Wade Robson

For the latest on the Wade Robson case, see here.

Until we know the full story, we can’t judge the veracity of Wade Robson’s claims. We will be following this story carefully and adding to this page regularly. Subscribe to our twitter feed and we’ll keep you posted on updates.

There are two separate claims:

One against the Estate of Michael Jackson for a late creditor claim for damages arising from molestation (this case has failed due to the staute of limitations);

Another civil claim against Jackson, his companies and employees for damages arising from molestation (still ongoing, for latest updates see here).

November 6 2014 saw the release of some interesting documents.

On the 12th of April 2014 it was reported by Diane Dimond that James Safechuck Jr (Jimmy Safechuck) had joined Wade’s lawsuit.

Update 27th June 2014:

MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures reply to Wade Robson’s complaint – 21 page PDF file. An ambitious attempt to dismiss the suit against MJ’s companies and absolve them of all responsibility.

The Estate’s reply to Wade Robson’s complaint – 20 page PDF file. The Estate says you can’t sue a dead man, and they are correct. However they are asking Wade to remove Jackson as a defendant from the suit, which of course doesn’t make sense as the Estate is now, in effect, Jackson. Nice try though.

It’s important for you to read:

Wade Robson’s testimony from the 2005 molestation trial
A brief story on Wade and Jackson
Wade Robson’s initial interview
Wade Robson’s full allegations
Wade Robson’s Opposition to Executor’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas (relating to requests for information on Jackson’s previous payouts to boys); and
Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis

to understand this story fully.

On June 27 2013 Wade Robson’s attorneys filed a Petition For Order To Allow Filing Of Late Claim against Michael Jackson’s Estate. See what he is claiming here.

There is a support group for Wade Robson at Facebook – Supporters of Wade Robson.

After defending and praising Michael Jackson for over 20 years, in May 2013 Wade Robson dropped a bombshell and accused him of child molestation. This shocked most people – if not that there was yet another accuser, then that he had the courage to speak out. However, there are two questions that puzzle most people:

Why did he keep praising, even until recently, someone who he now claims molested him?
Why is he asking for money?

The first question in particular is inexplicable for most people. However, to those of us who understand the dynamic between acquaintance molesters and their victims, it is perfectly natural for Mr Robson to behave like this. It’s no surprise.

To most people, child sexual abuse is defined as being performed on an unwilling child by a stranger which is achieved by threats of violence or even actual violence – usually a stranger, a sick pervert, who physically overpowers the child and violently forces them into sexual activity. Some also realize that inter family child abuse exists. There is another little known alternative though, and that is child molestation where the victim is somewhat willing and the molester is in many ways “good”.

Society seems to have a problem dealing with any sexual-victimization case in which the idea that child victims could simply behave like human beings and respond to the attention and affection of offenders by voluntarily and repeatedly returning to an offender’s home is a troubling one, but it happens. Acquaintance molesters (such as Jackson was) spend an inordinate amount of time and effort grooming and seducing their victims. They seem to have a knack knowing which children are vulnerable (or as Jackson’s long time manager put it, Jackson knew which families were “wooable”). They spend an inordinate amount of time building trust – their target being to spend time alone with the child so that they can begin the seduction process. Children are human beings with needs, wants, and desires. Child molestation victims cannot be held to idealistic and superhuman standards of behavior. Their frequent cooperation in their victimization must be viewed as an understandable human characteristic that should have no criminal-justice significance.

Most people believe that children resist sexual advances by adults and are then overpowered by coercion, threats, weapons, or physical force. Although cases with these elements certainly exist, that is not what usually happens in acquaintance molestation cases.

Jackson, I would posit, fit into a narrow subcategory of acquaintance molester, and that is as a preferential molester. Preferential molester are very caring about their victims – they take a lot of time to seduce them, and come to care deeply for them in some ways. This is not to say that they view their “friends” as victims, rather they view the molestation as an “expression of love”. Misguided love to be sure, and totally unacceptable as children, by definition, cannot give consent; however this is how they feel and once you understand that you understand how their victims feel.

Preferential molesters usually don’t summarily dump their victims after they pass the preferred age of attraction. They can keep in touch and continue to be a mentor for years:

There are several men today, whom I mentored when they were boys, who hold me in much higher esteem than they did their absent/no good/worthless fathers. They still call me for advice, I’ve even stood in as Father or been the Best Man at their weddings. That says a lot of where I stand in their hearts. My point here is IF you get involved with a boy, do it for the long term, they keep on needing you, even when their grown up.[1]

Preferential molester victims feel beholden to their abusers, the same abuser which has done so much “good” for them. In Wade Robson’s case, Jackson provided mentorship with his dancing as well as several career opportunities. His connection to Jackson would have helped his career enormously and he must have undoubtedly felt gratitude to Jackson. It is against this background that we have to understand why Wade has praised Jackson for all these years.

Child-lover molesters almost never use violence for sex, said Lanning. Instead, they groom and seduce and manipulate and use cooperation to get what they want out of the child. “I can’t tell you how many cases where there are letters from the victim written to the accused, saying, ‘You’re the nicest person I ever met,’ or ‘You’ve been so good to me,'” said Lanning. Many victims don’t tell anyone of the inappropriate behavior because they are considered “compliant child victims.” “A child can’t legally consent to having sex, but some of them aren’t necessarily fighting him off,” said Lanning. “They’re developmentally immature, and later they feel ashamed and embarrassed that they cooperated in their victimization.”[2]

Because victims of acquaintance exploitation usually have been carefully seduced and often do not realize they are victims, they repeatedly and voluntarily return to the offender. Society and the criminal-justice system have a difficult time understanding this. If a boy is molested by his neighbor, teacher, or clergy member, why does he “allow” it to continue? Most likely he may not initially realize he is a victim. Some victims are simply willing to trade sex for attention, affection, and gifts and do not believe they are victims. The sex itself might even be enjoyable. The offender may be treating them better than anyone has ever treated them.[2]

Most of these victims never disclose their victimization. Younger children may believe they did something “wrong” or “bad” and are afraid of getting into trouble. Older children may be more ashamed and embarrassed. Many victims not only do not disclose, but they strongly deny it happened when confronted. In one case several boys took the stand and testified concerning the high moral character of the accused molester. When the accused molester changed his plea to guilty, he admitted that the boys who testified for him were also victims.[3]

The most common reasons that victims do not disclose are stigma of homosexuality, lack of societal understanding, presence of positive feelings for the offender, embarrassment or fear over their victimization, or do not believe they are victims. Since most of the offenders are male, the stigma of homosexuality is a serious problem for male victims. Although being seduced by a male child molester does not necessarily make a boy a homosexual, the victims do not understand this. If a victim does disclose, he believes that he is risking significant ridicule by his peers and lack of acceptance by his family.[3]

Jackson would have made Wade believe that the molestation was perfectly natural and an expression of love, and warned Wade that telling would have dire consequences for both of them – not because it was “wrong”, but because “people wouldn’t understand”. This is typical of the methods preferential molesters use to keep victims compliant, and is probably what Wade referred to when he spoke of “brainwashing”.

Wade Robson truly loved and admired Jackson – he probably still does – however he would have known something was wrong when his son was born three years ago. Perhaps this exchange rang in his head:

23 Q. I’d like to show you a couple exhibits, 841

24 and 842, that have been shown previously in this

25 court to this jury.

26 Let’s start with one titled “Boys Will Be

27 Boys.” I’d like you to take a look at a few of the

28 pages. Just go ahead and start turning pages,

1 please.

2 Stop there for a moment.

3 Would you describe the picture on the right

4 side?

5 A. There’s a young boy with his legs open and

6 he’s naked.

7 Q. All right. The picture prominently displays

8 his genitalia, does it not?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. That boy looks, to you, to be approximately

11 how old?

12 A. Maybe 11 or 12.

13 Q. That’s how old you were when you were

14 sleeping with Michael Jackson; is that right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Go ahead and flip a couple of more pages, if

17 you would.

18 You can stop right there, the next page.

19 What’s the picture on the left show?

20 A. Just a young boy who’s naked standing on a

21 rock.

22 Q. His genitalia is prominently displayed in

23 that picture; is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Appears that that child is about the same as

26 the other one?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. Flip a couple more pages. Please keep

1 going.

2 Okay. Stop right there.

3 What’s in that two pages, series of two

4 pages?

5 A. There’s a boy, about the same age, 11 or 12,

6 who’s naked.

7 Q. All right. And in those pictures his

8 genitalia is prominently displayed as well; is that

9 correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. In fact, if you’ll take just a second and

12 strum through the balance of that book — you can do

13 it fairly rapidly, if you would. You don’t have to

14 go page by page, but as you wish.

15 Is it true, Mr. Robson, that all of the

16 pictures in that book are of boys about the same

17 age?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. 10, 11, 12 years old?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And that many of the photographs, if not

22 most of the photographs, depicted in that book are

23 of boys nude; is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And in fact, in most of those pictures, the

26 genitalia is prominently displayed; is that right?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. Would you be concerned with a person who

1 possesses a book like that?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Would you be concerned about having your

4 12-year-old child in bed with a person who possesses

5 a book like that?

6 A. No.

7 Q. You would have no such concern?

8 A. No. It’s — to me, it doesn’t — it’s not a

9 pornographic book. It’s sort of, you know — I

10 don’t know, just a book.

11 Q. I’d like — and I’d like to show you

12 Exhibit 596, please. Take a moment and look at that

13 book.

14 Let’s stop there for a moment.

15 That’s the first, in fact, picture in that

16 book; is that correct?

17 A. I didn’t notice, no.

18 Do you want me to go to the first picture?

19 Q. You know, no, you can pick any picture,

20 actually. Just go ahead and open the book at

21 random.

22 Right there.

23 A. Oh, sorry.

24 Q. Is it a fact, as you look through that book,

25 what is depicted in that book throughout that book

26 are a series of photographs of two men engaged in

27 sex acts with one another?

28 A. Yes.

1 Q. And in fact, the sex acts are all acts of

2 either masturbation, oral sex or sodomy; is that

3 right?

4 A. From what I saw, yes.

5 Q. And sodomy, as you understand, is an act of

6 anal sex; is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Would you be concerned about a person who

9 possesses that book crawling into bed with a

10 ten-year-old boy?

11 A. Yes, I guess so.

Once Wade realized something was inherently wrong with their relationship, it would have taken him a long tme to process his feelings. He would have felt totally torn between speaking the truth and betraying his idol and mentor. As any acquaintance molester victim will tell you, it would have been mental torture.

Even when Wade Robson did come out with his claims, he couldn’t completely damn Jackson. He still felt compassion for Jackson even though Jackson is dead. Wade would still be conscious of all Jackson did to help him in spite of the bad stuff. This can’t be emphasised enough.

Why is he asking for money?

This question has no definite answer and we can only speculate.

As yet, no dollar amount has been suggested, but we do know that Wade is making two seperate civil claims – one against the estate of Michael Jackson, the other against companies which were instrumental in bringing him to the US to be with Jackson. Whether he wins these claims or not, he will get his story out.

This may be his strategy – have his claims proven in a court of law to remove any doubt whatsoever over his claims. This would be a coup as it has never been proven in court what many people feel to be true – that Jackson wasn’t just a pedophile, but a molester as well.

The other possibility is that Wade Robson simply wants compensation for the abuse suffered at the hand of Jackson, and to financially punish those who turned a blind eye to Jackson’s pecadilloes simply because he was making them money.

It would seem highly unlikely that Wade would by lying for cash – nobody would put themselves through the bitter vilification and threats from Jackson fans for any amount of money.

On that point, it is sad to see vicious attacks from Jackson fans – why on earth are they sticking up for a pop star who didn’t mind being called a pedophile (after all, if he minded he would have stopped sleeping with boys after the first accusations), who was never much interested in defending himself over the years? Let’s not forget, Jackson never co-operated with law enforcement officials, even during initial enquiries over his relationships with boys.

Why are some commentators calling Wade Robson a liar?

Michael Jackson Apologism is an industry. There are people out there making money, or stroking their egos (two things this writer will never do) attempting to vindicate Michael Jackson. They are writing books, articles and blog posts which pander to the fans and repeat all the intellectually unsound conclusions (child erotica = art books anyone?) made about Jackson. They are really worried now – someone who was actually there may finally prove what many have known for a long time – that Jackson not only had an unhealthy interest in boys, wasn’t just sexually attracted to them, but acted on his impulses as well.

These commentators have a lot at stake – the main thing being loss of face. They are merely pseudo intellectuals who have made up excuses for Jackson’s behaviour with boys for years, have a huge following and now they feel threatened. Without listening to one word that Wade Robson has spoken they branded him a liar, an opportunist and a traitor. Wade Robson has the potential to put egg on their faces so rather than listen to his full story, they prefer to support a dead multimillion dollar pop star instead of a living possible abuse victim. This is crazy! They say that Wade Robson “isn’t acting like a proper victim” (here’s a hint for Joe, David, Charles and the rest – read this and get a clue: Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis). What has society come to when we turn away people that are hurt in favor of a man who shared his bed with young boys. Hopefully they will come to their senses and stop making excuses for a fatally flawed man.

To be continued…

 

[1] Google Groups – Retrieved 21st May 2013

[2] ABC News – Retrieved 20th November 2011

[3] Child Molesters: A Behavioural Analysis

[3]Brett Barnes testimony was very clear on that.

  • Pingback: Michael Jackson - The Sleepovers - MJ Facts()

  • Pingback: The Boys in Michael Jackson's Life - MJ Facts()

  • Athanasia Vagias

    I would like to weigh in here. I am not a fanatic fan by any means. I have listened to michael jackson’s songs and think he is an amazing artist. I have a doctorate degree in psychology. But my main job is that I am a mom of 2 beautiful children. I have read every article and watched every video ever made of Michael Jackson and these alleged crimes. I have to say that I don’t care what sources you cite and what evidence you claim to have uncovered, there is no evidence whatsoever to say that Michael Jackson did commit any of these crimes or heinous acts. I am by no means a pseudo intellectual and I am surely not making any money regarding this. I am basing this on my years of study in this field and I would bet my reputation that Michael Jackson NEVER committed any of these acts. If you really knew behavioral analysis and psychology, you would clearly see that Wade’s body language every time he speaks about these allegations is that of a person who is lying and not telling the truth. I am in no way writing this because I want people to believe me. What I am hoping to get out of this is that people stop believing anyone who writes about these issues and does their own research and investigation and comes to their own conclusions.

    • Andreas Moss

      “I am by no means a pseudo intellectual”

      You obviously are, though. You are bragging about studies in psychology, but can’t seem to present a single reason for MJs innocence(or for Wade lying) beyond that people are supposed to give you credence based on an alleged degree. Sounds a bit silly. What about writing down a couple of real reasons next time? Blow everybody away with your awesome research then.

      • Athanasia Vagias

        If you read my post clearly, you would see that I am telling you to do your own research and investigation. Don’t just believe everything you read because people cite some sources. Unless you have personally checked out those sources yourself. I never asked anyone to believe what I am saying and nor do I care if they do. It just really annoys me about how much injustice and lies that there is out there and people jump on the band wagon without having done their own research themselves. Just because I said I am a princess does not make it so.

        • ANOTHER psych major commenting on MJ Facts. What are the odds?

          If you read my post clearly, you would see that I am telling you to do your own research and investigation.

          No, you did not, Athanasia. First you started with an appeal to authority – I would like to weigh in here. and I have a doctorate degree in psychology. – then proceeded to attempt to deceive readers into thinking you had used your qualifications to assess Michael Jackson’s guilt… I am basing this on my years of study in this field and I would bet my reputation that Michael Jackson NEVER committed any of these acts.

          So you aren’t telling people to “do their own research and investigation”, you are imploring readers to accept your conclusions as scientifically based.

          You then continue your deceit by saying If you really knew behavioral analysis and psychology, you would clearly see that Wade’s body language every time he speaks about these allegations is that of a person who is lying and not telling the truth.

          When challenged by Andreas – You are bragging about studies in psychology, but can’t seem to present a single reason for MJs innocence(or for Wade lying) beyond that people are supposed to give you credence based on an alleged degree. – you immediately start back pedalling by disclaiming any of your conclusions. You also dissemble by insisting I never asked anyone to believe what I am saying and nor do I care if they do.

          Why comment (or even bring up your doctorate degree), if you don’t care about whether anyone believes you or not? The truth is that you care deeply what people think.

          What you need to do is tell us WHY “Wade’s body language every time he speaks about these allegations is that of a person who is lying and not telling the truth”, citing papers and/or studies that back up your position.

          You would also need to explain why MJ had a compulsion to sleep with young boys night after night http://www.mjfacts.com/michael-jackson-sleepovers/ (and wouldn’t it be amusing for the rest of us if a professional such as yourself tried to cite his “lost childhood” as a reason for that?), why he insisted on his boy friends calling him “Dad” http://www.mjfacts.com/whats-the-story-with-omer-bhatti-and-michael-jackson/, or why a “man child” would require copious amounts of porn http://www.mjfacts.com/the-full-list-of-porn-erotica-found-in-michael-jacksons-home/ in the bedroom he shared with those same young boys. You will also need to explain how five different boys have produced detailed descriptions of Jackson’s grooming methods and his behavior which is identical to other acquaintance molesters.

          It would be great if you could posit how all this fits into your professional opinion that “there is no evidence whatsoever to say that Michael Jackson did commit any of these crimes or heinous acts.” with relevant references, it may help us to come to the same conclusion as you.

          Of course you may choose not to, in which case you should edit your original comment to remove references to the implication that you used your qualifications to assess MJ’s innocence and insert the real reason – you had a gut feeling.

          • Kat

            I’m sure you guys have already seen this, but here’s a video of a body language expert analyzing Wade’s body signals and concluding that he’s telling the truth when saying that Michael molested him:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ORrKcZsslk

            She claims that we can see the sincerity and emotion when he speaks, and that his voice doesn’t waver and he maintains eye contact – all signs of honesty. You don’t need to be an expert to see that Wade is telling the truth, IMO. Those who claim he’s completely unbelievable are mostly already biased and ready to believe Jackson before anyone else. They have already decided that he wasn’t, couldn’t be a child molester.

            Personally I don’t consider body language analysis or statement analysis to be serious sciences that can be used to conclusively determine someone’s guilt or innocence. They can be helpful, but then at the same time I think pretty much any person can do basic body language or statement analysis and deem a person to be credible or not, no degree necessary.

            My assessment is that MJs accusers are believable when they speak about the sexual abuse, while Jackson never was when denying them. He was always vague, never directly denied molesting even one boy, often changed the question (‘did you sexually abuse this child’ became ‘I could never hurt a child or anyone, it’s not in my heart’), and never called the alleged victims by their names (there is no record of him saying I didn’t molest Jordie, Jason, or Gavin, he liked to change it to children in general, as if to avoid speaking about particular kids). Altogether very suspect, if you ask me!

          • Kat that video is very interesting. Dr Lillian Glass is considered an expert on body language but to be honest I’ve never looked into her work much.

            Renee Ellory is another, well, I wouldn’t say a body language expert but an expert in picking deception. She has analyzed Wade’s interview too http://www.eyesforlies.com/blog/2013/05/wade-robson-i-believe-him/ and concludes he’s speaking the truth. Frustratingly she doesn’t give her reasons why she believes so as she no longer shares her opinions publicly, but her strike rate in uncovering deception is impressive.

            She also covered MJ’s News of the World deposition video, http://www.eyesforlies.com/blog/2009/07/michael-jackson-unseen-video/ although it’s quite obvious even to the layman or woman that MJ is lying!

            I also trust Mark McClish’s statement analysis of the MJ material he did http://www.statementanalysis.com/jackson/ which is very observant.

            The bottom line is that it’s easily shown MJ is a liar, yet defenders put an inordinate amount of weight on Jackson’s own words to defend him.

            The fans like to put forward CJ Baxter as their body language expert, but he appears to merely have done a couple of short courses (Humintell from David Matsumoto and a 16 hour statement analysis course from the aforementioned Mark McClish) and subsequently set himself up as an expert. Unlike Renee Ellory and Mark McClish, on his website http://www.all-about-body-language.com/ he has no examples of his work so it’s impossible to judge his accuracy. Fans like him because he believes MJ is innocent (or more accurately, wrote a book saying MJ was innocent!) 🙂

          • Kat

            Dr Lillian Glass has many years of experience and is entirely unbiased, which is also highly important. The same can be said about Mark McClish. I read his analysis and I’m with him on many points… Craig James Baxter on the other hand is totally biased in Jackson’s favor. I’ve seen some of his videos while browsing on YouTube and it’s easy to see that he’s already decided Jackson is innocent before analyzing his body signals. He claims MJ is totally honest when denying the molestation allegations, but somehow doesn’t register that he never actually denies anything. Saying ‘I could never harm a child’ isn’t a denial of having molested Jordie for example.

            The fact that Baxter wrote a book that claims MJ is totally innocent is I think pathetic and desperate. Like I said body language analysis isn’t enough to clear someone’s name. It’s not accurate either, since two experts can be given the same task and come to completely opposite conclusions. It’s sort of arrogant for someone to think that they can state someone didn’t do something based on their body language in recorded videos alone! CJ also thinks Wade is lying, because admitting that Wade is credible would go against what he wrote in his book, which I’m certain many dumb floons purchased, because they’re ready to believe anyone who says MJ didn’t do it.

            If I had to assess Wade I would say he’s generally entirely believable. I’ve seen other victims of sexual abuse speaking about their experience, and many of them appear to be damaged and have a difficult time talking about it. I can see the same psychological damage on Wade’s face and in his speech, so I would say his demeanor is consistent with someone who’s gone through that experience. Two things that people can have an issue with – one is Wade saying that he’s speaking ‘his truth’ and the other is that he mentions compassion. As for why Wade won’t say that it’s simply the truth I don’t know, but I think it could be just a manner of speech or his way of expressing himself. As for him saying that he has compassion for Jackson, well he clarifies that it’s not because he sexually abused him, but rather because ‘he was a troubled man’. Wade possibly has empathy for Jackson, because of the many inner demons that he battled through his life. One outdated belief is that all victims must hate their abusers, but that’s not true, it’s more probable they feel a number of mixed feelings towards them, and compassion can be one of them. Or that’s my understanding of it. (=

          • CandyC

            I agree with what you said about Wade, I believe he is telling the truth. Body language is never something people should go by completely, anyone can be biased in their opinion especially someone like Craig James Baxter, who is a f’loon and has even before analysing body language has made up his mind, so his videos are irrelevant.

            MJ was never provided a true denial of the crimes he was accused of, his “I could never hurt a child” “I don’t think like that/I’m not even interested in that” don’t cut it.

            Most people when asked questions about if they have molested a child would become angry/defensive if they’re asked such a thing (that’s if they’re innocent, however) and also vehemently deny it. Who in their right mind would smile/laugh at being asked that? — many, many people smile/laugh if they’re nervous/uncomfortable or feel confronted —

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CIBPhZKvJa0

          • Kat

            I feel exactly like you do; Jackson never made strong, clear denials. If anything, stating that he would never hurt a child does more to prove that he did molest those boys. Child molesters tend to rationalize and find excuses for their actions. They think molestation is loving, innocent, misunderstood, normal, even healthy, but not hurtful or harmful. Which allows someone like MJ to say that whatever he does he doesn’t hurt children.

            A person who didn’t do something is expected to directly deny it. I remember reading Evan Chandler’s records, specifically the part where Evan asked Jackson if he was f–ing his son. To which MJ apparently responded by giggling and saying that he doesn’t use such dirty words. That is not a normal reaction! Or at least not normal from someone who isn’t a molester.

            The police deposition video is very similar to that, he smiles and shakes his head, but doesn’t make denials. And OMG, does MJ look horrible in that video or what? I still can’t believe that someone could mutilate their own face like that. Is it me or is the tip of his nose missing? I guess the rumors were true – he didn’t have a nose in the nineties, and wearing surgical masks in public was the only way to hide it. It would be funny if it wasn’t epically messed up.

          • CandyC

            I completely agree with you on this subject. I think in some messed up way, MJ never saw what he was doing as “harming” the child, but I know he was aware of the consequences of being caught.
            One other thing I wanted to say, Kat, was that MJ was taught to lie from a very young age, especially to interviewers/reporters. To me that is very telling — by the time he was an adult (despite his protestations of being childlike) he would have learnt to be a master at dishonesty to the point, where you’ve pointed out in one of your posts on here, that it would be virtually impossible for anyone, even a body language “expert” to read him and be accurate, he could tell a lie with a straight face and you’d swear he was being honest.

            He once even stated that kids never lie, which as far as I know is false, lol.

            MJ was a master manipulator and was very deceptive.

          • ShawntayUStay

            James Safechuck did say that MJ told him it was okay to lie, that you never got in trouble when you lied. That was obviously MJ’s experience, but of course he never got into trouble because he was a celebrity. When’s the last time a non-rapper celebrity went to jail for wrong doing? They just get a slap on the wrist. However, I think that MJ wasn’t a good liar, I think it’s more that he just easily lied and it made him just appear confident. But what he said was not really convincing, it’s more of throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

            Like the origins of Blanket: he first easily lied and said he knew the mother and that they had a relationship (obvious lie — he didn’t like women, LOL) but he couldn’t speak about her because of a confidentiality agreement, then he later says that he had no clue who she was, she was just a surrogate (the truth). As they always say, if you want to be a “good” liar, you must have an excellent memory, LOL. One wonders why MJ lied so much but tellers of lies are often insecure people who lie to make themselves look better, which is…sad. I think MJ was the same. Lying about plastic surgery because he was embarrassed that he messed his face up; lying about his net worth to Bashir because he’s embarrassed that he’s an in debt spendthrift; lying about Blanket because he hated that he always never had an interest in women and that he was labeled homosexual. The list goes on and makes you wonder why someone with everything was filled with such self loathing. I feel sorry for him.

          • king cooper

            He obviously suffered from some kind of Psychosis or schizophrenic disorder. Excessive lying is a strong indication of a mental illness.

            From wikipedia: “Pathological lying is considered a mental illness, because it takes over rational judgment and progresses into the fantasy world and back. Pathological lying can be described as a habituation of lying. It is when an individual consistently lies for no personal gain. The lies are commonly transparent and often seem rather pointless.”

          • Neely

            This is a question I asked a few weeks ago, but nobody responded 🙁
            In the autopsy, it showed that Jackson only had two scars on his face, one on either side of his nose. (Behind his ears and posterior apex of his neck as well). I can’t figure out how this is possible. How did he get that huge divot in his chin without a scar? And, frankly, all the other morphs that took place? I wonder if all the restylane and Botox, which apparently he got almost daily, morphed him in a variety of ways, along with his skin color, facial tattoos, etc. Did all these things combined make him look drastically different? Well, even if that’s so, it still doesn’t explain the hole on his chin.

            Sidebar – I read this morning that the estate sold his catalog back to Sony. One column said Branca stated it would get the estate out of debt. I thought his debt was all recovered after his death. Sounds like something the estate might say to cover their arses amongst the fan community. Branca better get his seatbelt on. 🙂

          • ShawntayUStay

            Hi Neely. Well, I don’t know the specifics of plastic surgery, but it’s possible that the doctors continued to got through the same incision site over and over — that is something they do to minimize adding extra scars. It could be that all the rhinoplasties were done that way. Alternately, MJ could have (and probably did) undergo scar revision procedures to help minimize the appearance of scars from his multiple operations, like flattening them with silicone coverings, etc. Oh, I do remember vaguely that Debbie Rowe said that MJ did have scar revision procedures to help with the hypertrophic/keloid scars on his scalp from the infamous Pepsi commercial burn. It could be that the procedures were such a success that the coroner could only notice the two scars on each side of his nostrils. His now-deceased dermatologist Dr Arnold Klein did say to Larry King that he used fillers in his nose — you can use restylane and hyaluronic acid to repair the nasal bridge. And hypodermic needles leave imperceptible scarring if the procedure was months to years old.

            As for that infamous chin, I believe the dimple is actually a planned scar. I have no idea how they did that; it could also be an implant of some sort but MJ’s overall chin shape looks similar so I think it’s a scar.

            About the catalog sale, for the life of me I don;’t understand why these fans care about money that doesn’t belong to them, LOL! Makes no sense. MJ was $500 million in debt at the time of his death and, according to articles, his Sony/ATV catalog was used as collateral by him many times to get loans — it was worth that much. The estate got $750 million in the process, and since they’ve been working hard to lower his debt, MJ’s kids will get one helluva pretty penny. These fans act like anyone cares what they think. So arrogant. LOL

          • Neely

            I get a mental image of the MD tunneling through his face from behind his ear, trying to find his chin. :). Not that pleasant, turns out.

            I don’t know why anyone is concerned with the money either. I understand he resisted selling back his ownership, borrowing against it in astronomical proportions. I suspect that’s what might bring the fans into total meltdown. I felt like once he got so deeply in lien on it, why not just relinquish it and save the drama? Maybe that would be too easy. Nothing seemed to be very easy in his world. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night with a lien like that. He should have sold it a long time ago, and stayed in Bahrain. That’s my advice to a dead man. 🙂

          • Celestia

            Hi! I really wanted to leave a comment thanking the owner(s) of this site and all of its followers/contributors for all of the wonderful and thorough research put into looking at Michael Jackson and his life in such an objective and respectful way. I must say that all of the content I have read seems to be very accurate and precise, which is admirable when this man’s life was so eccentric and mysterious. I suppose you could say that I am in the transitioning period of becoming a 100% MJ realist (I hope that is the right term lol) and this site has definitely helped me to sort through my thoughts and feelings about how I feel about everything (the boys, sleepovers, etc.). I definitely believe that Michael was a pedophile and I must say that a lot of the things I have learned about MJ are rather shocking to say the least (even disgusting at times) but I think it is quite valuable for people to understand what kind of man he was and how he lived his life as opposed tonburying their heads in the sand and blindly labeling him as an “Angel on earth” or a “savior of children” like I have seen so many times before. I hope no one would mind me commenting here from time to time simply because you all seem to be a very respectful and highly intelligent group of people; which is VERY hard to come across nowadays. Haha 🙂

            As far as the plastic surgery goes and what MJ had done to his chin and his nose (which he went WAY overboard on), I believe his surgeon, the late Dr. Arnold Klein, gave him a chin implant and a rhinoplasty to change the shape of his face and make his nose look more proportional to the rest of his face (although they weren’t very successful lol) but at best this is just mere speculation. I think he definitely had an implant surgically installed into his chin instead of it being a scar because I would assume a scar on his chin would have faded over time. I recently came upon a documentary on YouTube that discusses in depth plastic surgery and the reasons why those choose to have it, and one of the stand outs of the program was this middle-aged woman who hated her nose because she was made fun of it throughout most of her life (sound familiar?) and decided to have her nose done. Initially she solely planned on having an operation done on her nose but her surgeon pursuaded her to add a cleft in her chin to compliment her new nose much like what was done to Michael. It shows her actually receiving the procedure and how she handled it afterwards. It is a very interesting program and I would recommend it to anyone interested in what MJ did to his face as I believe his situation is extremely similar to some of the patients showed in the program. It also discusses hair loss and reconstructive surgery done to repair the scalp which is also noteworthy because we all remember that Pepsi commercial burn that cost Michael a good portion of his scalp.

            I do not know if I am allowed to post links here but if I violated any rules then please forgive me. 🙂

            https://youtube.com/watch?v=VGzku3hRo2Y
            (The portion about rhinoplasties and chin implants start around the 9 minute mark for those who wish to view it straight away.)

          • Mahoney

            Hi Celestia,

            “I suppose you could say that I am in the transitioning period of becoming a 100% MJ realist (I hope that is the right term lol)” …

            Ha, I’m kinda new to all of this also and going through a similar thing, and I agree this site is amazing (It’s saving me a fortune on therapy, I may have to buy Miffy and Shawn giant Easter Eggs). I’m still in the “having my cake and eating it” phase…

            The guys and gals on here have created such a great community and there’s an awesome freedom allowed in discussing MJ (Although I’m not sure how respectful I’ve been re. MJ the man) and everybody I’ve been in contact with all come across as intelligent, level-headed people that are just interested in the truth.

            As for the term “MJ realist” – I’ve seen it bandied about about and some seem quite happy with it, I’m not fully on board as I find the label disconcertingly vague at best (I’m willing to listen to a genuinely clear definition however)… But whatever floats ya boat/mows ya lawn etc… It’s just not a term that I’m willing to label myself at the moment.

            As I said, I’m pretty new on here also and my views are subject to change.

            Re. MJ’s head-burn, a quick Google image search will show you some fairly graphic pics of the procedure MJ went through to minimize the bald-spots (I won’t post them here… People may be eating their waffles).

          • Celestia

            What a relief! I had no idea if I was the only new one here as you guys seem to already have so much knowledge…

            “I’m still in the ‘having my cake and eating it’ phase…”
            Same here! I didnt really know how to explain where I was at currently as far MJ is concerned but I think you just hit the nail on the head for me.

            You are so very right. As someone who has now come full circle and talked to people from both ends of the spectrum, I definitely have to say that you guys are WAY more pleasant to talk to than the VMJ folks. If you so much as question anything about Michael that isn’t positive about him on one of the fan sites they will tear you apart! But you guys look at MJ from all angles instead of from just one biased point of view, so words cannot describe how happy I am to have stumbled across this community. Thank you guys for having me. 🙂

            Ah yes, I have seen those pictures. Thinking about it now makes me feel sick to my stomach but that was MJ’s reality. This may sound dumb coming from me but I had no idea until recently that Michael wore wigs; go figure! I suppose I was so concerned about finding out the truth about the molestations that that one fact about him just slipped over head lol.

          • Neely

            Ahhhh, Celestia!! I will shamelessly claim the spot as least informed with humility. I have only been researching for 6 months (generous approximation most likely). I had NO IDEA what kind of tunnel this would turn into…..with no end apparently. So many lies, so many truths, so much rumor and money making. So many axes to grind, including from Jackson. I honestly have no idea how any celebrity can exist with all that swirling around them.

            I’ve never been to VMJ that I can recall. I had been submerged in the trial transcripts from 2005 for quite some time. Then took a break from it near the end of Janet Arvizos testimony. I started to lose interest. I went back and finished hers in the last 10 days or so. Her testimony was what I was after, but felt like I couldn’t jump into the middle and get an accurate portrayal of all that had taken place up to that point. I should really go back to it and find out what others have to say.

            The wigs…..doesn’t it make you wonder why Jackson didn’t just go through that hair transplant procedure you shared? I suspect because he didn’t care to be the autologous donor, and finding a homologous donor might be taxing…..for Michael Jackson. Auditions for smooth, silky, perfectly coiffed, shiny black hair transplant anyone? 😀

          • Mahoney

            Well, I’m certainly glad to hear somebody else talk with a similar voice to mine on here.

            As for the VMJ crowd, I’ve only dipped in and out of that community (and similar ones) briefly and I find it utterly depressing and negative.

            Is there another artist (living or dead) who’s fan-base seem to be based on discussing the negative rather than appreciating the artistic output as much as that crowd? Bless their little cotton socks.

          • Pea

            There’s nothing wrong with not adopting the term “MJ Realist”, Mahoney. It’s been quite perverted since it’s debut back in 2011. Originally, the term “MJ Realist” referred to someone, usually a current or former fan, who still had some amount of affection for Michael Jackson (concomitant with fandom, obviously) but was honest enough to admit that the man was flawed, maybe even severely so. It characterized that ambivalent phase when you realize that the person you admired may not be who you thought they were.

            Now, unfortunately, the term has been hijacked by people who actively hate Michael Jackson, who — for some unknown reason — have nothing better to do than troll and upset people without adding anything of substance to the overall Jacko discussion. (By the way, it was nabbed by the same people who invented the term “f’loon”, which you’ve mentioned before that you have a problem with.)

            So, I wouldn’t use the term — I pretty much can’t use it anymore! I just call myself a “critic”, if anything. Or a former fan. Hell, I’ll even use the totally silly term “hater” that fans have created — I just won’t call myself an “MJ Realist”. 🙂

          • Mahoney

            Hi Pea,

            Thanks for clearing that up… Well I certainly seem to fall into the “still had some amount of affection for Michael Jackson (concomitant with fandom, obviously) but was honest enough to admit that the man was flawed” camp.

            …But I’ll just happily be myself without any of these muddy labels thanking-you-all-kindly.

            I’d just like to be seen as a simple bloke on a quest… A simple, yet incredibly hunky and talented bloke on a quest. Just a simple, incredibly hunky, talented, generous bloke on a quest… With rock-hard abs, cat-like agility, hands of a surgeon and the voice of an angel. Oh and humble and modest to boot.

            You may have said this elsewhere on the site, but what is your history with MJ if you don’t mind me asking?

            Me in a nutshell – Loved him all my life pretty much up until Dangerous (I’m just on the right side of 40 – a hunky talented 40 – as we’ve all but agreed on ) and then lost interest pretty much up until his death. I mean I listened to his albums after that and watched with horrified amazement as he fell apart mentally and physically in front of us all… But I was never really “into” him again until he died.

            Oh and congrats on “concomitant”.You had me heading off to Google, you’re quite the pedagogue. 🙂

          • Pea

            LMAO, your post was so funny! I’m not pedagogue, believe me — I just know a couple show-stoppers. 😉

            As for my history, I only really paid attention to Michael Jackson after his death; I wanted to know why he was clogging up the news and the TV. Then I researched him and became hooked into his story. I thought he was gentle, maligned, misunderstood…. I couldn’t bear people calling him a pedophile; not only did I think the implication was horrible, I also thought it was mean! But then just being around other fans, who were hegemonic and would attack if you questioned them about “their version” of MJ, set me on my own “quest” for the truth. I was rebellious so I (spitefully) started reading some of the things that weren’t fan-approved, then I was looking at documents, transcripts, and news stories… eventually I started thinking that maybe Jacko was a pedophile, but not a molester, and the parents of Jordie Chandler, for instance, sensed he was attracted to boys and used it against him. That sounds ridiculous now. 🙂

            So, it’s been since 2009. I took a break from all things Jacko for about 2.5 years and am back trying to figure out what happened. I still like Michael Jackson, even though I know he’s a pedophile. I feel sorry for him, but I oscillate about it. Mostly I have affection for him, though, and I generally dislike the “hater” crowd, except “Miffy”. 😉

            That’s my story. 🙂

          • Mahoney

            “hegemonic”?

            Now you’re just showing off!

            It’s fascinating to me that there’s seemingly a metric-shit-tonne of people like yourself who became interested in him not because of the music, but rather his enigma/stigma (if I’m to understand you correctly?). That’s been a massive revelation to me… Did it lead you to appreciate him as a recording artist at all?

            Maybe that could explain a contingent of the more “vitriolic” fans and their attitude? Their introduction to MJ has been negative from the get-go in essence… So it has inevitably continued in that fashion? Mmmm.

            I’m starting to feel like the only person on Earth who liked him when he was black, things were positive and all that mattered was the tunes and he could walk backwards in style.

            As for me joking… I kinda can’t help it… It drives the wife mad… The number of times she’s scolded me at social gatherings for trying to convince a complete stranger that a “Clitoris Rex” was a real dinosaur is too numerous to count.

            Ha! Miffy… I’m chuffed that’s catching on. I’ve never really talked to Miffy about her (?) views on Michael… It’s interesting you described her as a “hater”. Guess I’ll have to ponder that one. Or I could just ask… If you’re reading this Miffy drop me a line… Send a carrier-pigeon, smoke signal… what evs.

            Actually, I’d love to know everybody’s history/intro to MJ who contributes here… It’s my new drug!

          • Pea

            You are very funny, Mahoney. It’s a gift — I don’t think I’m funny at all, well, at least I don’t think I’d be to most people. 🙂

            I wasn’t drawn into the music, really, but I don’t think his music is bad. I have a bunch of his songs in iTunes, and when I was a fan, I always listened to him — from the J5 days to “Invincible”. I have a special soft spot for the black Michael myself, when he was cute and normal; but most black fans would like the black one, right? 🙂 But I also like the freakish one because he was a hot mess.

            I just find him fascinating, his story more than the music. Actually Jacko’s music is not really my favorite. I prefer less poppy tunes.

            As for Miffy, I’ve known Miffy since 2011 and maybe Miffy will share their story — it’s different than you’d expect. I say “hater” because that’s the term fans call us, and mjfacts is still considered one of the big ones! LOL.

          • Mahoney

            “You are very funny, Mahoney. It’s a gift” ha… thanks – I have what is known colloquially from there-here-parts as having “the gift of the gab” I s’pose.

            I use it mainly to disarm I think, but more often than not I’m just doing it to amuse myself and it can come in handy quite a bit… That’s not to say it’s always positive, I mean I wouldn’t send me in to diffuse a hostage situation. 🙂

            I find it almost impossible not to be humorous about MJ because he’s such a ridiculously rich vein of absurdity to tap into. I mean the guy became a (darkly sad) joke for the last decade or so didn’t he, as he got lighter his world got darker it seemed… Not that his drug/child abuse is inherently funny (or at all)… Just the juxtaposition of what he tried to portray publicly and the reality.

            “but most black fans would like the black one, right? ” – I can’t speak to that cos’ I’m as white as they come, I think I prefer him black simply because he seemed healthier and happier… Which was probably the case.

          • ShawntayUStay

            No, you’re right. There is something very darkly comedic about Michael Jackson’s life. It’s that juxtaposition like you said, the fall from atop a very, very high pedestal, the transformation from black to white. It’s not to say that pedophilia is funny, but to specifically have that follow years of bizarre behavior — like having a pet chimp, holding Emmanuel Lewis on his hip like a baby, the interest in the Elephant Man’s bones, or his greasy Jheri curl acting as a candle wick in the Pepsi commercial — it makes one chuckle at the absurdity! He had his pick of any woman on the planet and he preferred climbing trees and sleeping with little white boys; a black man from Gary, Indiana? It’s like, can this guy get any stranger?

            I think it’s a testament to what fame can do to an already fragile mind. They have no one to pull them back into reality because they are sitting at the top of the totem pole, so they become more and more psychotic and detached.

            It’s no wonder he’s been skewered by most comedians and on sketch comedy shows.
            https://youtu.be/QPngHV_y0P4
            https://youtu.be/HQNj1EQN-o0

          • Mahoney

            ha… awesome, never seen those before! The sad thing is… It’s not much more than a bug’s-cock away from the truth is it?

            The music magazine Mojo did a really good editorial on him years ago (waaay before his death) Invincible-era I think and the tagline has always stuck with me – “Michael Jackson – The Magical Rise And Bizarre Fall Of Soul’s Ultimate Superstar”. I think that sums it up somewhat.

            “He had his pick of any woman on the planet and he preferred climbing trees and sleeping with little white boys” … Yeah, well he could have had his pick of uncountable consenting adults, gender aside – It’s just another one of the seemingly endless so-tragic-it’s-comic ironies about the man isn’t it?

            It’s all so f**ked up.

          • Neely

            Hi Celestia!
            I agree, this site is a wonderful resource. I don’t know how I’d categorize myself. I was never a fan, or follower in any sense of the word. I would call my interest “investigative entertainment”, because I’m interested in criminal minds to some degree, and perhaps even more interested in the lengths they will go to in order to maintain a facade. Michael Jackson is more fascinating to me than say, the murder of Marilyn Monroe or OJs debacles, although I do remember the white bronco day. :-). I think it’s because of his public persona. He went to great lengths to carefully manufacture an image of delicacy in the minds of followers, and to capture the minds of non followers.

            I had a question recently about the findings of scars on Jackson’s autopsy report. There wasn’t a scar on or near his chin, so I’m baffled as to how it was altered in such an obvious way. If they can detect all the needle punctures on his body, surely they could note even the smallest of scars on his chin. Maybe your video will clear that up for me. Thank you for posting it.

            I

          • Neely

            Sorry ladies and gentlemen. Here it is…..

          • Neely

            Ahhhh, through the mouth!! Why didn’t I think of that? Excellent documentary. Thanks for sharing it. The mystery of chin implants is solved. 🙂

          • Mahoney

            Ha… It’s really obvious once it’s pointed out isn’t it?

          • Neely

            Yes, yes, and YES!! I have one solid truth out of all my time wasted trying to figure this guy out!! Through the mouth folks…..through the MOUTH!! :-).

          • ShawntayUStay

            Actually, it was Dr Steven Hoefflin that did most of MJ’s plastic surgery. He also did the nose jobs of most of the Jackson brothers and sisters (except Jermaine and Rebbie), and even Joe and Katherine’s. Many there was a “7 for the price of 1” coupon, LOL.

            See, I was always of the opinion that MJ never had a chin implant because, at least to me, his chin looked relatively the same shape, just with the addition of the cleft. While researching this, it’s possible to do a chin cleft surgery with out using an implant, by modifying the bone and/or removing fat and tissue in the chin. So that to me could explain why MJ’s chin looked fairly similar in shape before and after the cleft. Or if he had an implant it was extremely subtle, although I’ve read that an implant alone will not produce the noticeable cleft like one MJ had. You’d have to remove tissue and fat as well — “contouring”.

          • Neely

            Groupon!! 🙂

            Now I’m going to have to look closer at that ShawntayUStay. I was really only studying the cleft. In my mind’s eye, after watching the implant surgery, I imagined them using two implants with a space between them to create the cleft. This has absolutely no scientific basis of course. I now wonder if the cleft can be created through the mouth as well.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Groupon indeed! When I was younger, I seriously used to think that MJ’s pinched Peter Pan nose was his “biological nose” because he still looked so much like the rest of his family. Come to find out, they all had rhinoplasties by the same doc. Oh, how innocent children are…I had no concept of plastic surgery, LOL.

            Yes, I believe that all the incisions are made through the mouth to prevent obvious scars, even the tissue contouring and bone shaving, like this technique: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3385382/

          • Neely

            Oh my….no way! I would never go through that, lol! Permanent sutures or wires in the chin for a little dimple? Michael Jackson’s looked so dramatic in some pics. As if there might have been some hair growth in it causing it to look even deeper and darker. For whatever reason, I find that gross. 😛
            Thanks for the link.

          • Celestia

            What an interesting piece of information, Shawntay! I had no idea the entire Jackson clan had their noses done; go figure! I originally assumed that only Michael, Latoya and Janet had their noses done (I figured they especially cared more about their appearance) but the entire family… What a shocker. I always thought the brothers (Jermaine, Tito, Jackie, etc) kept their original noses because they didn’t care about it as much. I have to say that’s it’s very sad that they all had such bad self-image issues that they all got their noses done. What a shame. 🙁

            Would you believe me if I said that I felt the same way when I was little? It’s funny because I always wondered how he could breathe because his nose was so tiny. Do you really think he had his nose done to imitate Peter Pan though? I figured the reason he had it altered so much was to deny his heritage or so he wouldn’t look like Joseph.

          • Andreas Moss

            The Wade analysis she did was great. Very convincing. Its correct that she is unbiased, and she says on her website she is not making any claim either way if MJ was a pedophile.

            Besides Wade Robson, Lillian Glass also commented on the Jackson’s bodyguard interview, and its also very interesting. When they were asked about the pedophile rumors, and they denied, Glass found their reaction extremely peculiar:

            “Something really strange happened body language wise when [interviewer] Ashley Banfield asked them if they thought Michael was a pedophile. They were clearly uncomfortable with this question as each one of them squirmed and had various body language tells which illustrated their discomfort with this area of questioning.[…] Their discomfort was very visible in their body language as this was the first time throughout the entire interview that they weren’t as confident verbally, vocally or body language-wise.

            As examples of what I am saying, bodyguard Mike Garcia pursed his lip and moved around more, Bill Whitfield looked down, and Javon Beard had a tight ingenuine smile, unlike his previous smiles throughout the interview.”

            The bodyguards then started expressing MJ had women in the backseat in the limo, curtains closed, and one of them even suddenly remembering “sucking sounds”. Glass notes how their body language and the way they answered seemed deceitful, and questions if it really happened at all. She also has another great point. Lets say it did really happen, and MJ was intimate with a women in the back of the car, then why the heck would they reveal such a confident matter about their boss? On air even? A private matter he surely wouldn’t want revealed by trusted bodyguards with confintiality signatures talking about on live television. No, they obviously said it as a knee-jerk reaction to the pedophile question, and thats as far as they could think in the heat of the moment.

            I’ve seen Craig James Baxter’s videos too, and I find them a lot less convincing than Lillian Glass. Glass way of analyzing seems more intuitive, empathic and more convincing, while Baxter reads body language like some conspiracylunatic reads cropcircles. Like its a deciphering-process. When I see his stuff its at best “Okie-dokie, I don’t get why that would mean that, but he’s the expert!”. With Glass I understand why she says the things she says.

            My biggest problem with Baxter’s analysis is that he isn’t really consistent within his own rules. For example: When he analyzes the MJ 93 allegation video, Baxter says Michael raising his eyebrows when expressing himself means he’s “honest” and “telling the truth”. He stops the video several times to hammer this point for his viewers. Raising eyebrows while making a statement = telling the truth. Its a big one for Baxter. Okay, right, lets give him that one, but when he analyzes Wade’s body language, and simply ignores that Wade also raises his eyebrows a lot when he’s talking. How come?

            Interestingly, Glass says Wade’s bodylanguage as highly emotional and that she can see anger when he talks about being molested, and explains where and when, while Baxter bluntly concludes Wade’s performance was cold, emotionless and mechanical. The completely opposite conclusions, in other words.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Thanks for the info about the bodyguards! Not a shock that they weren’t confident; a lot of their book is complete lies, especially about the women — their story changed many times, such as location, first saying they were in Las Vegas with MJ and then in the book, the women were with MJ in Virginia only, never Las Vegas. Plus, they mixed up the pseudonyms of the women, etc etc. Basically, it’s pretty obvious that there was no women, LOL. They wanted to sell a book, and Mike Garcia had since claimed the book is full of lies — but only because he was cut out of the book negotiations! Before it was written “in defense of the King” by three loyal bodyguards, now it’s lies?! LMAO! They’re sleazebags like everyone else, making money off the fans.

            My personal opinion is that they may have seen peculiar things but don’t really know whether MJ was definitely a pedo. I think they were in the same position as Dr Conrad Murray: he had a very hard time answering the question whether MJ was a pedophile, but when he finally answered he said his intent wasn’t to disrespect MJ, who he clearly still likes, but he admitted he did see things that made an impression on him. Hmmm…Maybe he’s waiting to write a book too.

          • Andreas Moss

            Wow, so you actually read their book, Shawntay? Is their portrayal of the women in Jackson’s life presented as proof he was not a child molester there too? It sounds like it in the interview. Which like Glass mentions, is quite suspicious.

            What they have seen we might never know. As I understand it they only worked for Jackson for two years or something? Michael didn’t have access to a lot of boys after the 2005 trial as far as I know.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Actually, the women lie was borne out of trying to combat the gay rumors, particularly one that came out in 2010 about an alleged tryst with Arnold Klein’s then office manager, Jason Pfeiffer. It was never about child molestation because they (publicly) don’t believe he did that stuff, according to the book.

            Personally, I find Jason highly believable even though many didn’t want to believe him because he was fat. What’s funny is that at the time of the tryst, which was the last three months of MJ’s life, the Three Stooges weren’t even working for him so what the hell do they know! Also, Ian Halperin’s book that came out in 2009 claimed that MJ would cruise the Fruit Bowl in Las Vegas, meeting men for gay sex at dingy hotels, LOL. Since the bodyguards were in Vegas with him, they felt they could defend him against the gay rumors in that book…And to be honest Ian Halperin was full of crap with that story anyway.

            But of course they wanted to make money — you have to remember that the book was supposed to come out back in 2010 but it never materialized until 4 years later. They had greased the money wheel by outlandishly claiming MJ has not one but two lady friends, and fans flocked to their Facebook page asking of course all these romantic questions, etc, because despite what the hot-and-bothered girls on Lipstick Alley would have you believe, MJ has never had a believable romantic relationship, LOL, that the public has witnessed. The bodyguards got angry/annoyed at the questions, even back pedalling on the notion of “Friend” and “Flower” being anything more than friends. So many changes to their story! They’re not credible at all, just another set of MJ grifters.

          • Melissa

            What I found suspicious about the Bodyguards was the way they defended MJ against the gay rumors, they seemed really angry at Halperin, Klein and Jason. But I can’t remember a bad word from them about the molestation victims! Like, they didn’t defend MJ so fiercely against Wade or James like they did with the gay allegations, the less harmful, if we can put in this words.
            Shana Mangatal was debunked by Firpo Carr, too.
            Ironically, also Lisa Marie always denied vehemently the gay rumors but she seemed insecure about the molestation charges. Even in Oprah interview in 2010, she answered “I can´t say for sure, I wasn´t in the room” . Strange answer from a ex-wife supposedly in love, with a real marriage…
            Maybe because they knew very well he wasn’t gay…because he was a pedophile?!

          • ShawntayUStay

            Lisa Marie Presley, from my memory, never said anything about whether Jason Pfeiffer was lying or that MJ being gay wasn’t a possibility. Even Liz Taylor didn’t deny MJ being gay when she slammed Arnold Klein for having “loose lips” — violating his doctor patient confidentiality, basically! I always thought that was funny.

            Jason Pfeiffer, in his interview with Extra, said he thought MJ was bi because he was married but basically he thought that MJ was gay. He also said that he and MJ would look through magazines, MJ criticizing various women’s appearances (the exact same thing MJ did with James Safechuck, according to James’ lawsuit… so Jason corroborates James!), and they’d gossip about who was gay and who wasn’t in Hollywood.

            So for someone who, according to Dr Conrad Murray, was “suspicious” of men’s interests in him but wasn’t “homophobic”, MJ sure was interested in gay guys! LOL. I believe Jason; I think MJ was interested in males, just not legal-aged ones.

          • Melissa

            Apparently Lisa felt upset at the rumors so she traveled back to England. I don’t know if this is true.
            Also Jason apparently said in the interview Michael loved Lisa and of course the fans believe it LOL

          • ShawntayUStay

            I don’t think she left the US because of a MJ gay rumor, LOL; she wouldn’t uproot her whole family because of what someone said about her dead fake husband.

            Jason did say MJ was appreciative of his compliments about Lisa Marie Presley’s appearance, and that MJ thought Lisa was sexy and attractive but really, what does that really even mean? Don’t actions speak louder than words? MJ may have thought LMP was fine but that didn’t stop him from hanging out with the Cascio family and disappearing for weeks during their marriage, or divorcing LMP and “marrying” brood mare Debbie Rowe only to divorce her and pick up Omer Bhatti.

            So if I were a fan I wouldn’t get hung up over MJ saying Lisa was “sexy”, LOL. There’s been no follow through.

          • Melissa

            So I found the screencaps with Paul Camuso’s message.Where can I post it?

          • Melissa

            So I found the messages. Nothing about molestation stories, but Paul said some truths.

          • Melissa

            This was when I was a fan. Never a floon, though LOL

          • Melissa

            I’d like to read his book, too. I’ m pretty sure he’ll reveal many interesting things.

            Another I’d like to read is “In The Court of The King” by Stuart Backerman, but he gave up on it, claiming he didn’t want to publish a book after MJ’s death. But he revealed many interesting things right after he died (after he woke from a surgery lol, he admitted he wouldn’t say such things if he was fully awake ;)) I would put the link here but suspiciously, the interview disappeared. But here is the interview from a board:

            Here is the first interview which was conducted by the Vancouver Sun the day after Mike died.

            Stuart Backerman of Vancouver was Michael Jackson’s publicist for nearly two years, from 2002 to 2004. He was having knee surgery Thursday when he heard that Michael Jackson had been rushed to hospital, and when we woke up, found that his former client was dead. Here an edited transcript of an interview with Backerman the day after Jackson’s death.

            BACKERMAN: I was literally on the operating table when I heard the nurses outside. Michael Jackson has been rushed to the hospital! He had a cardiac arrest and may die! I’m like freaking out, but basically I was given this shot [of anaesthetic]. I had the surgery and woke up. The first thing I asked was ‘What’s happening with Michael?’ And unfortunately the news was that he had passed away.

            SUN: Were you shocked?

            BACKERMAN: I was shocked on a certain level. It happened out of the blue in a way, and nobody expected it to happen. On the other hand…to be quite honest, his lifestyle, the anxiousness he’s been under, and stress in terms of the concerts in London [was incredible]. Remember, he signed up for 50 concerts, [performing] every other night. [That’s a lot] for a guy who hasn’t performed anything since 2001. Even in 2001 he could barely do two sets of 20 minutes at that Madison Square Garden [Motown] celebration. Since then he hasn’t really practiced. I’ve heard from very, very good sources, in fact it’s been confirmed as I understand it that at 11:30 a.m. yesterday he was given an injection of Demerol. Because he used Demerol following the Pepsi commercial and the burning of his hair and the scalding of his scalp, Demerol. Yesterday at 11:30 he was injected with Demerol. So I would say between that, the pressure he’s been under trying to practice and rehearse and get in shape after all the years of doing nothing and all the other stresses that I’ve mentioned…it created almost a lethal cocktail of situations that put him over the edge and taxed his heart to the degree that he couldn’t handle it.

            SUN: Was he anorexic? He was always skinny.

            BACKERMAN: Very skinny. He didn’t really want to eat, he didn’t want to look like his father when he got older. That’s part of the reason why he had a lot of surgery. He didn’t want to end up looking like his father in a sense. That’s number one. Number two is, he’s a celebrity, and wanted to keep slim and trim. He went overboard because of his lifestyle, basically, and didn’t really take care of himself like he should have. It’s not like he starved, he had all the money in the world, he just didn’t eat properly, and clearly didn’t take the supplements that were necessary in order to keep a reasonable weight. He just wasn’t really healthy, notwithstanding [the fact that] he looked okay. Because thin people in our society look good, you know what I mean? If you see somebody who looks thin, you’re assuming they’re in shape, they’re working out, they’re swimming or whatever they’re doing. But that wasn’t really the case with him, he wasn’t working out, he wasn’t really eating properly. I don’t know if you classify him as being anorexic, because that intimates throwing up and various other things. It was just that he didn’t want to eat, he didn’t want to look heavy…and he didn’t want to look like his father in older age. He really went overboard.

            SUN: So what was his lifestyle?

            BACKERMAN: His lifestyle was a contradiction. I saw him in incredibly positive, childlike, beautiful situations. I remember an occasion…Michael’s 45th birthday. I had produced an event at the Orpheum Theatre in Los Angeles. About 10 days later at Neverland we had a big charity event with a lot of celebrities. In the evening when most of the guests who were invited to this $5,000 a ticket gold-plated charity event had left, there were only some celebrities and close people, staff, friends and family who stayed on. In this big circus tent a cake was rolled out, a biiiiiiiggggg cake, one of those big cakes, you know what I mean, huge. We all sang happy birthday to Michael. Michael was on a stage. He had come in through the back of the tent with me and a couple of other people. We stood up on the stage, and the crowd was below the stage singing happy birthday. After the birthday song, Aaron Carter and Nick Carter of N’Sync [were there]. Aaron Carter started off by taking a little piece of the birthday cake and rubbing it on Michael’s nose. And Michael said ‘You’re not going to get away with that!’ He then took a piece of his own birthday cake and threw it at Aaron Carter. Then Nick Carter got into the act and then Ryan Seacrest and the KISS-FM people got into it, and I got into it. This whole tent was an incredible food fight, and Michael was like shrieking with joy. He was enjoying that like a 12-year-old would, you know what I mean, like a pillow fight or a food fight. So I saw that side of him, and other occasions where he was really in a beautiful space. But I also saw him in situations where he was tormented, in a sense, that victimhood of having a difficult childhood and having too much money, which really ruins a lot of people. Too much money, too much material focus, and too much of the prescription drug situation following the unfortunate scalding of his head. I saw him insecure about his looks. There were times where I saw him where he basically looked through me and he didn’t even know me, in a sense. He might or might not have been on Demerol at that time, or whatever. I saw him being disloyal to people, letting them go after these people had done some beautiful things for him. And I saw him being kind, giving of his time and his money, supporting charities and creating charities. So Michael was a classic contradiction, and I saw it all.

            SUN: Was he detached from reality?

            BACKERMAN: No. He wasn’t detached from reality. I guess like us all we could occasionally be off, you know what I mean? He was not all there at times. But a lot of other times he was very Machiavellian and shrewd, about his own public relations, for example. He wasn’t so swift on the business side, although he liked to think of himself as the titular head of his empire and a businessman. Let’s give credit where it’s due, [to] his lawyer John Branca, that brilliant Los Angeles entertainment lawyer. With [Branca], they bought up the ATV Beatles catalogue, which was one of the greatest business acquisitions in the world.

            SUN: To the outside world, Michael Jackson seemed to be a totally happening guy around the time of his Off The Wall album, and then all of a sudden he started getting these weird nose jobs and stuff. What was going on?

            BACKERMAN: I’ll tell you what was going on with that. I go back to the Pepsi commercial. The Pepsi commercial was in the heyday, he got the largest commercial payout in the world at that time, to do that Pepsi commercial. Millions, some incredible amount for that time in the 80s, [$5 million] or more. When that pyro-technic accident occurred, he burnt off his hair and he burnt his scalp. He was significantly in pain, and significantly damaged his scalp and his hair. He was in pain, deep, incredible pain, and he was prescribed Demerol. Like a lot of people who get prescription drugs, that turned into a semi-habit. And created the situation of him being ‘off’ sometimes, because of his Demerol. It also transferred into the cosmetic situation. Because his scalp was burned, he could never have that gorgeous head of hair that he had in the Thriller days, that girls died for. He was such a handsome African American male. He had the perfect, beautiful Afro, tied back, he was the handsomest guy around, really. But he couldn’t grow his hair anymore, so he had to wear different wigs which made him look strange.

            SUN: He wore wigs?

            BACKERMAN: He wore wigs. Those were all wigs, all of them. That kind of parted down the middle dopey look that you see. Sometimes you could see that he didn’t have the wig on properly, and it covered what was really just stubble on his hair, because of the accident. Cosmetically he had to get that, and that sort of led to his thinking about other cosmetic approaches. The greatest fear in his life…he saw a computer graphic of what he would look like at about 50 years old, and he freaked out, because he thought he looked just like his father Joe Jackson. That combined with the wig that got him thinking about changing his look…the wig stirred the pot about that, and he didn’t want to look like his father, and it created that situation. That Pepsi commercial debacle was a seminal event in Michael Jackson’s life.

            SUN: Basically it gave him health issues which led to mental issues.

            BACKERMAN: Correct.

            SUN: Why would anybody that famous want to be even more famous? If you already have the biggest selling record of all time, why would you do a Pepsi commercial for $5 million? That’s chump change.

            BACKERMAN: I can answer that fairly simplistically. Rich people don’t consider themselves ever having enough, because they have to compete. They have to feel richer. Rich people — and when I’m talkin’ rich, I’m talkin’ really rich, not somebody who lives in Dunbar or something — they always have to keep up with the Joneses, they always have to have bigger and better. Celebrities are the same way. You can’t have enough money. Michael liked to brag before Oprah that he was a billionaire. He wasn’t satisfied with the Beatles catalogue and making oodles of money with Pepsi commercials or anything else. He did the Pepsi commercial because a), it was a great publicity vehicle as a followup to Thriller, and just as importantly, for the moolah. Nobody’s going to throw away $5 million in 1985 or 86 or whenever that was. He wasn’t a fool. Certainly at that point he may have had many of the problems and torment that he had from his childhood situation, but he was still pretty right on in those days. He was in the heyday. So he took the opportunity as it came to him. Just like A-Rod [Alex Rodriquez], the baseball star for the New York Yankees. He wasn’t shy about negotiating a $250 million deal, you know what I’m saying? People will go for what they can get, notwithstanding that they’re so wealthy already. To me the money part of Michael was part of his undoing as well. Because when you have so much money, you become profligate, and that’s what happened to him. And frankly to a lot of wealthy people, they just get caught up in the material side and they don’t nourish their spiritual side enough. Michael was always searching. He tried Judaism, he grew up as a Jehovah’s Witness, he played with Islam, although he never really believed in it. His brother very much did, Jermaine. He played with various other spiritual activities, but he never saw the goodness and the wisdom that comes from within yourself, not from outside, you know?

            SUN: It sounds like he had a very tortured relationship with his dad.

            BACKERMAN: Very much so. He couldn’t go out and do the things five, seven, eight, 10 year olds could do. Basketball, hanging out. [His father] was very hard on Michael, being the lead singer and being the youngster. He pushed him around, and he pushed his brothers around. Michael was very scared of his father. He grew up…that’s the point, he never grew up. He never really grew beyond the prepubescent 12-year-old, in a sense. That’s why he was attracted to — and I don’t necessarily mean sexually — but he was attracted to hanging out with 11, 12, 13-at-the-most year-old boys, you know? Because he felt comfortable with them. They didn’t judge him, they loved him, and he could love them.

            SUN: Let’s talk about that. Was Michael doing anything bad? He paid off one kid, maybe more. What really happened there?

            BACKERMAN: 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. I certainly know with [one of his accusers], that that was a scam, because I know for a fact, having experienced that, being at Neverland and knowing what was going on with that situation, that truly he was exonerated appropriately, because he did not have an affair, a sexual affair, with that boy. His big mistake was being an idiot with the Martin Bashir documentary. That was the stupidest thing in the world, and he was warned about it, but Michael does what Michael wants. Putting his arm around Gavin Arvizo really set off what eventually [became] the raid at Neverland. So that was tremendously ill-advised. I believe Michael was very innocent in his relationships. I like to think that. On the other hand, if you’re a thinking person, one has to question why somebody would pay off another person $20 million if you have nothing to hide. [But] when you’re in that position and you know that that will be drawn out and will create a tremendous impact on your career — even the allegations — and you’ve got a billion dollars of assets…$20 million isn’t a significant amount, if it means that it goes away, and goes away very quickly. You can understand that too. I had no personal experience seeing Michael in any dalliance. I’d like to think that whatever he had going with any boys was reasonably innocent pre-pubescent experimentation — if that.

            SUN: Did he ever have a relationship with a woman, a real relationship?

            BACKERMAN: Not really. Not with Lisa Presley, not with Debbie Rowe, not with anybody in terms of a romantic, sexual relationship. He had his hairdresser and other women, his mother, but he wasn’t…built that way, you know?

            SUN: Do you think he was gay?

            BACKERMAN: I don’t know if he was gay. I would say he was maybe…not that interested in sex, per se, he was put off by it, not feeling comfortable enough in his own skin to go that step, in a sense, you know what I mean?

            SUN: As a child star he would have had lots of opportunities to have sex when he was a kid.

            BACKERMAN: Well, you know the story goes that he slept in the same room as his older brothers and saw some very strange happenstances, and that maybe turned him off, to a certain degree. Maybe his own innate character was that he was a little turned off that way. Maybe there was a predisposition to being gay in a sense, although he didn’t followup on it, certainly in an adult sense. Maybe his ability to express himself that way was done via his relationships with these younger prepubescent boys.

            SUN: How did Michael Jackson have financial problems? Thriller sold 100 million copies, he would have made hundreds of millions off that alone.

            BACKERMAN: Well you can. Lots of people have gone broke in the last seven months since this economic downturn. People borrowed against their assets. You have a home that’s worth say $1.5 million, and you refinance that home and borrow significantly against that. Then there’s a downturn, and your cash flow dries up and you have to borrow more money, or the house is worth a hell of a lot less than it was, blah blah blah blah. The same thing happened to Michael Jackson. He had significant asset base, and royalties coming in, but because of his crazy profligate shopping habits and unfettered spending, he spent more than he was bringing in, and had a tremendous burn rate of several million dollars a month running Neverland, shopping and going crazy, flying people all over the world. He kept borrowing against his asset base, and put himself in a deep cash flow situation. If you have an asset base you can liquidate that, and then you have X amount, minus the debts and you have X left. If Michael had wanted to liquidate his stake in the Beatles catalogue, minus all his debts, he would have been left with whatever, $100 million, $200 million. Who knows exactly how much, but he wouldn’t have been poor. But he didn’t want to do that, because he had an emotional attachment [to the Beatles catalogue]. Remember, he bought that from under the nose of Paul McCartney. He felt that was the greatest achievement of his life as a businessman. And he saw himself as a businessman. He didn’t want to perform anymore. The stress of doing it…was going against the grain of his soul. The reason he hired me and other people was that he wanted to reposition his life. He wanted to go into owning animation studios, maybe doing choreography, being a businessman. He didn’t want to perform. He wanted to be a businessman, and he saw the Beatles catalogue as the culmination [of his business acumen]. And it was one of the greatest business decisions of all time, particularly for a celebrity. So for him to give that up, liquidate it, pay off his debts and then have whatever he had left…would be a real blow to his ego. And more importantly,a blow to his acumen. When you have too much money…it’s very very dangerous. You see all these young teen [stars], the Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohans who have made a couple of million bucks. They don’t know what to do with it and they get themselves in trouble. Michael was no different, only the numbers were larger, with more zeroes.

            SUN: You were there from 2002 to 2004?

            BACKERMAN: Middle 2002 to early 2004, about 20 months. Almost two years. SUN: You left because? BACKERMAN: The Nation of Islam got their grimmies on Michael, which I’ve written in my book that I’m not going to publish.

            SUN: You’ve written a book?

            BACKERMAN: Yeah I have. I quit because…when Michael found out about the raid at Neverland in 2003, December 22, he freaked out. His nanny Grace Rwaramba, with the advice of his brother Jermaine, called up Louis Farrakhan with security. Because as soon as that raid happened there were like death threats on him: ‘You crazy freaking pedophile,’ that kind of business. So he called in the Nation of Islam. Louis Farrakhan and Leonard Muhammad his son-in-law came down from Chicago. Not to provide security, although they did that. They basically took over Michael’s business and isolated everybody. Except me, because…it was too sensitive to get rid of me, because I was liked by the press. I got along with the press well and told them the truth. The Nation of Islam guys realized that, so I was the last guy standing. When Michael left Las Vegas after being booked and charged to go back to Neverland, the Nation of Islam, under my strong objection, decided to have an event called You Are Not Alone. Basically a celebratory event of Jackson coming back to Neverland. They invited me down, they had never met me before. Leonard Muhammad called me to invite me to this celebration, He called me up and said ‘How do you spell your last name, Stuart?’ And I said my last name is Backerman. He thought that I was German, like the German guys that brought me in [to Jackson’s camp]. To his chagrin when I met him at this event, given my Semetic features and that I’m Jewish, he knew exactly where I was at. At that moment, I got a real, real icy reception, and he forbid me to talk to the press. I said ‘I don’t work for you, I work for Michael, and want to see Michael now.’ He didn’t allow me to do that, so I knew then that was the end. So I left Neverland, never to return, and resigned a few days later on CNN

          • To’Shari

            interesting interview, thanks for posting. I wish SUN would’ve asked Backerman about all that porn mag & books feat. semi-nude boys, etc. found in MJ house (especially in his bedroom), easily accessible to young kids or say young boys to get their hands on during the raid; and they did found over 700 finger prints on few of those magazines incl Michael’s. Since Backerman did’t believe Michael was interested or comfortable or just put off by sex with either adult male or female. But the interview posted was an interesting read.

          • Kat

            Baxter has just always, in my opinion, been very biased in Jackson’s favor and shown a tendency to believe him and not others. I can’t judge his qualifications or methods that he applies, and I also don’t know how he assesses others, but with MJ it’s very clear that the fan in him takes over.

            I’ve seen his older videos, and Baxter often makes exalted statements like — ‘that’s the most honest response I’ve ever seen’ when analyzing Jackson. About his 1993 live from Neverland denial Baxter said: ‘you can see the hurt and anger in his eyes, how shocked he is, its spilling out of him’, which sort of made me LOL. CJ also believed that Michael was speaking the truth when he claimed that he was manhandled by the police and left in the toilet for forty five minutes, something that was conclusively proven to be a lie. It goes to show that he doesn’t have that much accuracy or credibility, not with MJ anyway. Michael Jackson and honesty shouldn’t even be used in the same sentence. (;

            Does this expert think that raising eyebrows a lot means someone is telling the truth? I find it amusing. Like I said before, body language isn’t that precise, someone could be raising their eyebrows a lot simply because it’s their habit. Also I think a lot of compulsive liars, such as MJ, can tell one boldfaced lie after another and without flinching. Kind of becomes difficult spotting signs of deceit when they’ve learned how not to show any.

            I wouldn’t say that Wade was strongly emotional or completely emotionless. He mostly just seemed like a normal person speaking ordinarily. But he was very convincing nonetheless.

          • ShawntayUStay

            I’m not entirely familiar with Dr Glass so I can’t really say myself if she is totally unbiased — I suspect many already believe MJ was guilty so it’s possible that she could suffer from confirmation bias just like Baxter, just in the opposite direction. Similar, in my opinion, the “eyes for lies” analyst; she clearly believes MJ was guilty. McClish also had a pre established opinion about MJ too, since his book had a chapter about MJ’s interview with Diane Sawyer and also something about MJ’s 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley back in 2004 — so when I showed him the transcript of Wade’s interview, I wasn’t entirely surprised that he believed Wade. But of course the evidence supports guilt!

            I don’t have any issue with Wade saying “his truth”. Fans see it as some indication of lying but in my opinion he’s merely repeating the language of therapy. Therapists always indicate telling and living “your truth” rather than what other people may think should be the truth, because truth is a very relative thing. Plus Wade has said that he felt he was always covering up his emotions and who he was so it’s no surprise he could now feel he wasn’t living/speaking “his truth” until he admitted what happened.

          • Kat

            I consider Dr Glass and Mark McClish are more trustworthy, neutral experts, because they’ve analyzed a lot of material, not Michael Jackson specifically. Baxter has written a book about MJ in which he claims that Jackson never touched any child and that the allegations were BS. Surely he’s going to disbelieve Wade and brand him a liar. Admitting that Wade is credible would be like throwing away all that Baxter said in his previous assessments and his book, and also damaging his own reputation as a self proclaimed specialist in the field.

            Unfortunately I know close to nothing about this Eyes for Lies person, so I can’t speak about them, but Lillian Glass wrote in her blog that she didn’t want to believe Wade and thought he was after money. However upon watching his interview she concluded that there were no signs of deception… It can be read here:

            https://drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.wordpress.com/tag/wade-robeson/

          • ShawntayUStay

            Thanks for the link, Kat. I’m glad to see that she was a “fan”, so to speak, prior to doing her analysis of Wade Robson because it lends her more credibility. McClish is a former US Marshal so he’d probably lean more to the “MJ is guilty” side and therefore is more likely to want to believe Wade when I showed him his statement; then again, the evidence only supports guilt.

            He originally pointed out one “likely” statement of deception, where Wade was saying “you know” early on but the rest of the interview established that saying “you know” was more of a speech idiosyncrasy, kind of like the way rappers often say “you know what I’m saying?”, lol. It didn’t, overall, indicate deception so McClish told me that wade was telling the truth and I agree, obviously.

            I think the fans have had another body language expert on the King Jordan Radio show say that Wade was lying. Don’t know her credentials but it seems like, just with courtroom experts, both the defense and plaintiff can find someone to support their side of the story, so the truth is harder to tease out. But Wade is not lying, period. The evidence already was there, we were just waiting for him to confirm it.

            Having evaluated many pieces of information is key, I agree. Baxter has a stake in it because he likes the by proxy notoriety of being an “expert” supporting MJ and of course, as you said, all the time he’s put in. I doubt, personally, that Baxter even sees truthfulness in Wade’s body language; I bet he really only sees lies! He’s convinced himself, LOL. Because if he thinks that MJ’s Neverland statement from December 1993 shows absolute innocence, it’s BS. MJ gives no denials and the emotion is because he is afraid he will be exposed and I suspect that MJ also was angry not only the body search, but also that his generosity wasn’t “enough” to keep Jordie from telling Evan. Broke Shields said that MJ always felt he has to give gifts to make or keep friends, so the amount of money he spent on June, Jordie, Lily, and even Jordie Chandler’s little brother, who he bought toys for as well, likely made him believe he had their loyalty sealed.

            Tom Mesereau said that the 1996(?) video deposition where the lawyer was asking him about Mac Culkin and Brett Barnes was “totally consistent with innocence” even though we see MJ squirming, giggling, and never once answering the question. Mesereau just suffers from confirmation bias because he truly believes in MJ’s total innocence.

        • Andreas Moss

          Weighing in is fine, and having your own thoughts on the MJ allegations is fair game. We’re certainly not the thought police around here… but as Mjfacts said, why post anything at all if you don’t want to influence us.. or at least influence the potential readers on the fence?

          Your initial post came off a bit “I have studied psychology, so I have credence, and if you knew what I knew, you’d view the Jackson allegations differently”… which is obviously just trashtalk when you’re not putting anything of actual substance on the table. Why not present some real arguments instead of claiming people don’t know behavioral psychology as well as you? It makes no sense anyway, as you don’t know us. I’m quite famiiiar with the works of Aaron Beck, founder of behaviorism and cognitive therapy, but I still have no clue what connection you see with Wade or MJ here.

          Sure, everybody should do their own research, I would agree, but in your new comment you subtly suggest other people here aren’t critical of their sources. How would you know?

          I’ve talked to enough Jackson defenders to see a pattern to this type of critique though. Fans often claim people who think Jackson is guilty of molesting children are just reading what the tabloids are saying. This largely because Jackson himself typically blamed the tabloids for every rumor about him, even those put out there by himself. “Don’t be a tabloid junkie”, he said, and I think its even its own song.

          Yet, a lot of the things he once called ‘tabloid junk’ has been shown to be painfully true, and instead painting more and more a picture of a man that was a liar. Even his own mother in interviews admits he lied about the amount of plastic surgery and his drug addiction even to her. He was not an honest person, and calling him a a compulsive liar seems like almost like an understatement.

        • ShawntayUStay

          Athanasia, I partly agree with your point about sources. Certainly, because of the very nature of MJ’s celebrity and “Hollyweird” itself, many false stories have been generated for clicks by various tabloid websites. I remember the day that MJ died, TMZ said that the cause of death was a lethal shot of Demerol, but come to find out he died of a propofol overdose. TMZ also said that Janet Jackson was slapped by Paris Jackson but when the video footage of the alleged altercation was produced, there was absolutely no slapping — by either party; TMZ had to retract the story. Diane Dimond has made several on air gaffes regarding a couple of things, including the alleged sex tape between MJ and one of his nephews, Rodney Allen and a (false) child abuse victim of MJ from Canada, and claiming to have seen “love letters” between Gavin Arvizo and MJ, when the prosecutors emphatically stated those did not exist — she was bringing a “hot” (but false) story from a British tabloid to American shores. So of course we should always strive for corroboration from independent sources before choosing to believe something, and to be fair, many of these journalists may have been misled by bad sources and in a rush to make the front page, they don’t do enough fact-checking.

          And don’t forget MJ was a master at playing the game: he planted outrageous stories (like the hyperbaric chamber story and the one about the Elephant Man) in the press just so he could deny them and claim that the press was unreliable and can’t be trusted. He was incredibly clever; it is no mystery why he became so famous.

          But even if there are many “sleazebag” journos and players in the Michael Jackson saga doesn’t change the fact that some of the most important claims have yet to be successfully refuted. You love MJ and believe in what he said he stood for but that isn’t enough to stake your own reputation on; even smart people fall victim to believing in wrong/stupid things — hell, I’ll go so far and say that the smarter you are, the more likely you can rationalize things to soothe your own cognitive dissonance! There has been very little put forth by fans — who’ve spent a lot of time and energy investigating — that really rebuts the charges that MJ was a boy-loving child molester. At the most, all I’ve seen a muddying of the waters, so to speak, and as I’ve said that is easy to do because most of these players are in fact greedy and sleazy. But wanting money for a story and telling the truth are not mutually exclusive. Besides, many of the people that MJ apparently had no problem flaunting his special friends around were lowly, underpaid menial workers — I’d take the $100,000 offered if I had a story about MJ taking his daily bath with Mac Culkin and Bubbles, especially with my student loan debt! Who wouldn’t?

          Still, selling stories and being thirsty for fame (a la Latoya Jackson and her media blitz in the early 90s) doesn’t mean they were lying. You and other fans just want to believe him; you have no proof that Jordie, James, Wade, Jason are lying. I was a fan once too and I just believed that MJ was innocent because I thought he seemed incapable of doing those things but I changed when I couldn’t satisfactorily rebut the claims that gave me the most trouble, like Jordie Chandler and that huge settlement that MJ himself paid, and no amount of fellow fan muddying the waters could change certain things.

          By the way, why do you think that Wade was lying in his interview? I gave a transcript to a statement analysis expert and he believed overall that Wade was telling the truth. I think the only part where he may have been deceptive was when he said he feels “compassion” for MJ. He looked untruthful to me but that’s not surprising — the man he trusted for years was just using him to get his sexual kicks; I’d be pissed, too.

  • FED UP

    What happened to your content??Hope u saved it. Can you repost it?

  • FED UP

    Wade should Step-up to the plate, and vindicate these witnesses asap!

  • roxithefox

    I don’t think he is lying. His status and image is at stake. Why would he want to tarnish his own public persona? Nobody would. The problem with this kind of specific molester is his craftiness to slowly but surely seduce the victim. Having that said, acquaintance molesters abound and you can find them in your immediate family starting by the dads, the uncles, the brothers, cousins, housekeeper, neighbor, priest, pastor, or anyone whom you as a child would think they are worth trusting. This is an abomination. The lord said “If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Matthew18:6. These little ones refers to the innocent vulnerable children who unfortunately lose their innocence to a so-called person of trust. Hollywood is a brood of vipers. It is not a secret that the directors and all the people in power abuse their power. But what I think is a complete abomination is to rob a child of his own innocence. After you’re 18 that is up to you whether you want to let someone bribe you into bed, but to take away the tender years of a child is a crime. You can never make up to the pain, guilt, disgust, shame, and suffering that will come only years later and that will consequently affect this child’s future spouse and children as well. You might think they’ll get over it. No, they won’t. It takes a lifetime with medication and therapy to come to terms with how you were victimized. The scars of child sexual abuse last a lifetime. This is a fact. Broken children, lifetime pain :'(

  • Neely

    Lol, that’s funny because as I was typing about donors, it crossed my mind too about his children.

    In all honesty, I feel sorry for him too on some levels. I look at videos, not musical ones, but other various ones, and he’s always covering his face in some type of way with his hand, his masks, glasses, etc. The shame almost radiates from him. That’s tragic. No doubt his formative years did some nasty things to his psyche.

    Btw, I very much question Janet Arvizos claims. I found her long statements difficult to follow at times. I had some eerie gut feelings about her in the midst of reading it. I don’t necessarily agree with what other people think, but, I am respectful of other opinions, and often give consideration to their views, because honestly, nobody knows for sure except Jackson, and his alleged victim(s). The core of my stance is that a man is innocent until proven guilty. My mission on this site has been to gather information, and subsequently opinions, in order to prove his guilt to me. My conclusion at this point is, he certainly fits the profile. It’s difficult to read the sworn testimonies of these boys, and toss that aside as if they’re lying. It would be extremely unusual for someone who so closely mirrors the profile of a child molester, to be just interested in innocent child’s play. At the same time, these attributes don’t make ALL people who enjoy children’s company, a child molester. I had to really look at the suggested readings here to understand what the M.O. Is of acquaintance child molesters. At first I felt like there was probably only a fraction of the total number of molesters, that fit the acquaintance profile. Upon further digging, I realize it’s likely the majority. No matter what angle I look at it from, it’s still a tragedy. From all perspectives.

  • Matthew Thomas

    Believe me when I say I get no joy from saying what I’m about to say, but I have spent the last few weeks reading and researching about the allegations against MJ, and it breaks my heart to admit that I’m starting to believe he may have been guilty all along.

    I don’t want to believe he was guilty, I have been a fan since I was a little kid, his music is in my DNA and I cried as if I’d lost a family
    member when he passed. But I don’t want to blindely overlook some pretty major red flags.

    Having said that, I do not believe the Arivzo case for various reasons, but just because one case is a sham, it doesn’t necessarily mean all of the accusers have lied.

    We now have five boys who have accused MJ of molestation, the only “regulars” who shared MJ’s bed who haven’t come forward with allegations are Brett Barnes, Macauley Culkin, the Cascio’s and Omer Bhatti (presuming they shared a bed at some stage).

    There’s a number of things that have bothered me and led me to bellieve he may have been guilty. Firstly:

    1. MJ said in the Diane Sawyer interview that he never invited “just boys” into his bed. But it WAS just boys who he repeatedly shared his bed with night after night. There may have been the odd girl in a slumber party kind of arrangement, but the truth is, MJ shared his bed with a rotating handful of boys on a nightly basis, the way a grown adult would with a partner. MJ tried to make out on Bashir that it was like a slumber party, “we would all just jam in the bed” etc. But it wasn’t like that. MJ took boys like Jordan, Brett and Safechuck on the road with him and slept with them night after night in hotels all over the world. If MJ had no sexual interest in these boys, why did he have to spend the night with them?

    2. There appeared to be a real lack of credible adult relationships in MJ’s life. The only one that I ever believed was LMP and the timing of that marriage was very suspect.

    3. I learned that within days of MJ’s strip search in 1993, Johnnie Cochoran was offering a deal. Mrs Robson and Wade made their police statements and the long awaited deal for a record contract for Wade was signed plus Mrs Robson was ‘loaned’ money.

    Why was the private investigator who was handling the molestation allegations at the same time also handling the record deal being negotiated with Wade Robson?

    As for Wade, he was allegedly very cut up at MJ’s memorial back in 2009. It would take a ruthless monster to wait a couple of years after a friends passing before betraying that friend for purely monetry gain. Adding to the fact that James Safechuck also has no qualms in coming forward leads me to thinking that either everyone in MJ’s life was shady scum with no moral compass whatsoever, or that these people are telling the truth.

    4. I looked up some of the different kinds of pedophiles that are profiled by criminologists. This is a description of a seductive pedophile:

    – Shows an intense interest in children and childlike things.
    – Has idealistic views of children.
    – Has limited peer relationships.
    – Calls children “friends.”
    – Participates and organizes activities that exclude other adults.
    – Takes excessive photographs of children
    – Works and plays in areas that attract children.
    – Decorates his home with childlike decor.
    – Is generous with gifts.

    I have been a huge fan of Michael my entire life and coming around to believing that he was a pedophile has been a very hard thing to accept. I really have to do some soul searching myself, because I have a lot of conflicting emotions about Michael. Can I still listen to and enjoy his music? A huge part of my enjoyment in being a fan was in buying into his whole persona. I genuinely believed he was inncocent, I genuinely believed he was misunderstood and taken advantage of. I now feel as if perhaps he was the one taking advantage of people, not the other way round. It really is a hard thing for me to accept, but I don’t want to just believe he was innocent because I’ve been a huge fan for so many years.

    • Andreas

      Sorry to hear its tough to come to terms with. Its weird, I sometimes read the MJJcommunity forums, I noticed you posted the same post there. I don’t expect you to get too many positive comments for saying something like that as they have banned people from saying similiar things. That place is a sinking ship. The only question left is which rats will flee the ship, and who will loyally go down with it.

      I see you skipped the part about you not “belonging with haters”. I assume you at least could mean this page.. if not others.

      Can’t tell you where ‘you belong’, but I’m not sure if any of us really ‘hates’ Jackson. I never did, anyway. Now, I understand perfectly how someone could hate him, as child molesters are some of the most despised people around, and for fans who is gradually failing to make sense that he’s innocent I suppose there’s a feeling of being ‘betrayed’ by someone that seemed too good to do anything like that, and who promised you his innocence.

      He’s dead now though. I think its important to remember that Michael Jackson, despite his larger-than-life-persona, was a mere ‘faulty’ human, and I think the life he had wasn’t all healthy for him. It wouldn’t be for anybody. While he seemed like a surprisingly humble person despite his almost iconic success, the reason is peculiar as he seemed to believe on some level that his talent literally came from God and that he was ‘meant’ to be the greatest artist that ever made. So it wasn’t him, it was a God. Is that really humble? I can’t imagine its healthy to live like that and think like that — and since you’re a small child. I suspect his intense regression and pedophilic urges came from the way his life rolled out, although the puzzles are still not clear exactly how. There might be something to him having been molested as a child himself. Who knows.

      Can I still listen to and enjoy his music?

      Well. I still think Alice In Wonderland is a great fairytale, even though Lewis Caroll probably was a pedophile, and Alice in reality was an underaged girl he fancied. Still I admire Caroll’s fantasy and surreal worlds.

  • Pingback: Explaining Michael Jackson’s soul and the pedophilia case – michaeljacksonandtheboys()

  • Mezza

    For the love of God, can someone please explain to me whether Wade is lying or just really stupid? I mean in his claim he talks about not being able to work and he just got photographed working? Hmmmm.

    • ShawntayUStay

      Why are those the only choices? Lying or stupid? Firstly, the claim that he was unable to work is a relic from his first complaint, which was written all the way back in late April 2013. His current attorneys are simply copying and pasting from that original lawsuit, likely because as a whole, the lawsuit hasn’t changed all that much except for adding new and/or clarifying language. So you could say it’s a result of lawyers being lazy and a tad sloppy.

      Also, in April 2013, the claim of him being unable to work was true. It’s over 3 years later, and no one should be surprised Wade has regained some of his footing given all the therapy, meditation, etc he’s done over those 3 years. Sure, I guess his lawyers could say he’s “working” now but really, the point of the claim is that the realization of his abuse at MJ’s hands effectively took him out of the entertainment industry because he had the breakdowns and subsequent therapy. That’s the point, and likely the reason the wording hasn’t changed.

      I would take what fans are saying — their gripe at this alleged incongruity — with a grain of salt. They are outsiders looking in. They, just like us, don’t know what exactly is going on with the case, so they’re speculating.

      • Mezza

        Well then if it is not him it is his lawyers because there have been countless articles since the ‘child sex operations’ where his lawyers have said he is not able to work. Now, media are bastards and write what they want including ‘sources’, ‘quotes’ etc etc but it is in the claim.

        if those lawyers were copying and pasting and being lazy but have put in an amended claim changing some of the wording etc then it was an extremely stupid mistake. Someone like Wade cannot afford to have silly ‘mistakes’ like this as the MJ estate already have the 2005 transcripts.

        Sorry but I think that is a very stupid (by either of them) move.

        • ShawntayUStay

          Yes, it’s the lawyers, not Wade. But I really don’t think it’s as big a deal as you (and other fans) are making it out to be. His being unable to work in the past, when the lawsuit was filed, is the basis of that specific claim for damages. It doesn’t really matter if he is working in some capacity now, today. The fact that he ever had to stop working is enough for to ask for compensatory damages equal to the amount of earnings he lost during that time. That’s how it works. He can also request monetary damages resulting in the lost of job quality. I mean really — is Wade today where he was 5 years ago? No he isn’t. Mentally healthier, sure, but he’s not operating at the same capacity as he was prior.

          MJ fans think they’ve cracked the case — that they “proved” he’s lying — because they can see pictures of him on Instagram or Facebook working as a director for small projects. It’s laughable; they aren’t proving anything other than Wade Robson is in a better place than he was when he first had his breakdowns and stopped working when he realized all his achievements were largely the result of a pedophile taking a sexual interest in him. So, it’s a good thing Wade has returned to doing what he loved to do — creating art.

          • Mezza

            I’m glad he is working again, but remove it out of your claim or put something like ‘hasn’t been able to work for 2/3 years etc.

            Every little mistake in the claim of Wade does, matters. Why? Because he is up against some of the best lawyers in the world, has a sworn declaration saying that MJ didn’t touch him, vouched for him for years and is now seeking compensation that if it happened (which I believe it did) means he is already facing a MASSIVE MASSIVE uphill battle. His claim contradicts what he is doing and in the updated claim it should have been changed because this is one more thing that the estate can use against him to make him look uncredible.

            It is a very very very stupid move by him or his lawyers. It is simple mistakes like this that make it go from a hill to Mt Everest

            You might not think it is a big deal, I think it is a HUGE deal, every move he makes can be used against him and personally I dont think Wade has a leg to stand on in court.

            But I would think the success or failure of his case in court will also be used against other victims like Jimmy or whomever else decides to come forward in the coming years because lawyers use past decisions and outcomes to make a case for new ones.

            So little mistakes like this matter greatly in the grand scheme of things. He is the first one, it needs to go as well as possible.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Mezza, I understand your point. I do. Wade absolutely has an uphill battle, first and foremost because Michael Jackson is dead. His lawyers had to be incredibly creative, legally speaking, just to get him this far. They need to be less sloppy (then again, we don’t really know what’s going on behind closed doors, do we?). So in that sense, it would seem to be the best thing to be incredibly specific about the time frame in which Wade was unable to work. Likely, though, the specifics will be presented at trial when damages are to be determined. As you can see, Wade has not even provided a specific amount of money he’s seeking. That’s important, too. It clearly cannot be quantified because it’s more than a time frame for lost wages but as I said previously, it’s a lost of job quality. Only a judge or jury can decide that.

            It’s true, as well, that defendants in civil lawsuits for personal injury will hire private investigators to watch the plaintiff to see if his/her claims are legitimate. Like, if Wade filled his lawsuit in 2013 claiming he couldn’t work in the same capacity as before, and yet was photographed a few weeks later working as he normally did, MJ’s side would clearly have a case that Wade was full of crap. But three years later? And he’s not nearly at the same level as he was before? That’s hardly enough proof of anything.

            As outsiders looking in, as the public who have little special knowledge of the law, we would want Wade Robson to be “perfect”. I mean, there is a tendency to make angels of the people we support, to look past their flaws. Hell, even obviously suspect individuals like Diane Dimond, Stacy Brown, and the obviously lying Arvizo family get passes because people who believe MJ was guilty need to support those from “that side”….even if it’s ridiculous and untenable. So, I get it, and the annoyance at Wade’s lawyers as a result. But I bet if you delved into successful civil lawsuits, you’d see a lot of imperfections. But the whole was greater than the sum of its parts, so it was still a winning case for the plaintiffs. Maybe Wade’s will be like that, we haven’t seen anything really. Or on the flipside, he could lose on a technicality. Who really knows.

            But my point is that I believe it’s minutia, the working thing. It’s no smoking gun unless more proof is shown.

          • Mezza

            Interesting what you say about the Arviso family because I don’t believe them at all. MJ was a lucky and smart pedophile. I believe through all the evidence presented they were lying. Him getting not guilty verdicts ‘exhonerated’ him in some respects and he/ the estate will forever be able to use that as leverage and by him going to court and not settling the case will present doubt’s moving forward. One must wonder if he would’ve settled if it was someone he had molested instead.

            Wade is taking a big risk moving forward financially really. I’m sure any savings that man had has now been spent on legal fees. If he loses, he will probably be billed by the estate as well for huge sums of money and will be completely broke. Not to mention what numerous years out of work will do for his career path though maybe being the guy that accused MJ will bring him more value. Who knows.

            And speaking of PI’s it will be interesting to see if Scott Ross will be used, is being used or will ever be used by estate considering the ties he has to Wade’s brother.

          • ShawntayUStay

            You’re right, MJ was the most lucky pedo on the planet with the Arvizo case. But all one has to do is look at the circumstances surrounding the case, the timing of the alleged molestation, the background of the family; there’s no doubt it was a fraud. The DA basically had an open casting call since the airing of the Bashir documentary, and the Arvizo family — having an at least tenuous connection to MJ — promptly responded. Unfortunately, Ray Chandler was right: he said if MJ was acquitted in 2005, it would make everyone question all the other claims. That has been the case.

            As for Wade, it’s possible his attorneys are working on contingency, meaning he doesn’t pay up front but they get a portion of his settlement/verdict. But that’s assuming the lawyers have determined this case is a winnable one.

            Actually, it makes you wonder why Wade is suing in the first place. I mean, it’s definitely not a shoe in that he will win. So what’s his motivation? Clearly it’s money, but why now? Victims have every right to seek compensation, but I’m sure there are plenty of other ways Wade could go that don’t involve suing a dead man’s estate.

            Scott Ross is a fascinating character, and his insights on 2005 show again it was a BS case. But I didn’t find his opinion on Wade all that important. It’s just his opinion. It’s possible the Estate could call him as a witness but it would essentially be his own perception, and his perception can easily be countered by a child sexual abuse expert, i.e. Wade saying nothing happened is par for the course, common practice for male victims of male abusers.

          • Mezza

            Yeah Scott Ross is a character and a half. He would be a good man to have on your side. It seems both Mez and Ross and dumbfounded about Wade. I have to say I was always on the fence about MJ being a pedophile or not until Ross’s interview and then I thought MJ wasn’t a pedophile for sure but it was all because of that 2005 trial because MJ was so damn lucky. But then when I started back lookin at the previous Chandler case, Junes testimony and the Francia one and then had someone like ally of wade Robson show me all the gaps I fell on mj is a pedophile again. Remove 2005 and it is just clear as day.

            Anyway, don’t know if you have seen Ivy’s rundown yet of the estate’s argument against wades amendment. At the end she talks about wades first lawyer ‘withdrawing’ and questioning whether they pulled out or whether wade chucked them.

            I wonder whether first lawyers saw the uphill battle after the dismissal and pulled the plug and hence the reason for the changes.

            IMO I don’t know how much money is the motivation now or just making the estate squeel. Wade is probably furious and he might just want to get this out in front of the media. If he had not sued in the first place, maybe he wouldn’t have gotten the publicity he has received. IMO he wants the world to know what happened.

            Did you also see the @gurveyslaw tweet about wades lawyer offering $10,000 to debate t-mez? Fucken lawyers. Who knows how true this is or what this is about? Weird really.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Scott Ross only intimately knows about 2005, ultimately. The same with Tom Mesereau. Mez claims he had people lined up to rebut Jordie Chandler if he had even testified, but how credible would they have been? We don’t even know; I do know they were alleged classmates from NYU and one of them was a hardcore MJ fan — talk about obvious bias!

            I haven’t read the Estate’s argument but have been told the gist of it, and to be honest, it does make sense. At the end of the day — whether MJ molested Wade or not — he’s dead and his actions cannot be realistically described as under the control of anyone, especially the companies, who aren’t natural persons and were created by MJ. Personally, I think Wade may be in too deep at this point, having committed to the lawsuit in the beginning out of emotion rather than logic, and now he can’t back out because it would look really bad for him; people would think he was a liar for sure. So I think he has to keep moving forward until the judge makes a more permanent decision, e.g. dismissal, so he can save face.

            As for Gradstein and Marzano, I think he chucked them. They weren’t child sexual abuse lawyers; they were contract lawyers, among other things. Perhaps he wanted attorneys that had more expertise and could do more to move the case forward? Who knows. Although Ivy has a thing for rampant speculation; I take everything she says with a grain of salt.

            Why do you think Wade is furious? I mean, I think he’s upset because of the obvious — realizing MJ used him — but I guess the question remains why didn’t he have a problem with MJ using him before, when he was still a hot choreographer? Realistically speaking, there is no difference between now and before 2009 — except for the fact Wade has less “pull” in the industry. Not to be cynical, but…his actions read fairly vindictive. Not that he doesn’t have the right to take action but a little honesty goes a long way! So does he want the world to know out of genuine concern for the whole CSA movement, or is it because he’s retaliating? Only time will tell, I guess.

            I haven’t heard of this tweet about the lawyers wanting to debate Tom Mesereau, although it would be quite the sight to see, given their expertise on molestation victims. It would be funny to see Mez taken down a few notches in that regard. Tom Mesereau “debated” criminologist/pedophile expert Jim Clemente and easily bested him because Clemente isn’t the best speaker, LOL. The video is on MJFacts, actually. http://www.mjfacts.com/tom-mesereau-educated-analyzed/

          • Mezza

            I’m going to reply to this later but you seem really rational about all this. When I see your answers to other comments on this site or on twitter, they are rational answers. Sometimes pro and no Jackson fans seem so off the charts. I very much side with you logic when I read your stuff.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Here’s the link to Gurvey’s Law podcast featuring Vince Finaldi. He said we should keep our eye on the press in the next 3 to 4 weeks! Wonder what that means?

            He also said regarding the Tom Mesereau debate that it would be for charity, the “loser” donating $10,000 to charity. He’s challenging Mez because Mez has been going around basically bad-mouthing Wade and the case.

            Interview begins at the 34:00 mark: https://audioboom.com/boos/5123829-gurvey-s-law-10-02-16?playlist_direction=forward&t=0

          • Mezza

            Thank you! Going to check it out now! And they will have Mez on next week! Bingo!

          • Mezza

            Thanks! Well I just listened to it. Pity it was so short and not much was said. Interesting that mez is on next week so I’m going to listen too that. Would live to hear Finaldi and Mez fight it out!

            Also interesting to hear about wade being supeneod. I did not know what.

            And I agree about the 2-3 week thing! Didn’t really know where he was going with that. These guys are going to step it up the next few months. I have a feeling it will get ugly.

            Lawyers love the limelight.

          • Mezza

            Anyone listen to mez interview? Did he bite for the $10,000 to charity discussion?

            I assume not because I would’ve thought they would have tweeted it out.

          • Mezza

            New podcast is up for gurveys law with t-mez. Interesting the $10,000 wasn’t mentioned at all in the entire interview. With the interviews forgot, didn’t dare to mention or Tom told them prior he wasn’t going to come on if they mentioned it?

            http://www.kabc.com/2015/03/20/gurveys-law-podcast/

          • Did you listen to the entire podcast Mezza? What did Tom Mesereau talk about?

          • Mezza

            Tbh it was pretty boring. The podcast was 55 minutes, 10/15 minutes was ads, about 20 minutes on his pro bono work, he wouldn’t talk about suge knight, talked about Robert blake then about 10 min on MJ
            1. Talked about how he was gentle with Debbie Rowe and how lawyers think they have to use all the documents that have collected but sometimes jot worth it when the person like Debbie is fragile
            2. The girl hostess talked about the fact the she grew up with a couple of MJs little boys who were entertainers (last time she said she dated one and didn’t give names) who went on tour with him, slept in his bed etc etc and said she woulve expected years later for some to step forward which they haven’t.
            3.guy interviewer corrected them and talked about wade and safechuck
            3a) safechuck testimony very descriptive
            3b) then wade and safechuck amending claims
            3c) then mez talked the usual story about wade being his best witness, he only put on defence cause he thought might be hung jury, he asked MJ specific questions when they first met which made him automatically think MJ was completely innocent of molestation and pedophilia
            3d) guy interviewer then asked what mez thought claims were about and mez said in his opinion money grab and girl agreed
            3e) guy pretty much came off as agreeing and said the psycholocal evaluations would help
            3f) asked mez if it goes to trial if estate should bee worried. Mez said no very firmly
            3g) Mez said he didn’t believe or have faith that estate or weitzman wouldn’t settle.
            3h) he said he was not involved in the case
            3i) guy said that would mez take the case on if estate/ Weinstein asked him to. He said he would have too discuss specifics with them but he would always be happy to defend MJ and would always go to trial.
            4) they talked about playboy bunny girl that took selfie with naked girl in background. Mez said he is representing her, wouldn’t answer anyore questions
            5) I can’t remember the last topic but not about MJ.

            In mention about fifaldi, pretty much said what he usually says and added that he would defend MJ in this if estate wanted him to and specifics were right.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Thanks for the rundown, Mezza. So basically, these hosts are just another bunch of people who think MJ was a blameless angel. Not surprised.

            Admittedly, Wade has an uphill battle but you’d think people would at least keep an open mind because it’s not as if MJ never settled child molestation allegations before! Sheesh… They don’t think it’s just a teensy, tiny bit strange MJ had boys of specific ages as continuous bedmates? SMH

          • Mezza

            The lady is definitely 100% biased because she obviously grew up with some kids that MJ knew and dated one of them and comes across as not believing a word. The guy not so much and I think he was agreeing with mez like he was agreeing with fifaldi and kept his opinions out of it. But he also comes across as a massive fan of mez but I think he more neutral.

          • Mezza

            I really believe if this does go to trial, mez will be the trial lawyer. He is not giving anything away, very careful about what he says and is obviously trying to make sure the estate don’t settle.
            That is my gut feeling.

          • ShawntayUStay

            You think so? Howard Weitzman is a very successful, capable attorney. I doubt they’d need a criminal lawyer’s help; civil law is different from criminal law after all. I don’t think Mesereau will be involved, especially with all the negative comments he’s making about the executors and Weitzman.

          • Mezza

            I just basically think, why not go with something and someone that has proven to work in the past. Mez is just baiting them, trying to make sure they don’t settle and making it clear that he thinks they will win. He has been doing this since the claim came out.

            He obviously isn’t worried about it being civil or criminal otherwise he would have flat out said it is not his area which he didn’t do at all.

            It might all be games and tactics, try to confuse Fifaldi or whatever. Lawyers are all game players.

            We will just have to wait and see.

          • Mezza

            Didn’t mention fifaldi

  • Mezza

    Totally agree. Though we don’t know if this didn’t happen prior and estate said no. Highly doubt it though.

  • CandyC

    Apparently Wade is after Jordan Chandlers depostion now, although Jordan’s whereabouts are unknown (for obvious reasons).

    I’m sure Jordan is not interested in being dragged back into what he went through in the 90’s, he would want to leave it all in the past, understandably.

    And isn’t he is bound by a confidentiality agreement? If so I’m not sure how he is meant to give a deposition. I don’t believe he owes it to Wade, I doubt he will come forward.

    • I’ve looked into this before Candy, according to the confidentiality agreement Jordan is not permitted to cooperate with any civil suit related to Michael Jackson and molestation unless he is subpoenaed. I too think he doesn’t want to open himself up to abuse from fans again – can you imagine what it would be like for him if he had to attend court as a witness and there were fans outside vilifying him, or worse, inside intimidating him? Because that’s exactly what it would be like.