Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Claim by Wade Robson that Michael Jackson DID abuse him declared "Outrageous"


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14-05-2013, 21:40
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,450
If anything, watching that video clip makes me more inclined to believe that MJ is innocent. MJ was an individual who never suited the world. Being deprived of any kind of childhood, he had an innocence that many mistook for being "creepy" etc. It's so sad that such a genuinely lovely guy has had his legacy/life ruined by liars.
Watching that clip made me more concerned.

Paedophiles will present themselves as not doing anything harmful or wrong. A man in his mid 30's sharing a bed with young children is not about a missed childhood.

He brushes aside any comcerns people may have by saying they are igronant, it's a beautiful thing, it's very right, more people should do it. He's was not innocent as he was immediately aware of the sexual implications.

He suggested doing it with close family or someone you know well, in the case of Wade Robson after a few hours.

Making out it's perfectly normal Michael tosses in the name Barrie Gibb and said Paris & Prince slept with many other people. But listen to his words closely, it will be interesting if his children ever say they slept the night with various adult celebs alone.

His answer about he and those children in his bed did is him in the roll of an adult not a child...playing background music, reading a bedtime story, providing hot milk and cookies and tucking the child into bed. Those are the actions of an adult not a child.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 14-05-2013, 21:48
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 14,020
Disagreeing with the MJ zealots online is a complete waste of time. We'll never know what happened, and no ones minds are being changed about it now.

I now can't think of him without thinking of Frankie Boyle's routine: michael jacksons childrens hospital which is maybe a shame as some of the songs are really quite good.
JCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2013, 22:10
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,450
He was asked by Michael's own PR team to leak that information in order to build up hype about the upcoming tour announcement. Nice try.
If true then with that you confirm my words about the article and Charles are correct, Charles Thomson works on behalf of Michael's PR team. So he threw his high journalistic ethics out the window to please a PR company.

When did he inform The Sun or his blog readers he was working on behalf of a PR team, maybe you could provide a link?

And no, I wouldn't read again an article I would only use to wipe my ass with.

You can keep bringing up Wade Robson out of desperation but you're not getting anywhere. He's testified under oath that nothing ever happened and now suddenly only changes his mind when AEG, his employer coincidentally, need to smear the Jackson name as much as possible. As has been said multiple times, Wade Robson is a liar whichever way you look at it and therefore can't be trusted as a credible witness.

I'm gonna leave you to shout your nonsense at a wall as you seem to be going round in circles.
What no retort re Charles claims about the contents of J Randy Taraborrelli's Facebook, which as an investigative journalist he had not read. Mind it's bit difficult to read something that did not exist.

The Robson family is not desperation, if people like yourself dodn't want to believe anything Jordy's mother said then it's only the Robsons you will take notice of.

Today you will find reports of a woman who had been abused when a child, but because she was so effectively groomed and controlled that even now she sometimes struggles to see the bad in the men who orchestrated her ordeal.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2013, 23:35
honeythewitch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scrubbing the decks
Posts: 25,504
he might not have said it but the children involved are clear about one thing and that is Michael did sleep in the same bed - albeit with him apparently sleeping on top of the sheets while the children are under the sheets .
i don't even know why i am replying to this topic . your trying to make it seem normal behavior for a grown man - when it clearly is not .
and no i would not allow my nephew to sleep in my bed i would change the sheets on his and then he could go back to sleep .
and being found not guilty does not mean it didn't happen . i will keep saying that until the day i die .
his unnatural appetite for young boys is disturbing and what intrigues me even more is it seems to be only young boys he liked to have over .
it seems like he was attracted to young boys and not "loved children" as he liked to project , the millions he gave to children's charities and what not could possibly have just been the guilt he felt .
once again this is just what most people think and not what was proven in court (am only saying that to cover myself )
I didnt say it that Michael Jackson's behaviour was "normal", in fact I stated that it was very unusual, but being different is not evidence of paedophilia.
Abusers are very often the most normal appearing people who are never suspected.
It is easier to think that they can be spotted because of their "weirdness" but it simply isnt true.
In many societies it is normal for whole families to sleep in the same space. They are not all paedophiles.
The mother I was referring to was Wade Robson's, who told of taking her young son in the early hours of the morning to Michael when he returned from a short spell in rehab. She left her son with Michael and returned to her hotel.

In court she admitted she did not know her son had slept in the same bed as Michael, for some reason her children had told her a different story.
Oh sorry I thought you meant Gavin Arvizo's mother.
Yes, Wade's mother left him and his sister with him overnight on their first visit apparently, which seems as bizzare and bonkers as you can get.



Disagreeing with the MJ zealots online is a complete waste of time. We'll never know what happened, and no ones minds are being changed about it now.

I now can't think of him without thinking of Frankie Boyle's routine: michael jacksons childrens hospital which is maybe a shame as some of the songs are really quite good.
I am far from being an "MJ zealot" I cant stand most of his music actually.

As for peoples minds being changed, even though the timing of Robson's claim is very suspicious it is possible that he may have proof, which would force everyone to change their opinion.
Until then we can only go by the findings of the court case.
honeythewitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 00:20
Rei
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: LDN
Posts: 314
If it is true, (which I suspect it may well be) I hope he doesn't get any money from it.
If he did lie in the original court case, he would surely have a lot of bribery money for one thing... and for another, all the other people/children involved who were on the side of prosecution were basically sold down the river because of him.
If it's true, there are some severely messed up people out there who never got closure and were called liars because of this man and his willingness to lie.
Rei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 00:28
Rei
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: LDN
Posts: 314

The crown prosecution service have over-stepped the mark in my opinion with this statement.
They can not possibly know that there is enough evidence to convict ( and there can be no defence from a dead man) only that there is enough evidence to proceed with the prosecution.
The burden of proof is of course much lower than with other crimes.
So you think if the suspected perpetrator of a crime or crimes is dead, they should not be considered guilty because they cannot defend themselves?
That is silly... I know this is an exaggeration, but what about people who kill a load of people, and then themselves? Are they not 'guilty'?
Rei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 01:05
honeythewitch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scrubbing the decks
Posts: 25,504
So you think if the suspected perpetrator of a crime or crimes is dead, they should not be considered guilty because they cannot defend themselves?
That is silly... I know this is an exaggeration, but what about people who kill a load of people, and then themselves? Are they not 'guilty'?
But we cant just assume guilt because there is enough evidence to proceed.
If we did that what would be the point of a trial?
honeythewitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 01:14
honeythewitch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scrubbing the decks
Posts: 25,504
If it is true, (which I suspect it may well be) I hope he doesn't get any money from it.
If he did lie in the original court case, he would surely have a lot of bribery money for one thing... and for another, all the other people/children involved who were on the side of prosecution were basically sold down the river because of him.
If it's true, there are some severely messed up people out there who never got closure and were called liars because of this man and his willingness to lie.
But assuming his claims are true there could be many reasons why he didn't come forward at the time or in the trial. If he had blocked it and only recovered his memory through therapy later (as claimed) he can hardly be blamed for that, or it is possible that he and other witnesses were threatened.
honeythewitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 07:31
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,450
This is the clip I was looking for (from the Bashir documentary):-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyPbeFDS-y0

Interesting to see his response to the question about why he paid Jordy Chandler off. I'd have thought that proving his innocence would have been of vital importance to him, but obviously not.
I'd forgotten that,

"I didn't want a long drawn out thing on TV like OJ and all that stupid stuff, what would it look like. I want to get on with my life, this is ridiculous....go."
That is completely at odds with the notion he wanted to continue but an unamed insurance company settled over his head. Another lie from Michael exposed.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 08:25
honeythewitch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scrubbing the decks
Posts: 25,504
I'd forgotten that,



That is completely at odds with the notion he wanted to continue but an unamed insurance company settled over his head. Another lie from Michael exposed.
He lied all the time about everything, even when it made things look worse for him, but I read that ( I cant remember the exact details) the insurance payout was due to the civil case being filed before the criminal case and if they challenged it it would have exposed his defence for the criminal trial.(so had nothing to do with automatic pay-outs)
I think the official complaint was upheld and they changed the procedure.
I cant decide which version sounds the most incriminating.
honeythewitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 11:57
denial_orstupid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 504
I didnt say it that Michael Jackson's behaviour was "normal", in fact I stated that it was very unusual, but being different is not evidence of paedophilia.
Abusers are very often the most normal appearing people who are never suspected.
It is easier to think that they can be spotted because of their "weirdness" but it simply isnt true.
In many societies it is normal for whole families to sleep in the same space. They are not all paedophiles.

Oh sorry I thought you meant Gavin Arvizo's mother.
Yes, Wade's mother left him and his sister with him overnight on their first visit apparently, which seems as bizzare and bonkers as you can get.





I am far from being an "MJ zealot" I cant stand most of his music actually.

As for peoples minds being changed, even though the timing of Robson's claim is very suspicious it is possible that he may have proof, which would force everyone to change their opinion.
Until then we can only go by the findings of the court case.
In many societies it is normal for whole families to sleep in the same space. They are not all paedophiles.

yes families , not other peoples children !
people can try and make as many excuses as they like but fact of the matter is , what Michael Jackson did is completely wrong .
if that were a normal person on say my street they would be lynched within the week .
i know the ones defending him are hopelessly devoted fans but a vast majority of you are also blind to the facts of the matter .
and i also note nobody has come forward to tell me why they were all young boys - never girls .
think the circumstances speak for themselves in all honesty.
denial_orstupid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 12:04
Rei
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: LDN
Posts: 314
But we cant just assume guilt because there is enough evidence to proceed.
If we did that what would be the point of a trial?
We are not assuming guilt, but we still should be allowed to have a trial, despite the 'deceased' status of the defendant, is what I am saying. Especially considering the... questionable... nature of the previous trial, it might be better to know that this time around, there will be no kind of 'money changing hands'. (All conjecture on my part, of course, I am neither a Michael fan, nor a Michael hater.)

But assuming his claims are true there could be many reasons why he didn't come forward at the time or in the trial. If he had blocked it and only recovered his memory through therapy later (as claimed) he can hardly be blamed for that, or it is possible that he and other witnesses were threatened.
That is true, but... I guess it just seems unlikely to me that a 22 year old would remember nothing so odd about such events at all, especially when being asked directly about it... I don't know how they will prove if this is the case; can a psychologist/psychiatrist have a certain way of telling?
Rei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 13:53
honeythewitch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scrubbing the decks
Posts: 25,504
In many societies it is normal for whole families to sleep in the same space. They are not all paedophiles.

yes families , not other peoples children !
people can try and make as many excuses as they like but fact of the matter is , what Michael Jackson did is completely wrong .
if that were a normal person on say my street they would be lynched within the week .
i know the ones defending him are hopelessly devoted fans but a vast majority of you are also blind to the facts of the matter .
and i also note nobody has come forward to tell me why they were all young boys - never girls .
think the circumstances speak for themselves in all honesty.
But it isnt an indication of guilt. We cant accuse anyone with a slightly unusual lifestyle of criminal behaviour because then it is just a witch-hunt.
There are many reasons to suspect that Michael Jackson may have abused children but the sleeping arrangements are not part of that (other than to show he had opportunity) (and the fact that the mothers were willing to leave their child with a stranger which might suggest something horribly sinister) but there are sometimes reasons for an adult caring for children to be in the same room, and they should not all be suspected of abusing children.

It was often girls too, but it does appear to be mostly boys.
We are not assuming guilt, but we still should be allowed to have a trial, despite the 'deceased' status of the defendant, is what I am saying. Especially considering the... questionable... nature of the previous trial, it might be better to know that this time around, there will be no kind of 'money changing hands'. (All conjecture on my part, of course, I am neither a Michael fan, nor a Michael hater.)
It is a very interesting idea. Do you know if it has ever been done before?
How could you prepare an adequate defence in cases like this?
If we have to assume someone is innocent either before a trial or because they are dead and cant be tried, then it somehow implies guilt on the part of the accuser, which is horrible.
If we could have a trial after death, and if we changed the law that the dead can not be libeled it would prevent false claims and genuine victims would have to be taken more seriously.
I think the idea is worth examining at least.


That is true, but... I guess it just seems unlikely to me that a 22 year old would remember nothing so odd about such events at all, especially when being asked directly about it... I don't know how they will prove if this is the case; can a psychologist/psychiatrist have a certain way of telling?

I think it is understandable that we might block something so horrific, but the industry around "recovered memory therapy" is questionable (mumbo jumbo in my opinion) and not allowed in court in many places.
Lie detector tests are usually non admissible too so i think someone like Wade Robson would be in a difficult position in court.
Nevertheless I think his claim (even if it sounds suspicious) should be taken very seriously.
honeythewitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 13:57
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,450
Whilst searching the internet I came up with a 2011 interview with Stuart Backerman, who was Michael's spokesperson and publicist in 2003. He is very positive about Michael but he apparently said this when Michael died...

And, “I’d like to think that Michael Jackson had innocent relationships with these boys, similar to what a lot of 12 and 11 and 13-year-old boys might experiment with, in a sense. Kind of innocently. ‘I’ll show you mine, you show me yours’ kind of situation, at the most.” Etc…
Except Michael was in his 40's in 2003 and if he's seen as a child? Then he was someone with mental issues addicted to Demerol sleeping with young children, and people say that's ok.

Why did Stuart think that in any circumstances a 40 year old showing his penis to a 11 year old would be ok?

Stuart doesn't disown the statement, he explained he'd said it the day after surgery, that he was upset and a lot of things sort of came up.

I said some things that were probably more revealing that I normally would have said about him.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 14:03
honeythewitch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scrubbing the decks
Posts: 25,504
Whilst searching the internet I came up with a 2011 interview with Stuart Backerman, who was Michael's spokesperson and publicist in 2003. He is very positive about Michael but he apparently said this when Michael died...



Except Michael was in his 40's in 2003 and if he's seen as a child? Then he was someone with mental issues addicted to Demerol sleeping with young children, and people say that's ok.

Why did Stuart think that in any circumstances a 40 year old showing his penis to a 11 year old would be ok?

Stuart doesn't disown the statement, he explained he'd said it the day after surgery, that he was upset and a lot of things sort of came up.
good Lord! What on earth was this man thinking?
Michael Jackson was not a child, not mentally impaired and there is plenty of evidence that he had normal sexual relationships.
How can anybody excuse such behaviour?
honeythewitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 16:17
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 14,020
good Lord! What on earth was this man thinking?
Michael Jackson was not a child, not mentally impaired and there is plenty of evidence that he had normal sexual relationships.
How can anybody excuse such behaviour?
It's an interesting point, there is likely a point where artists are so talented, generate so much money, that people just completely ignore negative aspects of their personality. Elvis Presley and Charles Chaplin both had unhealthy interests in teenage girls, and no one cares. Hell, I know that and I love Chaplin's work.
JCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 18:10
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,450
TMZ are reporting Wade Robson has lodged a civil lawsuit alongside the claim against Jackson's estate, they are suggesting the lawsuit is aimed at two companies and 48 individuals.

Robson is targeting MJJ Productions -- Michael's record label (owned by Sony) which hired Wade when he was 11 -- and MJJ Ventures ... which produced Michael's music videos.

As for the individual ... it's very clear from our research that Robson is targeting the two executors of the MJ Estate -- John Branca and John McClain.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2013, 18:25
johartuk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,326
Blimey, this could get very interesting!

Incidentally, that pic of MJ at the top of the article is ! Did he really think that was a good look?
johartuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2013, 14:12
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,450
Wade Robson Michael Forced Me to Have Sex....

Wade Robson says the only reason he's now changing his story ... accusing Michael Jackson of sexually abusing him for 7 years is because Michael engaged in a campaign of manipulation to keep him silent, especially during MJ's 2005 child molestation trial.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2013, 16:01
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,450
Up pops freaky looking Tom Mesereau who I'm sure isn't doing it for the money. Maybe Tom can make Wade vanish into thin air like those 5 boys in 2005.

The lawyer who repped Michael Jackson in the 2005 molestation case is scoffing at Wade Robson's interview on "Today," telling TMZ, "This is a pathetic and an obvious grab for publicity and an attempt to put pressure on the [Michael Jackson] Estate to pay him money."
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2013, 16:11
Inspiration
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 44,846
Maybe Tom can make Wade vanish into thin air like those 5 boys in 2005.
That's quite a serious accusation you've made there i4u. Care to back it up with details?
Inspiration is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2013, 16:37
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,450
That's quite a serious accusation you've made there i4u. Care to back it up with details?
Yes, take a look at his puture that's freaky looking.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2013, 16:43
Inspiration
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 44,846
Yes, take a look at his puture that's freaky looking.
Thought not.
Inspiration is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2013, 18:17
denial_orstupid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 504
good Lord! What on earth was this man thinking?
Michael Jackson was not a child, not mentally impaired and there is plenty of evidence that he had normal sexual relationships.
How can anybody excuse such behaviour?
his fans do it all the time . they are some of the most deluded people i have ever come across .
denial_orstupid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2013, 19:56
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,450
Get real....highly paid lawyer says outside of court room he has 5 witnesses that will say the 1993 boy lied, yet not one went to the police or more likely the media with their sensational story...they vanished and melted away into thin air.

Thomas Meserau's firm appears to have been in charge of paying any money to lawyers during the 2005 molestation trial. They must have made a fortune from that trial

Jackson's legal fees were paid out by his trial lawyer THOMAS MESEREAU's company.

The plaintiffs claim the money paid to Mesereau was to be spread around several law firms, who were all working for Jackson
But it didn't stop him and Susan Yu claiming against the estate after Michael died.

LOS ANGELES — The attorneys who successfully defended Michael Jackson against child molestation charges have filed a $341,000 claim against the singer’s estate.

According to the filing, the fees are for work done between July 2005 and February 2006.
24 Feb 2006, Get the picture?

Mesereau and his partner, Susan Yu, resigned yesterday. They were representing Jackson in his $4M lawsuit brought by Jackson's ex-business partner Marc Schaffel.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:16.