refrain on what my wishes are for these two pieces of human garbage, I don't want a ban, sigh. I'm seeing a good amount of fans on Twitter saying they are happy with this, because it can finally be done with forever, but I fear they underestimate the risks here.
 
AcerBen said:
I don't know whether us basically knowing what their "side of the story" is ahead of the trial is a good thing or a bad thing.
Click to expand...
I struggle with this also.

AcerBen said:
Because surely they are aware now which bits don't look believable, so they'll be sure to iron out those inconsistencies and come up with a more coherent story for trial.
Click to expand...
I definitely don't underestimate Finaldi. I think the MJE legal team is really good but Finaldi has either got awesome skills, the entire system is corrupt and stacked against Michael - or perhaps a little bit of both? But I fully expect Finaldi to have a game plan. He must have something to have got it this far, imo.

AcerBen said:
I hope that tweet above isn't true. How can you hold a company responsible for something that may not have even happened?
Click to expand...
I mean, where do we even start? :(
 
One would think that after having seen everything we have seen on W&J, all of their BS really, that you'd have a hard time even getting to 10% certainty for the burden of proof. That is assuming a jury is not biased at all, but we've seen what mindless damned drones people can be after LN. All of a sudden they can't think for themselves anymore.

And especially when it comes to something like this, hard to prove, but at the same time super fucking easy to claim stuff happened with no real repercussions because defamation of the dead is fine in the United Snakes of America......you'd think that burden of proof would actually be a lot higher. Make it make sense!!!!!!
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
This kind of stuff

https://twitter.com/x/status/1686807850662641667

Or the fact that he wanted to marry his girlfriend on Neverland, at a time Michael was fighting for his life and freedom. Surely that has to count for something? How he begged the estate to be part of Circque du Soleil? I hope they estate can proof MJ wasn't even around at the times W&J claim they were abused.

The fact that they have to believe these allegations are true is all kinds of insane to me, but surely once that trial starts, that is of no importance anymore, right? Surely the estate can present all this evidence to argue the allegations? Because in the case they aren't even allowed to argue the allegations it's game over right there for estate, which would just be total insanity, I would like to believe it won't go like that.

Yeah the low burden of proof definitely is worrying. Let's hope that a jury won't be biased, if a jury happens. You would think that these two have a super hard time with their bullshit case once the estate gets to present everything they got on them?

Oh man I'm trying hard to stay calm and I'll refrain on what my wishes are for these two pieces of human garbage, I don't want a ban, sigh. I'm seeing a good amount of fans on Twitter saying they are happy with this, because it can finally be done with forever, but I fear they underestimate the risks here.
Click to expand...

If somehow at the end of it Robson & Safechuck not only lose the case but through the coverage of the trial are seen by the public as liars, that would be a huge win. But yeah, so much is at stake here. It's going to be so nerve wracking for the fans.
 
The clowns will lose this case. They will have to prove abuse happened they can’t just say it did and take it as fact or there would be all kinds of these lawsuits. Things are confusing but the will have to prove it happened. Not going to happened unless the jury is paid off.
 
Smooth72 said:
The clowns will lose this case. They will have to prove abuse happened they can’t just say it did and take it as fact or there would be all kinds of these lawsuits. Things are confusing but the will have to prove it happened. Not going to happened unless the jury is paid off.
Click to expand...
Well, not prove. They have to make a jury think it was more likely than not. That's the worry.
 
AcerBen said:
Well, not prove. They have to make a jury think it was more likely than not. That's the worry.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And that is a lot easier than 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

"Given the weight (preponderance) of evidence presented, is it more likely than not that such and such a thing happened". That is my understanding of how a civil case works.
 
It's just unbelievable that it has come to this, but I'm also gonna stop worrying, it's just not worth it and God knows how long the mess is even last, let alone when it starts. 50% sounds scary, but surely the estate won't roll over and just give up and for sure they have a lot to show a jury to see how these two are no different than the Arvizos.
 
When would this trial potentially take place? Will the Estate appeal to the Supreme Court?

The comments I read under the News articles most if not all commenters believe this is bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top