Wade Robson – The Marathon – February 2016 Update

Lies run sprints. The truth runs marathons.

Michael Jackson and Wade Robson - poor Wade
Michael Jackson and Wade Robson – poor Wade

That’s what Michael Jackson reminded us when he was accused of child molestation. It was, of course, mere rhetoric on Jackson’s part to fire up fans to come to his defense – in his heart he must have known that over time his secrets would be revealed. Or was he totally delusional and did he really think that the vows taken by the boys he was intimate with would truly keep them quiet forever? I’m leaning toward the latter, his narcissism surely gave him confidence that he could silence them well into adulthood. He was certainly manipulative enough.

Update 18th February 2016

Although Wade Robson had a hearing date scheduled for his case on the 16th of February, this didn’t go ahead. Here’s why. In March 2015 the MJ companies (MJJ Productions, Inc and MJJ Ventures, Inc) lodged a demurrer with the intention of having the case thrown out, which was denied by Judge Beckloff. An appeal against that decision was lodged by the MJ companies on 23rd November last year, and the decision came through on the 17th of February 2016. The appeal by the MJ companies was denied, and the case will be moving forward. We expect the judges opinion to be available soon, if so we will publish it.

Appellate Court Case Information

Update 28th September 2015 – As anticipated, James Safechuck Jr’s probate case was dismissed because it did not meet statute of limitations deadlines. His civil case against Jackson’s companies will continue to work it’s way through the system.

Wade Robson’s civil case is now at the summary judgement phase. What is summary judgement?

When one party believes that there are no important facts in dispute, he will file a motion for summary judgment. A typical summary judgment motion has three parts. For the purposes of this explanation, let’s assume that the defendants (Jackson’s companies) filed the motion for summary judgement, and that the plaintiff (Wade Robson) must now respond.

Part 1: These are the facts: First, the defendants, Jackson’s companies, will present a version of the facts. The defendant usually attaches photos, signed statements from witnesses, and any other evidence to back up their statements about the facts.

Part 2: This is the law: Next, the defendant will argue about the state of the law. The defendant’s attorneys will write up a memorandum that discusses the statutes and cases that govern the parties and attempt to convince the judge that, under the law, the defendant is entitled to win the case.

Part 3: Even if…: In the last part of the summary judgment motion, the defendant will anticipate what the plaintiff (Wade) will argue, and will try to prove that even if the plaintiff is correct in his arguments, the defendant will still win the case. For example, Wade is alleging that Norma Staikos had control over Jackson’s company MJJ Productions and that she knew that there was a possibility that Jackson was abusing boys. The company lawyers may present affidavits and other proof that she might have known about the abuse, but never had any control to stop Jackson.

Next, the plaintiff responds: In his response, the Wade can either try to show that the defendant’s arguments about the law are incorrect, or that there is evidence that there could be more than one version of the facts.

The judge’s decision: After all the papers and supporting evidence has been submitted, the judge will review all the paperwork and make a decision. The judge will grant the motion, agreeing with the defendant, if (1) the defendant’s arguments about the law were correct, and (2) even assuming the plaintiff’s version of the facts were true, the defendant is still entitled to win. The judge will deny the motion if there is evidence from Wade’s side that presents any questions of fact that should be put to the test of a trial.

– See more at Findlaw

In his ruling, Judge Beckloff made reference to what needs to be covered when making a claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1, subdivision (b) (2) (the entire section can be viewed here).

Our Supreme Court explained the component parts of section 340.1, subdivision (b) (2) in Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 545-546:

“The words of subdivision (b) (2) create three conditions that must be met before it applies to a particular case: (1) the nonperpetrator defendant “knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice”; (2) that the perpetrator–“an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent”–had engaged in “unlawful sexual conduct”; and (3) “failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding placement of that person in a function or environment in which contact with children is an inherent part of that function or environment.” Moreover, the “unlawful sexual conduct” refers to the acts specified in section 340 .1, subdivision (e), which defines “‘ [c]hildhood sexual abuse'” in terms of seven provisions of the Penal Code describing various prohibited sexual acts against minors.”

Beckloff ruled that although the first two components had sufficient facts alleged in Wade’s third amended complaint to survive demurrer, the third element would need to be tested in court. (It should be noted here that “…the court must construe all allegations of the complaint
liberally and allow all reasonable inferences and implications in favor of plaintiff [Wade].”)

…there is a factual dispute this court cannot address on demurrer as to the third element – failing to take reasonable steps to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct – an element that necessarily “implies that the [nonperpetrator defendant] was in a position to exercise some control over the [perpetrator].”

Was Norma Staikos in a position to exercise some control over Jackson? She was Executive Vice President of MJJ Productions and certainly had some authority over the running of the company. It is alleged she fired an employee against the wishes of Jackson, and controlled access of persons to Jackson’s vault of recorded music without reference to Jackson himself, so it’s plausible she could have said “no” to Jackson when it came to organizing young boys for sleepovers. For more details, see the Norma Staikos story.

The next scheduled date for Wade’s case is a status conference on the 16th of February 2016.

Document: Ruling on Submitted Matter


Update 19th August 2015 – Wade’s civil case (against Jackson’s companies, for facilitating the abuse) has proceeded to Status Conference stage. Status conferences are to allow the sides to sort things out, see where the case is, just in case an actual civil trial can be avoided. This is dependent on the demurrer being denied.

According to statements they’ve issued in the past, the Estate, which now controls Jackson’s companies, is unwilling to offer Wade a settlement to prevent the case going to trial. We don’t know if they will still feel that way as time progresses. My feeling is that the Estate will try and drag this case out for as long as they can, a common tactic when the defendant has deep pockets, in an effort to wear Wade down or to give them time to get the right witnesses and evidence in place to help them win.

Check out  The Evidence Keeps Adding Up

Wade for his part has always said “it isn’t about the money,” so I hope he can stick to that and get his story out. If he is offered a settlement by the Estate he will probably reject it, but I wouldn’t blame him if he accepted it.  If he has a choice between facing years of grinding litigation, or going back to a normal life with his family, he would make a choice that’s best for his family. This would tarnish his claims somewhat but as true Realists we would like to see Wade heal and be around the people he loves rather than satisfying our quest for the truth about Jackson. There will be other boys (now men) who will come forward in the future to further prove Jackson was a molester.


Update 28th May 2015 – Judge Beckloff has had to deny Wade Robson’s claim against the Estate (his Probate claim) because he couldn’t fit it into existing statute of limitations for the offenses Wade is claiming. One would assume that the same will happen to James Safechuck’s claim.

Judge Beckloff said that although it’s quite reasonable to believe that Wade was brainwashed and threatened by Michael Jackson, that ceased when he died and Wade took an unreasonable amount of time to file.

Both Wade and James still have the civil case in play against Michael Jackson’s companies. The next hearing for that case is 30th June 2015.

It should be noted that the case was not dismissed because it was based on lies or that the case didn’t have any merit. The following sentence at the top of this post still applies.

Unfortunately for Jackson, his fifth and sixth accusers have joined the first four accusers (Terry George, Jordan Chandler, Jason Francia and Gavin Arvizo) and broken their vow that they would never tell. Thus, nearly six years after his death, the truth marathon keeps pushing forward regardless, while the lie that Jackson wasn’t a pedophile ran out of puff a long time ago.

What followed after Wade and James came forward was a flood of misinformed pronunciations, misinformation and lies from certain commentators, Jackson fans as well as sections of the media. We have the latest documents1 from the Los Angeles Superior Courthouse which torpedo most of those lies and misconceptions. We’ve posted before about issues in the Wade Robson case, however in this post, using the new documents, we’ll clear a few more things up.

What is happening is that Wade Robson has filed a late creditor’s claim against the Estate of Michael Jackson for an unspecified amount in relation to the harm he suffered as a result of Jackson’s alleged abuse. There are strict time limits on creditor claims against an estate; however, it is being argued by Wade’s lawyers that these time limits shouldn’t be applied because of Jackson’s fraudulent and unjust acts which prevented Wade from filing any claim — not just against Jackson’s estate, but also against Jackson himself when he was alive.

The judge is currently deciding whether the late claim will be permitted, if he decides it won’t be then that will be the end of the matter (in the courts). If Judge Mitchell Beckloff allows the late claim to proceed, the Estate have already stated that they will refuse it. In that case, Wade will take his claim to Civil Court where it will work it’s way through the system.

Jackson’s fraudulent act of brainwashing Wade into believing that the acts between them were consensual is one prong of the equitable estoppel argument, Jackson’s threats are another prong of Wade’s equitable estoppel argument. So both elements are covered – fraudulent acts and threats. Robson can use either or both.

So, in any case, this is all the judge needs to rule on.

However, rather than taking on the equitable estoppel argument, the Estate insists it is not applicable and insists on focusing solely on the timeliness of Wade’s claim.

Based on Wade’s answers in his deposition, the Estate argues that Wade did indeed know about the administration of the Estate. As evidence, they proffer the following:

  • Wade read about the controversy over the “second will”;
  • Wade was aware of the guardianship arrangements of Paris, Prince and Blanket;
  • Wade attended the memorial at the Staples Center after Jackson died;
  • Wade knew in 2010-2011 there was some dispute as to who was running the Estate;
  • In 2010 Wade was approached to work with Cirque du Soleil and met with John Branca to discuss his plans for the Immortal show;and
  • Wade knew that John Branca was a co-executor of the Estate.

The answer is very simple. According to the documents filed, when Robson stated that “he did not understand or was even aware that an Estate had been opened for administration” he was providing an opinion rationally based on his lay-persons perception; he genuinely did not understand what is meant by the administration of an estate or what it entails. He also did not even understand that it was possible to make a claim against the Estate until it was explained to him by legal counsel.

That puts paid to the ignorant comments such as “How could Wade not know about the Estate?”. Obviously the Estate and the administration of the Estate are two distinct things – knowledge of one does not automatically assume knowledge of the other.

All of this is, of course, irrelevant if the equitable estoppel argument is successful.

As for fan arguments that one of the reasons Wade supposedly needs money is “because he was passed over for the Immortal Tour in favor of Jamie King”, this has also been proven untrue. The fact of the matter is that Wade was approached, through his agent Julie McDonald, to work with Cirque du Soleil.  In early 2011, Charles Joron of Cirque du Soleil was considering an offer for Wade but it had to be presented to and validated by the Estate. Wade met with John Branca in his office in the first quarter of 2011. At that meeting Wade and Branca discussed creative concepts and their respective visions for the show. It should be noted here that Wade was under the impression that Branca “ran the entertainment business side of the Estate”. According to the court documents, Wade had previously been offered the job at Cirque du Soleil, but had quit for whatever reason, so this was the second time he had been approached for the task. In the end he declined the Cirque show as he felt the producers and the Estate would face an uphill battle to “resell” him to whoever made the final decision to hire him.

Wade wanted to do the show badly, as he’d stated in an email dating to May 21, 2011, however due to his gig at the time – directing a major motion picture – as well as the emotional distress he was starting to feel, apparently for no reason but established now by experts to be due to the abuse by Jackson he suffered, he felt he could not give 100% of his creative output to the task of the Immortal show.

Check out  Jerry Sandusky and Michael Jackson

So, it’s a falsehood when fans spread the lie that Wade was ever “fired” from either Cirque du Soleil or his major motion picture directing debut.

The other point clarified is “How could Wade NOT know it was abuse?”

For us, the answer was confronting, and disturbing. In essence, Wade is saying that his impression at the time was that he and Jackson had loving, mutual sex. Jackson had indoctrinated Wade into thinking that they were in love, that the way they expressed their love was through sexual acts. Thus Wade saw absolutely nothing wrong, at the time, with the fellatio, masturbation and anal sex he enjoyed with Jackson. In his mind it was not rape; it was never molestation. Instead, with Jackson’s goading, it was a couple expressing their love through intimate physical contact.

After detailing the sexual acts in his April 30, 2013 declaration, Wade chased the list with the following statement that underscored not only the effects of Jackson’s insidious instruction but also simple bodily physiology:

“The most distressing thing for me is admitting to myself that it felt good. I feel overwhelming guilt and shame that I looked forward to being with Doe 1 sexually, because it makes me feel like I am responsible. My life has been a lie.”
– Unredacted Robson Declaration, p. 4, para. 16, lines 9-11

Unpleasant as it is to discuss, obviously the anal sex would have been delicately introduced – if Wade would have said no Jackson would not have gone that far (remember Jackson ceasing any behavior that Jordan Chandler objected to).

Now, it must be stated here that sex between adults and children is never an expression of love, and Wade has come to realize that now, too. No matter how you dissect it, Jackson’s actions were rape because they were with a minor. What Jackson did damaged Wade mentally and emotionally (and would damage any child) in ways that he only came to understand once he had therapy. Before that, what occurred between him and Jackson Wade viewed as completely acceptable.

What Jackson made Wade think is that what they had was mutual love, and they expressed that love through sex which was perfectly natural. What Jackson also had to explain to Wade was that others were “conditioned” to believe what they were doing was wrong – hence the need for secrecy and the threats that disclosure would result in terrible things happening to them both.

This would have absolutely influenced Wade’s decision to lie in 1993 and 2005 when asked about his relationship and activities with Jackson. Wade openly admits he lied and the reasons can be gleaned from these documents.

One, he loved Michael Jackson, he loved Michael Jackson’s attention and he looked forward to being with Jackson sexually.

Two, he imagined that Jordan (in 1993) and Gavin (in 2005) would have also equally enjoyed being with Michael but were “betraying” him and were trying to destroy him or just wanted his money. This was reinforced by Jackson’s daily coaching.

Three, Wade felt no compunction in lying for Jackson to protect both Jackson and himself. Wade knew that sex between a minor and an adult was illegal, yet Jackson’s indoctrination left him with the feeling that those that drafted those laws wouldn’t have understood the special relationship that he and Jackson had. For Wade, it was easy to dismiss the reason those laws were put in place, and to give testimony where he denied he and Jackson were doing anything sexual.

Four, Wade felt that if he admitted to having sex with Jackson, his life would have been destroyed. He was made to feel that he, rather than Jackson, was the instigator in the sexual relationship (according to Jackson’s brainwashing) so he felt he would have been vilified. In the 2005 trial, Wade said he “felt like he was 11 years old again”, full of fear, shame and guilt. Wade felt as though he had somehow convinced Jackson to have sex with him, so if he told, it would be his fault that Jackson got into trouble. This shows the depth of Jackson’s depravity, allowing a young boy to believe abuse was his own fault.

Five, lying for Jackson cemented his loyalty to Jackson, allowing him to stay friends with someone he idolized and lionized, setting him apart from the “traitors” who had tried to bring his mentor down.

As can be seen,Wade willingly lied in 1993 and 2005, to protect both himself and Jackson. He was so indoctrinated by Jackson “not to tell a soul” about what they had done, it took until May 8 2012 for him to break the bond he had with Jackson.

Once Wade broke that bond and told his therapist about his sexual relationship with Jackson, it took another year of therapy for him to tie the abuse to the emotional and mental damage he had felt since he was a child. He finally realised it was sexual abuse, not consensual sex.

Once Wade knew that Jackson had caused his psychological damage, he wanted justice. Let’s hope he gets it.

As for those who doubt Jackson chased young Wade, read the following exchange:

SB:“Oh, he wasn’t from ‘N Sync, Wade?”
MJ:”No, he’s a choreographer for Britney Spears and ‘N Sync. See I taught Wade.”
MJ:”Yeah, I taught Wade. All the stuff you see Britney Spears and ‘N Sync doing, that whole style came from me ’cause I taught Wade. Wade’s from Australia and I brought him to America.”

Quite obviously it was Jackson who brought the Robsons to the US, not the Robson’s chasing after Jackson. After all, here is Jackson boasting about it.


* The documents are

    Filed by Attorney for Claimant
  • 04/03/2015 Response (RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO MOTION )
    Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
  • 04/03/2015 Declaration – Probate (OF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY RONALD J. ZONEN )
    Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
  • 04/02/2015 Creditor’s Claim ($ UNDETERMINED )
    Filed by Claimant
    Filed by Attorney for Claimant
    Filed by Attorney for Claimant
    Filed by Attorney for Claimant
    Filed by Attorney for Claimant
    Filed by Attorney for Claimant
    Filed by Attorney for Claimant



  • Pea

    Very appreciative of the update, MJ Facts Team! It’ll be interesting to see how all of this goes with the Motion for Summary Judgment hearing coming up tomorrow morning. I have no predictions — I have no idea how Beckloff will rule.

    I also wanted to make a comment on this notion that’s been floating around about Wade Robson’s supposed “scam” against Jacko being “exposed” because he’d stated he’d been subject to anal sodomy. I don’t know if it’s just due to the desperation of Jackson’s fans (or that we just have too many sexually-retarded old maids commenting on the case), but it’s obvious that that has been way overblown.

    The amount of needless drama injected into everything by Jacko’s Wackos is breathtaking!

    First of all, Wade Robson never said he was “raped” in the sense of the word we’re all familiar with — that was Radar Online’s doing in that salacious, ‘click-me’ headline from last year: “Michael Jackson anally raped Wade Robson.” Because fans claim that Jacko was “incapable” of violence, Wade’s claim of sodomy under Cal Penal Code 286, including its force/violence/duress provision, must be false. But that’s absurd because, again, ROL said Wade was “raped”, not Wade himself.

    Given the statement from his declaration about the abuse being physiologically pleasurable (which happens more often than not), as well as the fact he remained close to Jacko, it’s all prima facie evidence he wasn’t “raped” and underscores his claim that all of it was, in his mind because of Jacko’s brainwashing, part of some consenting “childhood sexual relationship” with Jacko, as Wade had described, and that he thought it was sex, not exploitation and abuse.

    Also, according to Wade’s Petition, the sodomy occurred only once when he was fourteen, whereas all of the other acts were perpetuated “on multiple occasions” over seven years. Apparently, Jacko must’ve coerced Wade into trying something “new”, as it’s hard to imagine a heterosexual teen boy would ever have such a thing on his mind (a pedophile who owned the gay sex instructional manual “Man: A Sexual Study of Man” might, though). But we have to remember that Wade also claimed sexual penetration (according to statute, it’s the insertion of non-penile objects into genital openings) on multiple occasions — so, if Jacko wanted his brainwashed victim to go a “step further”, it wouldn’t necessitate any violence at all.

    He could have even told Wade it would be “better” than the earlier stuff they did.

    Interestingly, Wade referenced the final encounter at the trial (albeit, he didn’t say what he and Jacko did). He recalled the last time he remembered staying with Jacko was for one night at a Sheraton Hotel:

    27 Q. Remember the last time you slept in his bed?
    28 A. The last — I think it might have been when 9130
    1 I was about 14. It was at a Sheraton Hotel in Los
    2 Angeles.
    3 Q. And how did you happen to be there with him?
    4 A. I stayed with him for I think it was just
    5 one night.
    6 Q. Did you call or did he call you?
    7 A. I don’t remember.
    8 Q. Was your mother there?
    9 A. No.
    10 Q. Do you remember how you got there?
    11 A. No, I don’t.

    In his documents, he states the same thing, though he recalled that it was a different hotel (the Universal Hilton in LA) — that was his last night with Jacko. In the flow of the documents, it seems that final encounter was when he and Jacko engaged in the sodomy. My calculus: Wade turned 14 in September 1996; Jacko had a respite from the HIStory tour between the Hawaii date in very early Jan ’97 and the late May ’97 date in Germany — apparently to coincide with Debbie Rowe’s plan to shat out Jacko’s purchased white child Prince Jackson. In other words, Jacko was in town to summon 14-year-old Wade to a hotel suite for what could coarsely but aptly be termed a “booty call” or “one night stand”.

    Why the f–k does a 39-year-old man with a brand new baby son at home need a 14-year-old boy to visit him, for one evening, and share his bed? How was that not obviously sexual? That kind of testimony — along with Brett Barnes’s claims of sleeping with Jacko until he was at least 19 — made Jacko’s longitme biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli sick to his stomach. But these Jacko ‘booty calls’ are nothing new. Recall: Joy escorting Wade, late at night, to Jacko’s Westford building condo at Jacko’s request. Wade would’ve been 7 or 8 at the time; Jacko didn’t care if the boy was up past his bedtime or any of that — he wanted something for himself and Joy delivered Wade like a pizza.

    Jermaine Jackson also mentioned Jacko’s affection for sleeping with Wade in his book “You Are Not Alone” (p. 338-339): “On
    one occasion, Michael spent the day in the studio with his protégé Wade Robson,
    working late into the night. He decided to stay at Wade’s family’s home at the
    invitation of his mother instead of returning to his wife — it was easier that
    way. Michael hated arguments or raised voices and preferred to avoid a problem
    rather than confront it. But Lisa Marie wasn’t putting up with it: she stood up
    to Michael and challenged him. That was what he needed, even if he didn’t
    appreciate it.”
    (Wade stated on the stand that when Jacko visited the Robsons’ condo, he and Jacko would sleep together on the pull-out bed in the living room.)

    You have to love Jermaine’s attempt to paper over the strangeness of a married man wanting to sleep with a boy over returning home to his wife, especially when Jermaine has alluded many times over the years to Jacko being a pedophile. It’s amazing to think that all of Jacko’s creepy conduct was admitted to prior to Wade’s disclosure. So much foreshadowing!

    Finally, and this is a very important point: Wade Robson’s one-time sodomy encounter with Michael Jackson would not necessarily leave any physical evidence or even be painful for that matter. The Jacko’s Wackos claim is that how could Wade not know he was “abused” if he’d been sodomized, since sodomy just “always” has to leave wounds or result in a ‘perforated colon’.

    Again, this is what happens when you give sexually-retarded old maids with desperate “MJ was innocent!” agendas the ability to publish truly inane content to the Web.

    First of all, we’re not talking about seven-year-old Wade, who was even bigger than Mac Culkin, aged 10, as both were seen in the “Black or White” video. Instead, we’re talking about a fourteen-year-old “young man” (as Mesereau creepily referred to even the much-younger boys Jacko was accused of molesting, as if that made it better). Second, a cursory Google search of sexual education and health websites evidence that if one conformed to best practices when it comes to anal intercourse, there will be no physical damage done to the body.

    Again, since Wade stated that the abuse “felt good”, it’s a very clear indication that he was not injured in that encounter or any of them. As he’s said.

    But let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that that was their final encounter because it did hurt — after all, having sex up the end of the digestive tract is not the usual place for the practice. However, that would not invalidate whatsoever the idea that Wade still loved Jacko and believed the whole of their physical relationship was an expression of their love for one another. Therefore, the idea that any pain felt during that one instance of anal sex would mean that Wade should’ve somehow known he was abused (and since he didn’t he must be lying) is patently absurd.

    If that was the case, any first-time virgin would immediately hate her spouse or boyfriend for the pain associated with losing her virginity and view it as a violation.

    Lastly, we don’t even know for sure if the sodomy between Jacko and Wade was a completed act (i.e. Jacko had an orgasm). In the RFAs, it only referred to Jacko “penetrating Wade Robson’s anus with [Jacko’s] penis” — we don’t know if it was actual “sex”, just that that contact, however brief, is sufficient for a sodomy offense under Cal Penal Code 286. So all of the above could be totally moot if it wasn’t even completed and they just did something else together that night, which could also account for why Wade would continue to love Jacko, believe he was a willing participant, and view the whole of the abuse as feeling good.

    There are far more simpler explanations than, “Oh, ‘anal rape’ is a ridiculous charge because MJ wasn’t violent and anal is always violent therefore anal couldn’t happen and Wade’s a liar when he said he thought he was always willing since you can never be willing if it’s ‘rape’.” (Anyone else dizzy?)

    Anyway, I apologize for the exceedingly long comment. The nerdy-girl in me was fed up with the misinformation spread about this particular issue in order to invalidate Wade. Jacko’s Wackos never fail to keep it really mind-bogglingly stupid. But, then again, they defend an obvious pedophile; can’t be too smart doing that….

    • GaVL_90

      Radar Online wasn’t incorrect to say Wade was raped. If you are below the age required to legally consent to sex with an adult, it is rape.

      • Pea

        With all due respect, what’s the point of your comment? The question of statutory rape is not at issue. What is at issue is the false idea — originally perpetuated by Radar Online — that Wade was a victim of a “violent”, forcible rape, which is not what he alleged at all.

        When Radar Online blasted the headline (it was eventually altered) MICHAEL JACKSON ANALLY RAPED WADE ROBSON, they knew very well what they were doing: raking in the website clicks from people who believed they would read a sordid tale of a young boy violently sodomized by the King of Pop and left with a perforated colon and bloodstains in his underwear. That’s incorrect because Wade never said that.

        It is crucial that news writers not sensationalize. How many times has one read a headline blaring PERSON A SEXUALLY ASSAULTS PERSON B, public outrage is stoked, only to realize that the violation wasn’t some dramatic rape we all thought it was but merely a groping? That does a disservice to everyone: the alleged victim, the alleged perp, and the public. It’s neither accurate to the facts, nor to our language, for that matter.

        This is not about legal definitions; it’s about sticking completely with the facts of the story — Wade didn’t allege he was violently raped. Like some kind of virus, the idea of Wade being “anally raped” (meaning violently raped) has infected the discourse and led to haughty dismissiveness by certain Jacko’s Wackos of Wade’s experience, not to mention critical accusations based upon false premises that he’s lying because — no way! — “anal rape” is outrageous and not-not-not, nor could ever be, within Jacko’s wheelhouse.

        The point being made is that Wade’s story has always been consistent with his allegations, no matter the linguistic voodoo employed by those wanting to uphold Jacko’s dubious “innocence”.

        • GaVL_90

          My point is that rape should be called what it is. Radar didn’t accuse MJ of “violently” raping Wade. If Wade were female, the term wouldn’t be met with such objection.

          • Pea

            Okay, troll… You’re starting an argument that didn’t exist.

          • Your reading comprehension is obviously quite poor. The article quite clearly stated that sex with a minor is rape, no excuses. Pea was merely pointing out how the remaining Michael Jackson defenders took that headline and accompanying story and somehow turned it into “vindication” for Jackson. It wasn’t.

            See reality for what it is, not what you want it to be. Stop trying to make an argument where none exists.

    • FED UP

      What I’d take great issue with, is the absurd suggestion by nutjob Jacko fans That Wacko Jacko was non-violent!! Such Liars! Even though Wacko Pedo Jacko was very manipulative, there are still several instances where he was publicly violent. Has anyone already forgotten that video (i think Black or white, never listened to his crappy sh##ty music) where he was smashing windows of buildings, demolishing cars, breaking their windows, jumping on cars, beating things, behaving like a wild untamed animal and promoting overall violence? So much so there was widespread controversy?? And i believe he had to eventually edit it. Also, he was roughly masturbating his crotch on top of a smashed car, (for anybody claiming he was non-sexual and too innocent), also causing great controversy! Especially since there were many young children involved in video!

      Then we have his incidences of animal abuse! Throwing rocks on his own lions, and he was witnessed kicking and beating on his pet Bubbles!

      And even worse, the PUBLIC DANGLING OF HIS INFANT FROM MULTI STORY BALCONY!! All this in even in presence of media cameras! Who can imagine what that monster could be capable of behind closed doors?!

      Who dares to say Wacko Pedo Jacko was non-violent!!!

      And could this pedophile also be capable of violent rape? Absolutely!

      • Andreas Moss

        While I do think we should keep all doors open to what kind of molester, or indeed what kind of person, MJ really was, and its interesting, I personally kind of doubt he was a very violent and rageful person. Even behind the scenes. But I don’t think he needed to be to get what he wanted, most of the time. He was Michael Jackson, after all.

        From what the accusers has shared, and what we see from MJ in the media, is that his main “weapon of choice” was guilting and manipulation. He would say things like “If you love me, you would do X” and “This other boy didn’t have any problems doing this, he must love me more than you do.”. That type of thing. And he would groom the everliving shit out of the victims family and the victim himself. With that a certain sense of debt and loyalty could occur… and he would even cry like a baby if he didn’t get his will. Most molesters doesn’t have the advantage of their victims being big fans either.

        And he was very good at painting himself as a victim, and everybody else just wanting to bring him down. Liars and moneygrabbers. He was always a saint.

        This part manipulates and mesmerized his fans, even to this day with great power, and plenty of others too seemingly… heck even I must admit ashamedly I feel this strange sense of pity for him, and wanting to believe him sometimes.. and I probaby should know better by now. It just shows however how good a manipulator he was.

        Most of the things you mention are ethically very questionable, I would agree, and potentially dangerous when it comes to the baby dangling… still, I don’t think it makes him seem “violent” in the literal sense of the word. And him smashing carwindows in a musicvideo is kind of weird to use as evidence for a violent person, isn’t it? I don’t think makes him more violent than any actor playing a violent character in a movie necessarily.

        • ShawntayUStay

          I agree Andreas, I don’t think violence was MJ’s go to device for getting what he wanted, although I’m certainly open to having my mind changed, because all of us are capable of it. I mean, as much as MJ lied, I do believe his disgust at violence was genuine. After all, he was beaten. He always said that he would never revisit that on his own children (and didn’t). But I think an argument can be made that his less than caring physical handling of some of his animals does evidence a dark “schizo” dimension that lay deep within. (Actually, he was schizo with many things: loved animals, hurt some of them; loved kids, hurt some of them; claimed to be a “proud black American; bleached his skin/whittled nose down to a Peter Pan-style pixie point, etc…the man was a walking contradiction!)

          Have you ever seen “The Jacksons: An American Dream”, the mini series about the Jackson 5? It’s pretty good and was made by Jermaine and his wife at the time, and it shows how evil Joe Jackson was, IMO. But besides that, it showed the beginning, in my mind, of how MJ learned that lying can be used to get what you want. MJ was told to lie and pretend that he was 8 instead of 10 by Motown, so he’d be seen as “cuter” by the public. He was literally being taught to distort reality and that only good things would come of it. Remember what he said to James Safechuck, that “it was ok to lie to other people because you never get in trouble when you lie”. Distortion and misrepresentation had by then become completely integral in MJ’s interaction with others. If he got others to accept his version of events, he’d needn’t worry about the repercussions of his actions.

          So I guess in reference to what Pea was saying earlier about Wade, and in agreement to your point about his ability to “mesmerize”, MJ would never have to use violence to get anyone to do what he wanted them to do, especially his boy victims. He was the perfect “nice guy” pedophile who used seduction and manipulation to get Wade, and his other special friends, to be intimate with him. And I think for many people it’s easier to believe that a teenage boy was “anally raped” to explain why he’d ever have intercourse with his abuser; he must’ve been forced down and violated. It is much, much more difficult to come to terms with the idea of compliance, that, because of manipulation, the child “willingly” participated in a sexual act.

          That’s why Wade wouldn’t realize it was abuse because MJ wasn’t physically forcing him to do things — MJ preyed on his trust and perhaps guileless curiosity about sexuality — hence why he now feels shame and guilt. The fans refuse to understand the idea of compliant victimization, and pillory Wade’s claim of anal sodomy. But violent rape doesn’t fit into Wade’s overall allegations of loyalty and love for his mentor and father-figure, Michael Jackson, so by deduction we can easily assume he wasn’t subjected to any physical violence. (I admit that even I would have been highly skeptical if Wade claimed MJ raped him!)

          But knowing how people think, it would probably be better for him to claim actual rape in order to get justice in the courtroom, especially since his lawyer has to show he was intimidated into silence, and what better way to demonstrate intimidation than to show you were subjected to physical violence.

          • Andreas Moss

            Yeah, I think you are right that both fans (and probably others on the fence) are confused about how “compliant victimization” work. That is pretty hard to understand. It sounds like an oxymoron. He was definitely a different type of pedophile than Jimmy Savile. Savile made hospitalized girls kill themselves because they were so traumatized that he would come raping them at night, and threaten to kill them if they said anything. That does not sound like our Michael..

            The assumption that Michael Jackson was a sociopath in some other ways still, seems fair to argue though. I don’t know anything about the stuff about him beating Bubbles though. What it that about? Where is that from?

            The thing about the lions I remember Gavin Arvizo talked about, in the courtcase. (I think it was him? Maybe it was Wade..) That they threw small rocks at the lions, to wake it up and to roar? Certainly isn’t nice no, especially if he did that every time he showed the lion off to kids.

            I haven’t seen the Jackson 5 documentary, no. I’m sure he was experienced in lying, yes.

          • Pea

            It was in 2013 or early 2014 when chimp expert Jane Goodall told TMZ that Bubbles was beaten in Jacko’s care. They asked her about bubbles & she brought it up on her own. Apparently she had inside information. (You can Google the story.)

            It was Wade who mentioned throwing rocks at the lion, and one story by his former security detail at the ranch, Robert Wegner, said the lion used to roar at odd hours, it was investigated by staff, & they closed the case when they learned it was Jacko doing it. No one can stop the boss! Wegner said in his book that the rocks were medium sized.

          • Actually Bubbles was three chimpanzees – and it does disturb me when anybody (not just Michael Jackson) purchases exotic animals as pets. It’s not cute, it’s not sweet, it’s sad. People who truly care about animals would never own a zoo for their own viewing pleasure. Bubbles is now at the Center for Great Apes, still in captivity and hates cameras for some reason http://www.centerforgreatapes.org/meet-apes/chimpanzees/bubbles/

          • Pea

            Bubbles was first (see picture), then Alex & Max in the late 80s – early 90s. They all supposedly slept in Jacko’s bed. All boys, too. No wonder Bubbles is so screwed up! And he hates cameras because, like Jonathan Spence, he had to submit to numerous naked photoshoots. Poor Bubbles.

            Joking aside, Robert Wegner also said that one time an exotic animal (he didn’t define the species but I think it was equine) was delivered to the ranch & it was clearly in distress. It kept banging its head into the wall of its cage. No one was trained to take care of it & it eventually died soon after its arrival.

            Wegner also said he was told Jacko didn’t have permits for some of his animals. He recalled that one time they herded one in a big truck & circled the area around the property until the inspectors left. Reportedly, Oprah Winfrey wasn’t allowed to see Jacko’s private zoo in 1993 because the “specimens” were being illegally kept…

            Jacko didn’t love animals. They were his props to procure boys.

          • FED UP

            Thank you, well stated. Also, Jermaine and perhaps some family friends talked about how they witnessed how Pedo Wacko always used to kick and hit bubbles too.Several people knew of his animal abuses. And if beating animals weren’t enough, he coldly abandoned all the animals in the end, leaving them to starve to death on his ranch, they had to be rescued. And what he did to children was even worse! Serial child rapes, and dangling his own infant over a multistory building balcony!!! Who does something like THAT?? That monster could do anything!

          • ShawntayUStay

            You can watch on YT if you’re interested. Shows how they grew up and got discovered. It’s a movie.
            PART 1 https://youtu.be/yYdVtt06HOc

            PART 2 https://youtu.be/PQDdCE52yR0

            Part three is some where on you tube…LOL.

            I read in a MJ biography that he used to poke Bubbles with pens to get him to listen, etc. And allegedly he even shaved all the hair of Bubbles (or one of his other chimps, can’t remember which) hind quarters! Why…i have no clue, LOL.

          • FED UP

            Very well articulated and summarized! Its amazing how many horrible things that freak weirdo did, and people let it fly under the radar! If anybody else had done even one of those things, say like dangling a helpless infant over a balcony, we’d never hear the end of it!!!!! And the children most likely would’ve been removed! Really, how many contradictions does it take, for people to see through all his PR BS!! As you stated, everything he said was contradicted! He was a walking contradiction. He even tried changing his race and often called blacks racist names like ‘Splaboos’ while pretending to be proud black. He was so manipulative and such great LIAR, he went on televised public cameras completely fabricating police brutality! When in fact it was HE who beat and bruised his own arm! But Wacko Jacko fans would like for us to forget all of this, yet all his victims, whistleblowers and anybody exposing the unpleasant truth on Wacko are immediately dismissed and called liars by hypocritical Wacko nutjob fans! Wacko was an all around horrible person and very dishonest, even besides the child molestation. He betrayed countless business partners, he stole dances from other artists, he betrayed everyone in his close circles; employees, advocates, attorneys, etc. Every last one of them ended up suing him, even slimy scum Messereau and staunch MJ advocate and defender Raymone Baine! But none of this should surprise anyone since he betrayed so many innocent children and was a serial child molester, guilty of the most heinous acts imaginable! No wonder he betrayed so many innocent children!

        • JessicaSideways

          Agreed. MJ was manipulative but the abuse he would have implemented would have been more emotional rather than physical.

    • JessicaSideways

      Is it really a surprise? MJ was a drama queen and MJ’s sheeple will happily continue his tradition of drama whoring.

  • ShawntayUStay

    The bar to grant a Motion for Summary Judgment is very high and the remedy is drastic because it disposes the entire action (lawsuit). The Estate has to show that there are no disputed material facts, but luckily, all facts are construed in a light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment (in this case, Wade Robson) and if the judge has one doubt about whether a material fact is undisputed or not, MSJ is denied and Wade will go forward to evidentiary hearing, where the issue of whether equitable estoppel applies to preventing the Estate from using the statute of limitations defense against Wade’s claim will be determined.

    So I think there is hope for Wade, although I see that the Estate has also filed an alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues, which would only dispose of some parts of the lawsuit, but not have it entirely dismissed. That suggests, in my opinion, the Estate may not be completely confident in it’s ability to get Wade’s lawsuit tossed out all together. The hearing for that one is May 11, 2015…of course that would only occur if Wade survives the MSJ.

  • Katherine Schwarzmann

    Very well written article. Too bad Robson was never molested and is making this all up just to win millions and provide a secure future for his wife and family. Everything was going well for him until his meal ticket passed away and his career tanked. I guess desperate times call for desperate measures:

    {spam links removed}

    • Hi Katherine, thanks for your comment, however if you were confident in your assessment

      1) You wouldn’t have spent the time to visit this site;

      2) You wouldn’t have spent time reading this post;

      3) You wouldn’t have spent time crafting a comment (even an inane one like the one you left);

      4) You wouldn’t have shat a couple of spam links onto this site that lead to the rantings of an insecure woman who never cared about Wade Robson as a person but only as another shaky prop in her defense of a dead pop star. Let’s face it, if she HAD really cared about Wade she would have listened to his revelations of abuse and taken them seriously.

      When will the scales fall from your eyes Katherine?

    • Andreas Moss

      I’m interested if there are many known documented cases where people are lying about child molestations just for money? Like ‘cash grabs’ by accusing people to be pedophiles and molesting them when they were children?

      Is that really something you fans think human beings often do? Or is this a ‘special case’, as usual, since its Michael Jackson?

      If there has been any similar cases at all, ever, in any country, at any time, and fans can point out similiarities to this case with Robson and Safechuck, I’d give that theory more credibility. I’d like to see them! I really can’t comprehend if fans really believe this, or they are just protecting Jackson, at this point.

      I mean, Robson even had a witness in Blanca Francia. She found them in the shower together. Does that count for nothing?

      • Kat

        I know, right? How often does that happen when people make up stories about being sexually abused just because they want money? I haven’t heard of any such instances. The fans say it keeps happening because Michael Jackson was so very rich, and yet somehow that statement doesn’t apply to other rich celebrities. R. Kelly, Woody Allen, Tupac, Mike Tyson, Roman Polanski, and Bill Cosby are other rich, famous men accused of sexual crimes. Why is that nobody’s screaming that it’s all about money when it comes to their accusers?

        One argument that Jackson’s camp provides for why he keeps on being bombarded with what they believe to be false child molestation claims is that it’s because he loved children and surrounded himself with them and that they were his weakness. They argue that when the first accusers – the Chandler family – wanted to create a clever extortion scheme against him, they went after his most obvious vulnerability – his innocent love for children with whom he spent time with because he wanted to relive the childhood that he never really got to have. But obviously, that has been proven wrong many times. Everyone knows that MJs attitude toward children bordered on an obsession and that his relationships with many of them were far from normal and healthy.

        As for Blanca Francia, I can tell you right now what fans think of her. To them she’s a liar and untrustworthy, because she was paid money to give an interview about her employment with MJ, during which she said many unfavorable things about him. She and her son also received an out of court payment from Jackson, and that further strengthens the argument that she’s yet another one of those cunning opportunists looking for easy money. Jackson’s supporters seem to be unable to wrap their heads around the concept that someone can ask for money or be offered money and still be telling the truth, LOL.

        • Andreas Moss

          Yes. Thats kind of it. I get that people can do a lot of stuff for money, especially in desperate times.. Maaaybe so.

          But accuse someone innocent for something as serious as child molestation? For money? Your old friend, your idol as a child, your co-worker, your boss, your own brother?

          And here you have a loooong line of people that accuses, and has seen stuff and implying, and all sorts of smaller things, rumours, etc.

          It seems quite bizarre to believe you can find SO many people, who is THAT depraved, with NO integrity, that are willing to do something like that, as long as you just open your wallet and pay them a buck. Unlikely story? A little.

        • Pea

          Going after other alleged sex offenders is a typical Jackson fan red herring, i.e., “Hey, focus on those other pedophiles and leave ours alone!” (LOL) In fact, one of the links I’m sure “Katherine” provided was to the website of a Jacko-fanatical babushka living in Moscow who wrote a long post about how Woody Allen was a big ol’ child molester and juxtaposing it with Michael Jackson’s “innocence”. No, she wasn’t being ironic.

          One particularly laughable comparison was something about how “sick” it was that Woody Allen was always holding his alleged victim — in his arms, on his hip, in his lap. If we give Allen the benefit of the doubt (something she laboriously extends to her beloved Jacko), well, he was the girl’s father — fathers often hold their daughters. However, this old lady thinks it’s nothing that Michael Jackson held hands and shared his bed with unrelated young boys of particular ages.

          That’s why I always say they are persona non grata. They aren’t functioning in reality. Or maybe babushka’s getting senile.

          As for Blanca Francia et al., I’m still amazed it hasn’t weighed heavy on people that she and others claimed to see pedophilic behavior or actual abuse before any confessions were made by Wade and James. It’s puzzling, frankly. These people, so viciously trashed in the press by that Pellicano goon (who ALSO called Jacko a pedophile), have been vindicated. At least that’s what rational people would believe.

          Yet Jacko’s Wackos still call them liars, and Wade is using Blanca Francia’s story to bolster his “lies”. Maybe they need a refresher course in probability: http://www.mjfacts.com/occams-razor/ It’s far more likely that both Blanca and Wade are telling the truth than both of them are lying and colluding. But they have intricate, unproven conspiracies involving dozens of players co-mingling to take down one of the biggest celebs in history who happened to completely fit the MO of a pedophile and slept with unrelated boys on his own.

          And I will add that there’s a kink in their narrative about going after Jacko for loving kids. All of his accusers (including Aaron Carter who alleged creepy pedo behavior on Jacko’s part, though he still admires the man) have been boys, not girls. You’d think after many so-called false accusations of sex abuse/inappropriate behavior concocted by “evil parents” a girl would come up — allegedly didn’t all sexes supposedly sleep in his Neverland bed, not just boys, so they say? Yet no girls. However, that should indicate, quite reasonably, that Jacko’s love for all children was separate from his “private” affections for boys.

          Again, that’s another reason to completely ignore these fans. They’re all in orbit!

          • Kat

            I’ve also read what Jackson’s fans say about other sexual abusers in comparison to MJ, and quite frankly a lot of it is downright disturbing. They will write things like: ‘after Jimmy Savile died, hundreds of people came out saying that he abused him. But when Michael died, only two did, and that means they’re lying!’ I mean, is that a joke? Do they realize how screwed up it is to say that? The fans were also commenting on Diane Dimond covering Jerry Sandusky’s trial. ‘Dimond reporting on a real pedophile? Shocking!’ – is what they were saying. And yet they absurdly refuse to see the staggering similarities between Jackson and Sandusky, and how they both used their ‘charitable, upstanding member of the community’ personas to cover up abuse.

            Clearly, if you choose to use common sense, you’ll absolutely come to the conclusion that it’s far more likely that Wade and Francia are telling the truth and corroborating each other’s testimonies. But the fans will come up with all kinds of far-fetched theories to deflect the accusations and the multitude of circumstantial evidence against Jackson. How did Jordie Chandler know that Jackson’s private areas were splotched, when the rest of him appeared to be in one color? He saw
            the Oprah Winfrey interview and somehow guessed that Jackson’s vitiligo was milder around his crotch area! Why did Blanca Francia say that she saw Jackson and a boy together in a shower? She only saw one person, but because the shower was filled with vapor, it appeared to her that she was seeing two! What about the former security guard who testified at the 2005 trial about having seen Jackson perform oral sex on Jordie and passed two lie detector tests when
            telling this? It was a setup orchestrated by Tom Sneddon who made the guard say it, so that Jackson would definitely go to prison! What about sperm from different males found in Jackson’s room? It was planted evidence!

            Ultimately I think it all boils down to that if people desperately don’t want to believe that something is true, they will come up with alternative explanations to the evidence that points to it being true. It’s the same with any other conspiracy theory.
            If you don’t want to believe that Elvis died of overdose in his home in Graceland, you might as well think that he faked his death and is still alive now and hiding in Mexico under a false identity, all while putting forward arguments that would verify that theory. 😀

          • ShawntayUStay

            LMAO, your sum up of fan logic was a delight! I know the fans bounce these cockamamie theories off each other in forums, etc, but do they ever take the time to sit down and make an itemized list of the theories — stripped completely down to their most central point — and then read them out loud? Because oftentimes what is in your head does NOT translate, at all.

            Maybe with a bit of self distance, they’d realize, for example:

            “Hmm maybe it really doesn’t make sense that an unknown Chilean journalist and an El Salvadorean maid could plant naked boy books in a multimillionaire celebrity’s file cabinet for the police to discover in 1993, two years after the El Salvadorean maid stopped working for said multimillionaire celebrity who is known to be highly paranoid about his security. I guess if I applied that thing the haters always mention, Occam’s razor, it makes more sense that Michael was the one who bought the books because it’s his filing cabinet in his room, and he did hang out with a lot of young boys and he did a lot of gifts for these boys and he did sleep in bed with boys…Oh no, maybe MJ was attracted to boys”…*cries into pillow dressed with handsewn Michael Jackson pillowcase*

            Commence fan head explosion over the obvious, LOL.

            They say the best conspiracy theories are ones that can’t be proven or disproven, but fan conspiracy theories are easily shown to be false. So I guess that means their theirs are more like the rantings of sad, deranged individuals whose lives are pathetically intertwined with that of a dead celebrity pedophile. That sucks LOL.

        • JessicaSideways

          I do know that when Dateline To Catch a Predator exposed that District Attorney and he committed suicide rather than be arrested, his sister blamed the TV show for his brother’s death.

          Not her brother’s actions, a TV show.

          That shit just makes me angry.

    • ShawntayUStay

      See, the problem with you fans is that you all have eaten up everything Michael Jackson has fed you. Never once do you question his version of events, his version of the story. So here you are, repeating the LIE (yes, LIE) that without Jackson, Wade is nothing — no talent, no vision — just like Jackson basically said in that exchange with the Rabbi. Did you feel the same way about Wade Robson when he was telling you what you wanted to hear? I bet not. And yet, he is still the SAME MAN that he was before, only now he is saying something you don’t want hear; things, I might add, that have been corroborated years prior to him saying anything. So who has really changed here — Wade Robson, or the fans, hell-bent on vouching for the character of a man they’ve never met?

      If fans were rational and objective, they would put two-and-two together and realize that MJ’s relationship with boys was highly suspicious, even if you don’t want to make the leap and say he was a pedophile. With that foundation, evaluate the testimony of witnesses and at least admit that it isn’t far-fetched to think Jackson could have been untoward to these boys… it can’t be that everyone is lying about Michael Jackson. So, when his special friends come out and say they were abused, isn’t it a better policy to take the time to listen before summarily dismissing their claims? Because, it’s not like there wasn’t any “lead-up” evidence.

    • Pea

      Katherine, I think the Estate of Wacko Jacko would appreciate your assistance.

      Please mail your copies of the closed-circuit videotapes of Jacko and Wade’s Neverland Ranch, Hideout apartment, Westford building condo, and Robson family home sleepovers to the executors at once! Also, helpfully include copies of Wade’s tax returns for 2009-2013, with annual incomes of $0.00 highlighted in yellow; the bank liens placed on his homes; and the repossession notices, dated prior to 2013, for each of his cars.

      Thank you.

      • ShawntayUStay


        • Pea

          Oops, I forgot to tell her to include that scrawled-in-crayon checklist Wade made that reminded him to confer with Victor Gutierrez, Diane Dimond, N A M B L A, Stacy Brown, DSSL, and MJ Facts to get his story straight. The Estate would love that.

          God, I hope she’s still reading! 🙂

  • Pea
  • Andreas Moss

    Its of course possible, FED UP. You have some points. I’m no psychologist, so I’m not comfortable saying who he was.

    Still a bit unsure if him beating up a car in a music video(which is an artform) makes him a violent person in real life. Even if it was his own idea. I suppose we can dispute that, and that fine. But otherwise, yes, you are of course correct that he took advantage of quite many kids, and if he hurt animals, it does show a side of him many, that shows, someone with a lack of empathy. At the very least.

    • From Frank Cascio’s book (Chapter 20):

      The Bashir interview, Living with Michael Jackson, was set to air on TV in Europe on February 3, 2003, and in the United States three days later. A couple of days before the telecast, Michael decided he wanted to talk to a foreseer. He put some faith in spiritual advisers, and he was curious about what lay ahead. At Dr. Farshchian’s recommendation, we called a woman from abroad on the phone. Michael, the kids, Dr. Farshchian, and I listened while Mrs. Farshchian translated what the spiritual adviser had to say. There was bad news right off the bat.

      “You will be accused,” the spiritual adviser said. “There is someone trying to sabotage you. Be careful.” Then she said, “You have nothing to worry about, everything is gonna be fine in the end.” Michael freaked out. He couldn’t bear the idea that he would be accused of wrongdoing, that his intentions would be questioned again. He stormed to the bathroom and proceeded to smash a mirror…

      So yes, he was capable of rage and violence. Another interesting thing is his use of a fortune teller in contradiction of fan assertions that he was a “good Christian”. The Bible warns against this very thing.

      • Kat

        I personally don’t believe that Jackson raped Wade; as in used violence to forcefully have an intercourse with him. For me that sits ill with what’s already known about his ways of seducing boys and making them believe that the whole thing was their idea. Why would MJ need to resort to violence, when the victim was already sufficiently groomed to comply with whatever he wanted? Also, his own statement that he could ‘never hurt a child’. I believe him in the sense that no violence was used when the sexual things happened. Jackson obtained the sexual gratification that he was seeking without physically hurting children. Child molesters and child rapists seem to be two very different things to me… Another point is that I’ve read kids who are sexually assaulted are more likely to disclose it than those who are molested. That means – if Jackson would have raped some boy without previous grooming, then it’s likely that this person would have told about it rather soon.

        Wasn’t Frank Cascio Jackson’s ‘special boy’ immediately after Jordie Chandler? Is he another young man who is suspected to have had an inappropriate relationship with Jackson, but is now saying what a wonderful person MJ was and writing books that say nothing but good things about him? Do we have another case of Brett Barnes here? =) I know that certain friends of MJ are strongly suspected to have been victimized by him; does Frank fall into that category?

        • Pea

          Very good comment, Kat! I, too, believe if Wade Robson was forcibly sodomized, he would’ve likely told someone. Because he didn’t, it’s reasonable to suggest Jacko’s seven previous years of grooming was enough to get a 14-year-old to go along with it without using any force. After all, according to the timeline of Wade’s allegations, Jacko was already molesting him in that area (for lack of better terminology) well before the anal sex.

          Though Wade wasn’t exactly a 7-year-old (Jacko did seem to be less reverential of older kids — he blamed them for making younger children ’embarrassed’ to hug & kiss adults), I still think he would’ve been gentle to him in that moment. I just can’t accept that Jacko would be violent, at least sexually, in spite of what seemed like a small interest in S&M.

          As for Frank Cascio, yes, he did follow Jordie Chandler, though Cascio boys knew Jacko before that. He was “replaced” by Omer Bhatti. It took years for me to be persuaded that Frank was a victim. I bought the Cascio book in 2011, and I actually only read bits and pieces of it until 2014. It was after I’d read the entire book, which proffered creepy codependency and blurred boundaries, I was convinced he was a ‘special friend’ with “benefits”. Bob Jones wrote in his book that the relationship was odd, too; he said Frank did everything Jacko wanted him to do and Jacko did everything Frank wanted him to do.

          I think his relationship with Jacko was closer than Brett’s. Sure, Brett slept with Jacko until at least 19 (though I think it was more like 20 based on my research), but he lived in another country. Frank became an employee and constant companion. What I was thrown by in the book was how much Jacko hurt Frank when Frank did something Jacko didn’t like. It was almost like spousal abuse!

          They were way too close for comfort…

        • Don’t get me wrong Kat, I wasn’t implying that Jackson forcibly raped Wade, or anybody for that matter. I don’t think his public and private personas were “Jekyll and Hyde”.

          It was merely a foil to fans dehumanization of the the man. They insist all was goodness and light with him and that he was a devoted Christian. He was squeaky clean, as they say.

          This is quite obviously not true. The man raged, the man threw and smashed things (how often do you or people you know throw and smash things?) and had no compunction in going against the teachings of the Bible. He was a human, with human needs, desires, and selfishness.

          Fans shouldn’t turn him into a cartoon character. He wasn’t one.

      • ShawntayUStay

        I don’t know about this story. So I’m guessing this was to foreshadow the the trial and acquittal? LOL, sure. Throughout Frank Cascio’s book, one gets the impression that he is a history revisionist, to the point that insertions and omissions are made to make MJ’s conduct look less suspicious. He also liked to add himself into events where it’s pretty much impossible that he was ever there. For example Cascio said that he met Jordie in January 93 and they handed out, during which Jordie allegedly said that his father was jealous of his relationship with Michael. But Jordie didn’t first hang out with MJ until February, and Evan Chandler didn’t meet MJ until May! Clearly a fabrication!

        He also said he and MJ were suspicious of the Arvizo boys and the mother the first time they were to Neverland, so MJ said that Frank should stay in the room with him as a precaution. But how is that possible that they already knew they were alleged grifters when this was their FIRST ever visit? Frank is clearly not telling the truth. There are other examples of this throughout the book of course…

        As to the fortune tellers, et al, I’ve read that MJ was interested in the occult (not saying he practiced, but he was interested in the subject); if course contrary to, as you’ve said, his “Christianity”. He told Jordie about levitation. In Diane Dimond’s book, Ralph Chacon said that MJ was playing with Ouija board with a young boy and MJ wanted “things”. Also, I know people don’t believe it but Maureen Orth’s “Losing His Grip” interviews Myung Ho Lee, who claimed MJ had a witch doctor perform a ceremony to rid him of his enemies.

        Like many things in MJ’s life, his religion was also contradictory.

  • ShawntayUStay

    No Cveti, don’t go. You haven’t yet explained the conspiracy involving the shadow people who wanted to destroy Michael Jackson!

    We need to know what that’s about so we can start believing MJ was innocent again! He was innocent, right?

  • Cveti! Wait! You haven’t told us about the conspiracy plot yet! This is vital information! Please come back!

    • Cveti Dimitrova

      Think about the abusers of children in Hollywood. They are protected – the law can’t touch them. Michael pays for their doings. They are the monsters in Holywood. The children STILL need to be protected from THEM. Learn who they are and focus on the right people.
      That’s all from me.

      • Why won’t you tell us about this conspiracy plot directed at Michael Jackson? We are all ears, ready to listen!

      • Andreas Moss

        “Learn who they are and focus on the right people.”

        How do you spot a real child molester then, Cveti? What should we look for? Would he sleep in bed with little boys for example?

        • JessicaSideways

          If he molested children and his name is Michael Jackson: he’s not a child molester.
          If he molested children and his name wasn’t Michael Jackson (regardless of outcome): he’s a child molester and he’s using MJ to get away with molesting children!

  • Thanks for your comments Berta, and welcome!

  • JessicaSideways

    “did he really think that the vows taken by the boys he was intimate with would truly keep them quiet forever? I’m leaning toward the latter, his narcissism surely gave him confidence that he could silence them well into adulthood. He was certainly manipulative enough.”

    Yeah, me too. Especially given MJ’s god complex. Being so high profile and able to get away with such horrific crimes must be a thrill. Only a few men could really relate to MJ in this respect… and the list isn’t exactly full of good company. OJ Simpson, Darren Wilson, George Zimmerman, Dick Cheney… and Michael Jackson.

    At least he didn’t kill anyone.

    • Berta

      The fucked up thing about this is that MJ allegedly had OJ stay with him while the trial BS was going on! It’s in the bodyguard book that came out last year (
      that I still own at the moment, but I’m currently 6,000 miles from my bookshelf, so not much I can do about that rn) I always thought that was strange, especially when the things surrounding that case seemed to really point to his guilt…unsavory associations can be telling, I suppose.

  • As a former fan myself, I definitely share your experience. Up until 2013, that was also me. I was so in denial. On my Tumblr, half of my reblogs evolved around MJ but after reading this site and Desiree’s as well as the Chandler documentary where fans had tried to harm Jordan and his father (and this was after Wade revealed his pain), it made me realize why my heart kept jumping, because I knew what MJ had done was wrong but when you’re in denial, you try to block it out. Seeing the truth made me free and made me realize WHY survivors of child abuse had to deal with what they had to deal with. Once I came to the conclusion that MJ was not only a pedophile but also a child molester, it freed me. And I’m glad you finally came to that conclusion. Thank you for your great post.

    • Berta

      Lol get out, I used to have an active MJ tumblr/reblog a lot of MJ too! Sigh. Let me tell you about that fandom, though…the worst. Granted, most fandoms on tumblr are. But when Wade surfaced again and everyone was like “he juzt wants money!!!$$” I was like….how are y’all so quick to victim-blame? I’m glad I at least kept an open mind…of course, I had resolved a while ago that even if I was wrong, I would accept it, but everyone is not quite as level-headed as me, I suppose. I can’t reconcile having someone I have strong evidence to believe did something so reprehensible on my walls. The jury is still out on the music right now, though….I think it’ll just make me sad from this point on.

      • Andreas Moss

        I have to give you a lot of credit for following through, Berta. Thats probably not easy at all. People here have speculated that fans for the most part are “in it too deep”, and they’d rather live in denial, but you prove that perhaps a few fans are ‘saveable’. So kudos to that.

        I’d be interested to hear your relationship to his music after accepting all this. What do you feel and think when you listen to his music today?

        Personally I have no motivation in smearing his career, or musical legacy, not really. Its more that I want his behaviour with kids to be spotlighted. There’s a lot of confusion out there. Most youtubevideos thats critical of him are downvoted, same with comments on reddit, etc, and my impression is that many people, and not just fans, believe he’s perhaps innocent of all the accusations. The fans are doing a very good job feeding the old lies to the public and covering up things. It seems.

        • ShawntayUStay

          Actually, are they really doing a good job? Or is it just that the people who are seen talking about Michael Jackson are the ones interested in him, i.e., fans? I don’t really think their reach is as wide as they claim it to be; they aren’t convincing anyone who hasn’t already anchored themselves firmly to MJ. Because let’s be real, those vindication sites are full of fallacious arguments that are nowhere as bullet-proof as the fans think it is. It’s just a bunch of poorly-researched, poorly-written junk.

          But I think because there are so many fans, it just looks like everyone believes he was innocent. But that is just perception, not reality. Tom Mesereau rightly said as much — they’re simply “preaching to the choir”. Most people, I’d wager, either think he was a pedophile or don’t know if he was one but are suspicious — but all of them don’t care enough to participate in conversations about him (except for people like us, who are mostly ex-fans who now think he was guilty, but are interested in “why”, and how our former group can’t see it… and probably just a little crazy to still care, LOL).

          • Andreas Moss

            Wow, well its interesting that you view it that way, Shawntay.

            I could of course be wrong about this, and I’d like to hear other share perspectives on this, but that is wholeheartedly my personal experience as someone interested in the public perception. That many people outside the fanbase are confused what to believe, that is. I guess the best thing I can do is refer to some things I’ve seen to make me form that impression.

            * One recent example: Like, just under a week ago someone on a sub-Reddit posted a photo of some weird tattoo with MJ the text “He touched so many people..” tattooed under it. With the tagline “He sure did!” under. A quite funny joke, I suppose. I was curious how people in the comments responded to it. When I read the comments for the thread the first one said “You actually can’t prove that. He was aquited.” with over 100 upvotes. Suggesting the majority of the people on that non-MJ reddit didn’t believe he ever molested kids.

            Following was other statements about people having the impression that “the first accuser admitted to lying, didn’t he?” and stuff about his father killing himself over guilt for what he did to Michael, and they don’t feel bad about that. Other comments were like, “MJ didn’t seem like the type”, that kind of stuff. Now I didn’t ask these people who were chatting about this in the threads if they were fans, to be fair, but they didn’t strike me as fans necessarily. Just your average crowd. Some of them even said they weren’t fans. They just didn’t find it believable that Jackson did these things. Or found it hard to believe.

            * And this matches my impression elsewhere too. I’ve debated people both on reddit and on youtube lately, some are fans, and some of them are not fans(at least they say they aren’t, and I have no reason to doubt that). They just don’t believe he did it.

            * From my personal life I’ve asked friends and people I know, sometimes, just out of curiousity what they think. And my impression is its not far from 50/50. They’re usually not certain either way, but probably, or probably not.

            * South Park is a series that usually doesn’t hold its punches, and usually is honest in their satire if they mean something, and their episode about Jackson, “Meet The Jeffersons”, to me seemed to weigh towards Michael just being weird and childish. Perhaps not pedophile, but he needed to grow up. That episode influenced my view of MJ for many years, and considering how popular that show is, it might have for others too. Even fans seem to like that episode.

            * Bill Maher, is also known for having a crude and direct saticial humor. (If you mock religion on a daily basis, you’re not afraid of stepping on toes.) I’ve heard him say that under the trials, and after, he said he wouldn’t do MJ jokes in his comic routines, because he wasn’t sure what to think of it. He wasn’t sure if Michael did those things, so he stayed away from it. Which to me says something. (Still I paradoxically heard him do a Jackson joke anyway, but I think that was more recently).. I know Jay Leno did some jokes on his show though, but for some reason, I almost get the sense that making MJ jokes is more for shock value? I am not sure they believe it sincerly. They might though, who knows…

            * And I guess for me personally, as I’ve testified before, I was also on the fence for the longest time, thinking he might be innocent, although always a bit confused about it. Before I started to read about it, of course, then it swayed me over. (And I’ve never been a fan of MJ. Never disliked his music either, for that matter, its just not something I’d listen to.)


            I fear its difficult to see it outside our subjective experience here, perhaps? Of course, if anybody knew as much about Michael Jackson’s life that some here do, or read a quarter of the articles on this site, you’d have to be an obsessed and very attached fan to deny the allegetions.

            But the thing is, most people don’t know that much. They haven’t taken the time to read up on it. Many just know he was charged in 2005 and acquited, after a drawn out case that went on forever, and are not sure what to believe. Many people don’t even care that much, but still have an opinion. MJ seems too “nice”, he gave money to humantiarian causes and made ‘moving’ songs like Heal The World and Earthsong. “Would someone like that molest kids?” Hard to believe, right. Most people don’t know what a child molester would be like. They don’t know what to look for.

            As a neutral person, one who is not a fan, and you’d want any clear answers you go online, and on every corner there is adamant fans with the old stories and misinformation. Every critical video of him is for the most part downvoted, and full of comments claiming he was really innocent, and all this information and misinformation. There’s just so many myths and contradicting stories with Jackson..

            I’ve seen truthseekers online, that probably just want to know what’s going on, and are being confused, but still ending up believing he was probably innocent. I can relate to it just being too dense to figure out whats going on, and if there’s no easy answers, just a wall of people very certain on both sides, they give up. Who to believe, right? And its more fair to say someone is innocent before proven guilty, and thats probably a reasonable position to hold. I think there are many people like that. And yes, some fans are batshit insane, but not all. And perhaps we shouldn’t mistake all of them as fans either, just because they think MJ is innocent.

            Thats just my impression though. 🙂

          • ShawntayUStay

            Well-reasoned argument, Andreas. I only started being interested in MJ after he died, because he was before my time for the most part. So I wanted to know what was all the fuss about so I researched and because I was so completely ignorant, I read the Wikipedia page about the 1993 case and believed he was innocent. And even before he died, when I did notice Michael Jackson, it was in a neutral to positive light — I didn’t think he was guilty, I thought he was just a loveable “freak”, eccentric but harmless. I even believed similar to you about the South Park episode. But I was IGNORANT; completely dupe-able, I must admit. I hadn’t yet taken the “red pill” a la “The Matrix” to see the game.

            I also think a hugely important thing to remember is that a lot of people are completely lazy in general when it comes to research so they just go to the first couple of listings in Google, read them, make a conclusion, and call it a day. It’s understandable, but you don’t get the whole story. Discovering truth requires a lot of work (all one needs to do is to read up on the history of science for great examples). This, added with the absolute glut of MJ vindication sites that only tell one side, is the reason that people who might not necessarily be fans think he wasn’t a child molester. They haven’t put in the work. Also people just don’t want to believe it; it’s so ugly to think he was a pedophile.

            Regarding the alleged non-fans on Reddit and YT. etc, I think MJ Facts’ post on the cult of Michael Jackson illustrates the tactic of fans’ trying to “protect their leader”: they swarm any and all MJ stories, pretend to be objective all the while spreading their talking points — yes, they absolutely do this. I’m not saying all of the posters are fans in disguise, only that a sizable portion of them are present under ANY MJ related article; they are, after all, the people most interested in all things Michael Jackson, however miniscule or remote in connection. They probably have Michael Jackson google alerts so if anything is posted they know about it and react accordingly.

            I agree that a presumption of innocence is highly important, but there is a limit to that. How much evidence needs to come out before one is allowed to come to a legitimate conclusion on an issue? The truth will always be the truth, regardless if one chooses to accept it. You just have to take the time to do the work. Most people don’t and will continue buying what the PR machine sells. They’re right to do it, but it doesn’t make it true.

          • Kat

            I wanted to write a comment on this subject, but you pretty much said all that I wanted to say! Ha. I agree that many people who claim that he’s innocent are definitely fans. Especially on YouTube, they will have his face in avatars and his name in their screen name, therefore they are definitely fans and definitely biased. I also agree that they are likely to have alerts, and whenever a new update on MJ pops up, they read what is written and adamantly dispute it, if it’s negative in any way.

            I also believe that people many people are indeed uneducated about the whole thing. I recently read these comments about the allegations, and many people were writing: ‘But all he did was help children his whole life! How can anyone even think that such a man could molest a child?’ People like that have no knowledge of nice guy acquaintance molesters. They don’t know that these people will deliberately do charity, go to church, and create an appearance of someone who’s beyond reproach and couldn’t possibly do anything bad. So that, when you’re looking for the perpetrator, you look right pass them. Also, the people who say that Arvizos were career extortionists and scammers, and yet entirely miss the point that theirs was a criminal trial, not a civil trial. The money was never the subject and Arvizos walked away having gained nothing. So yes, if these people would actually educate themselves they wouldn’t be saying that. All of us who have actually done our research know that these are misjudgments.

            What I can add is that is that many non-fans also appear to be confused about the allegations, because he was just so weird, as everyone agrees. Many uninvolved people will say that yes, maybe he was guilty, but it’s possible that he was just in a state of an arrested development, and that’s why the whole Neverland thing happened. A lot of people state that it’s difficult to say, since the sleepovers with boys was just one of the very many strange things that happened in his life.

            I can tell from my own life, when I ask my family and friends what they think about Michael Jackson, they say that he was ‘definitely a freak’ and ‘probably a pedophile’. They’re not saying definitely, since he was cleared of the charges, but they conclude that there’s no smoke without fire, and since he was dogged by such accusations half his life, it means that there must have been something there.

            All of this is why it’s so vital for Wade’s case to go through
            and for the estate to be found liable. Then finally Michael Jackson will be found guilty by law, at last he will be held legally accountable, and it will be much harder for people to argue that he was innocent. Even people with a passing interest will know that he was found guilty, even if after his death, and that must mean that the allegations were true after all.

            My wish is that the truth is exposed, justice is done, and victims find the closure that they’re seeking.

          • ShawntayUStay

            You are so right, Kat. So many are just not knowledgeable about nice-guy pedophiles, so they think MJ had to be innocent because he was as about as non-aggressive as a man could be (perception-wise, of course). They assume that because he was a grown man with an amusement park, tons of action figures, toys, video games; liked to play with water balloons and climb trees, etc, he was as asexual as a young child. But according to his autopsy, his “parts” were in working order, meaning that he was a fully functioning adult male with likely all the sexual urges produced from working gonads. So it makes you think “What was the real purpose of those sleepovers?”, “Why did he have all that pornography?”, “Why did he have books featuring naked young boys?” — because no child would want to look at that stuff.

            But because we have knowledge that pedophiles will present themselves as childlike to get close to their victims and disarm the parents, it doesn’t look so indicative of innocence to us as it does to others.

            “Then finally Michael Jackson will be found guilty by law, at last he will be held legally accountable, and it will be much harder for people to argue that he was innocent.”

            I’ve had the argument about why do these men have to sue, why don’t they just write a book or do an interview, or something like that. But it’s because court makes the outcome more legitimate. People watching an interview might think that they are doing it for money and Michael can’t defend himself. They’d also say that they only do it in the media because their claims can’t stand up in a courtroom. So it’s like “damned if they do, damned if they don’t”. Some people think that a settlement would make them look like liars too, but I disagree. No one settles with plaintiffs if they were innocent of wrongdoing. The accusations are embarrassing and ugly so I can understand Wade/James deciding to take a settlement instead of testifying to it and perhaps having a jury full of fans that nullify in favor of the Estate.

            Of course, I’d want them to go to trial because a settlement may mean that the truth will be once again hidden due of a confidentiality agreement, and the Estate may demand that they be able to say that MJ was innocent, just like what happened in 1994. I’d want them to go to court AND do a big interview/write a book; I’m interested much more in the mind games Jackson played with his boys and the things he said to him, rather than the sexual details.

          • Kat

            I agree that if the court finds the estate liable, it will be more convincing. However, for me it’s more of a matter of Michael Jackson finally being held accountable for his crimes. He paid off the first accuser, and the second accuser, and there are rumors about others being paid to stay silent. Then he finally went to court, but wasn’t convicted. He escaped punishment his entire life. Now finally there’s a chance of him being found guilty. Granted, it will not be MJ found guilty, but the estate found liable, but at this point that’s as good as it can be and essentially means the same thing.

            Gosh, don’t just hate it when people say that it’s wrong to sue now when Jackson can’t defend himself? I always feel like saying, but when did he ever defend himself while alive? He was never questioned by law enforcement. He pleaded the Fifth Amendment and let morally compromised lawyers like Anthony Pellicano and Tom Meserau ravage the opponents.

            Wade said in the one interview that he did that he will not be silenced for money and that the one thing that people won’t see from him is going away with his claim for money. James’ wife said that it’s not about money. So it can be said that it’s highly likely they will refuse a settlement. Sometimes people settle before the trial, because they want to avoid legal costs or the strain of the trial. So they make a nuisance payment, because they want it to go away. However, unresolved child sexual abuse claims are very serious accusations that nobody would want as a part of their reputation, and 15 million dollars is not the kind of money you pay if simply want the accusers to stop bothering you, especially if paying that money effectively stops not only the civil, but also the criminal proceedings and saves you from the possibility of doing jail time. All of that made Jackson look like he was guilty, and guess what? He was.

            I would also love to read accounts about James or Wade’s relationship with MJ. Unfortunately, neither of them strike me like the type who would write a book about it. To me it seems that, even though Jackson exploited them, they aren’t going to exploit him back by writing a tell-all book. I know that it’s not necessarily exploitation, but telling their part of the story, but it just doesn’t seem likely to me. Anyway, let’s live and see what happens. If they do decide to tell everything in detail, it will be helpful in reconstructing the psychological portrait of Michael Jackson the perpetrator. It will answer nagging questions, like – did he knew that what he was doing was wrong or did he honestly think he wasn’t harming anyone? And – did he fall in love with these boys or only used them to satisfy his needs, and the tales about him loving them was part of brainwashing and grooming?

          • Andreas Moss

            “They haven’t put in the work. Also people just don’t want to believe it; it’s so ugly to think he was a pedophile.”

            Yes, I think this is about right. A mix of those two perhaps? What got me there was a promise to myself to come to bottom of it, as you did as well. When I got enough info it finally made perfect sense, but it did take some ‘work’. But with that in mind its important to understand that most people haven’t done that. Perhaps they never will. And people always have their opinions no matter how low knowledge they have.

            And as you say, many of the fans probably feel they have an emotional duty of doing damage control for Jacksons reputation, and have alerts, so they know whats going on. I guess the ‘big money’ question is how well they succeed with this. My impression is they might have an impact on the public. When people that are not fans believe they’ve heard Jordan Chandler admitted to lying, that kind of implies it right?

            They also are good to hush news medias from talking about it. I was fascinated that The Young Turks never covered much about this. They usually cover everything from stuff going on in the middle east to Britney Spears latest pimples, so they cover just about everything under the sun, and even more, and yet, nothing on the topic of Jacksons childmolestations. Why?

            Then I found the one video they ever did in 09, that is still up.


            TYT ridiculed this ‘creepy’ poem MJ wrote about children, and just the intense backlash the video got is insane. Over 1000 dislikes. Look at the comments. They probably got threats and so on as well, sent to them, because they didn’t dare to make other videos on Jackson’s potential pedophilia after that. Nothing. They have not covered anything about the Robson and Safechuck stuff, and I don’t think its a coincidence. They normally would, but they know its a touchy subject. MJfacts will probably confess to many nasty mails and threats too. Its not a popular position always to think Jackson was guilty.

            Even Obama, that for the most part made a very postive tribute to Jackson after his death, was attacked and heavily critizised by fans, because he said something along the lines that Jackson life was followed by a lot of tragedy. Not good enough. The fans hated that.

            Fans are not a small sect either, the MJ fandom is probably big enough to qualify as a religion in size, so they also outnumber the critics in most arenas. But as for the non-fans, thats not that invested, I think the problem is just lack of knowledge, yes… But still it can be muddy to get clear information in such a weird atmosphere, with such a clan of fans.

          • ShawntayUStay

            “But with that in mind its important to understand that most people
            haven’t done that. Perhaps they never will. And people always have their
            opinions no matter how low knowledge they have.”

            And here in lies the problem! People shouldn’t have a solidified opinion if they are ignorant about a subject; minds shouldn’t be made up without first looking at the evidence and evaluating each piece for its merits. This allows you to discard the useless info and keep the good stuff. But unfortunately so many people want to comment on things they don’t really understand, or on situations they were not even privy to, forgetting that 1) real people are involved and 2) erroneous information/opinions spread so easily among a population highly susceptible to “research laziness” + a lynch mob spirit. It’s sad.

            For example, I know much more than the average person about how viruses, gene replication, and cell physiology work, etc…so it annoys me to no end when I hear people talk about vaccines being bad and GMOs being evil. I know how dangerous pathogens are and how many lives have been saved because of vaccines, and how the science works, so to see uneducated people spreading misinformation — to the detriment of public and personal health — is extremely troubling to say the least. But what can you do? People believe in many stupid things, some of which still persist. If the lie makes you feel better, why give it up?

            It’s the same with MJ. Breaking away from research laziness, one can easily “pan for gold” with the information available and determine the most likely explanation for what happened. And especially in the light of having living alleged victims, I think we should be careful to not be so dismissive. Imagine having millions of people think you are an evil liar just after the wonderful King of Pop’s money? All because said millions of people are too lazy and celebrity worshiping to find the truth. Fans bring up MJ’s children and family, and I agree they should be respected insofar as to not needlessly drag Jackson through the mud. But the evidence is so undeniable that it would be cognitive dissonance to give him a presumption of innocence when the record shows otherwise.

            On YT, it is actually surprising to see how many huge MJ fans are so damn ignorant of the facts. A lot of them are young teens and adults so I guess one could excuse their ignorance, but then they get so freaking haughty when you try to point out the facts. Of course part of it is because they have a general aversion to all things negative, but I find that they’ve swallowed so much junk from fan sites they cannot part from those explanations. They have been so effectively cocooned from reality by high ranking fans (which explains the severe reactions of disgust they have if they finally acknowledge the truth).

            And I think you are right, Andreas, about the media. I have always wondered why Bill Cosby’s scandals have gotten airplay but not Wade Robson/James Safechuck’s allegations. They covered the AEG and Murray trials on TV. But then you realize the media is about making money off of the only audience that cares — the fans. Constantly speaking ill of Jackson in not a money maker. Fans were successful in getting MJ’s alleged gay lover, Jason Pfeiffer’s interview pulled from Extra! in the US. It’s crazy.

  • Tod

    It would be interesting to review his lyrics through the lens of him writing about his illicit relationships, just adding “girl” wherever necessary. Lyrics from The Way You Make Me Feel come to mind. Buying her (him?) things just to keep you by my side, and of course, how it ain’t nobody’s business but mine and my baby’s.

    I don’t have an objection to the music. It’s great music. But it literally turns my stomach to hear it now, and I’m not an overly very emotional person. And I was never really a fan, as such. I came to think that Jackson was an eccentric, misunderstood genius, like others I admire, and gave him the benefit of the doubt. It still upsets me, to think that I could set aside my gut feelings of suspicion and believe what his supporters said. Books like Cascio’s are especially unhelpful in that regard.

    If you admire an artist or inventor or historical figure, and that person is somehow important to your identity, then don’t read anything about his life, because you’ll most likely be disappointed. Of course, you should probably work on developing your own identity, instead of leaning on someone else’s. Even though that was never my problem, I’d still rather it not be true. It sucks. I really like(d) the Dangerous album. I don’t know if I could ever set aside my disgust or my concern for Jackson’s victims long enough to enjoy it again. Well, there’s plenty of other music out there.

    • Tod

      Another song to look at closely is Xscape. He sings about the lies against him, the system he hates, relationships that go away. All kind of abstract. Could apply to lots of people. But the lines about “I can do what I want to” “don’t tell me what is right for me” and “it’s my life; you worry about you” are telling. Is this how someone would describe his anguish at troubled relationships, alluded to earlier in the song (“she gambled and lost” etc.). This section always seemed out of accord with the rest, in terms of meaning. What could this song actually be about?

      • Tod

        And, what is the ballad published on his big album a year and a half after the big public payoff of his accuser, but a love song about a love lost? You could view You Are Not Alone as a song for and about Jordie. Many of the other songs on History could have similar motivations. Come Together is there to remind us that he owns the Beatles catalog. Little Susie is there to tell us that he has only pure, non-sexual concern for children, and a little girl, rather than a boy. They Don’t Care About Us is really They Don’t Care about Me. The others are a combination of self-aggrandizement, revenge seeking, and poor me victimization. Earth Song is the sole exception.

        • ShawntayUStay

          “You Are Not Alone” was rumored to be about Jordie Chandler, for example that idea was said in “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”, but it’s hard to say if that is true. R Kelly wrote the song and he and MJ produced it. So unless MJ confided in fellow pervert R Kelly about his love for the boy he paid off — and for Kelly to write about it for him, I think the song doesn’t have a “pedo hidden” meaning. Although he could’ve felt it in his heart whilst singing it (but we can’t read minds).

          • Tod

            I agree that it was probably written without that intention, but the song’s potential as a pop hit and its unintentional personal meaning are both factors that could have motivated its selection for the album.

        • Berta

          Ok, you know what is starting to bug me about Little Susie, Smooth Criminal, Blood on the Dance Floor, etc. I think they’re a testament to Michael’s obvious misogyny, coupled with the fucking ~wish~ “no wenches, heifers, etc.”….ugh this is such an uncomfortable rabbit hole.

      • Berta

        Noooo, I was having some similar thoughts about that exact same song. D:

        “Why is it I can’t do whatever I want to
        Went in my personal life and I don’t live for you
        So don’t you try to tell me what is right for me
        You be concerned about you
        I can do what I want to do”

        !!! Alarming in the new context. There’s other lines I could analyze, but I’m purposely avoiding thinking about it as much as possible right now. Such a thing is probably unproductive, at least for me at this point in time.

        Yeah, I’ve resolved that if I like someone’s music/movies/whatever, I’m not gonna get so deeply involved again lol. This is definitely going to be a turning point in how I view/do things, I can tell. And it’s definitely gonna change my relationship to the music – probably sparingly listening ‘stead of all the time, at best.

        Okay, what is up with the Cascio book? I’ve seen it mentioned in various comments around the site and it has me really concerned.

    • Kat

      I don’t think that his songs can be seen as confessions about his inappropriate proclivities, although song lyrics can definitely be interpreted in more than one way… It’s just that it seems to me that all Jackson did with his music was cultivate the image of a heterosexual man who was crazy about women, and only loved children in a pure way.

      He had an abundance of songs about women: The Way You Make Me Feel, Remember the Time, In the Closet, Liberian Girl, Can’t Let Her Get Away and many others. He was always singing about his relationships with women, all while never having had a believable relationship with an adult female in his whole life. Was he thinking about Debbie Rowe when he wrote You Rock My World? Ehm, somehow I doubt it, lol.

      On the other hand, songs like Heal the World, The Lost Children, and Gone Too Soon portray him as someone who only wanted to protect kids and to help them, because there were so many of them suffering.

      In other words, he was creating an image that he wanted people to have of him. Yet another indication that MJ strived to portray himself in a particular way, all while being an entirely different person when away from the public eye.

      You could argue that his misogyny was present in his music, in songs like Billie Jean and Dirty Diana. But then again, those songs don’t show mistrust of women in general, but only of a certain type of women – the obsessed groupies who stalk famous singers and make up lies about their child being fathered by a specific singer.

      • ShawntayUStay

        I agree with you about Jackson cultivating a certain persona in his songs. But that is typical for must musicians; you have to do what sells. He did have songs that would be considered your typical love songs, but I have always felt that it was the music videos that really demonstrated that the love songs were just a smoke screen. He didn’t have a lot of music videos with love interests. And if women were in them, he didn’t have that much interaction with them, or the interaction looked forced.

        Case in point: “Remember the Time” and that super awkward kiss with Iman; “You Are Not Alone” was clearly a publicity stunt; “You Rock My World” very little chemistry/contact; “Liberian Girl” had no girl (!) but was dedicated to Liz Taylor; “In the Closet” (great song must admit) the chemistry was not there and Naomi Campbell said he didn’t want her to touch him in certain places, fearful she’d turn into a nymphomaniac. Many of the songs he sung may have had romantic themes but then he did the video and there is no translation of those themes on film. Says a lot, in my opinion.

        But I do think there were some honest songs, and there are obvious subtexts to them. “Stranger in Moscow” is about 1993 and I think it’s a confession of his fear over being persecuted for something that he truly does not feel is wrong. He references a “beggar boy” coming into his life, providing sunny days and taking away the pain. I think that is more or less literal to children (again he mentions boy specifically) being his “go to” anti depressant. When Wade was seven, according to an Australian paper, he’d sing MJ the song “Ben” over the phone to cheer him up…at Michael’s request, of course. MJ said to the Rabbi, when he’s at his breaking point, a kid comes into his life and he thanks God (“kid” of course is a boy).

        This sentiment is reiterated by Michael when he talks about “Speechless”, and that song is romantic. Creepy, but MJ one time described a child’s happiness as “romance”.

        • Berta

          As I started reading about this stuff and making connections, that lyric in Stranger in Moscow was the first thing that popped into my head. I think, unfortunately, you’re right on the money there.

  • PsychicJane

    Are you going to post links to the documents?

    • No.

      They are available for purchase over the counter at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in LA. Anybody can walk in and buy them.

  • Kat

    Wade’s case got dismissed. Sad. 🙁 But to be fair, that’s the law and the statues of limitations are there for a reason. I know that he still has his other lawsuits against various MJ corporations pending and that he still can claim an appeal. And then there’s also James Safechuck’s lawsuit that could still go through, because he never testified for Michael in court and suffers from PSTD and was intimidated by Jackson to keep quiet. We’ll see what happens.

    I know that Wade can still tell his story in a form of a book or different appearances/interviews, but my problem is that if he does, the fanatics will say that he’s just doing it for money (don’t they ever get tired of repeating it again and again?!). Or it would be nice if Wade would write a book and dedicate all proceeds to survivors of sexual abuse to prove that he doesn’t want money. Yes, that should do it, I think.

    • ShawntayUStay

      It is sad, Kat, you’re right. But I think it should always be remembered that the dismissal is not an indication of lying like the fanatics say. The judge wasn’t asked to make any decision about the factuality of Robson’s claims; the motion for summary judgment was solely about timeliness. Howard Weitzman tried to surreptitiously conflate the dismissal with Michael Jackson being innocent in his statement to the media just to get the fans riled up, as if Michael was proved not guilty “once again”.

      But in the grand scheme of things, Wade’s case would not be the first case of child sexual abuse tossed because of statute of limitations. It’s funny, none of the MJ fanatics would assume victims of Catholic priests were “lying” when their cases are tossed because they missed the filing deadline by acknowledging their abuse “too late”. Oh the hypocrisy!

      Regarding James, I too wonder if he will gave the same fate. He has a chronic mental illness(es) and has demonstrated that MJ manipulated him into silence as a boy and as a man. But it seems like the judge doesn’t care about that, that he isn’t keen on applying any equitable estoppel argument to the probate code. It’s as if he’s saying that even if that happened, it still must be timely filed (within one year of death). Maybe the judge didn’t think Wade suffered enough abuse, that he benefited too much in life due to his association with MJ so that it was/is ridiculous to think he could have been detrimentally intimidated. Michael Jackson was too “nice” of a child molester, apparently, such that his boy friends never told or felt the need to tell. Maybe Wade wasn’t “sympathetic” enough for a cynical, jaded but learned judge.

      But I think it comes down to just a fundamental lack of understanding about child abuse disclosure and how long it takes.

      • Kat

        Yes, certainly the dismissal doesn’t mean that MJ is vindicated in any way, just like the ‘not guilty’ verdict in 2005 didn’t mean that he was. The fans just like to twist everything to suit their narrative. Even the lawyers for the estate never said that Wade was lying and that the allegations were untrue; they only said that he waited too long to file and that he previously stated under oath that nothing happened
        between him and Michael. They never flat out denied the allegations!

        Now after this decision has been made, the chances of James lawsuit going forward don’t look good to me. If it’s the same judge ruling, then he will likely dismiss it for the same reasons, even though James situation is more hopeful than Wade’s for the reasons I wrote in the previous comment. I read that the judge wrote a long document about why Wade’s claim was denied, it would be interesting to see it in entirety and to see if previous testifying for Michael had anything to do with the decision. As for Wade and his lawyers crafting an appeal, I personally think that it could work only if he emphasizes the fact that he was able to realize that he had been abused only after he had gotten intensive therapy, and then filed a claim within a year from that. The judge dismissed the suit, because the threats and intimidations ended after MJs passing, but if he pays attention to the fact that both men only recently tied their physiological issues to their childhood ‘love affairs’ with MJ, then he could rule differently.

        On one hand, I do believe that the statues of limitations should exist; they are there for a reason. The thing is, when sufficient amount of time has passed after a crime has been committed the case becomes ‘cold’ and difficult to prosecute. Like, there is no fresh evidence, no witnesses to remember clearly what went on, so it becomes hard to determine whether something happened or didn’t. Even the majority of women who are now accusing Bill Cosby of rape can’t take legal action against him because it’s been twenty and more years since it happened. Which, of course, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. I know that people are saying that there should be no statues of limitations when it comes to child sexual abuse cases, because it does take such a long time for many victims to acknowledge it. I guess I too agree that they should be lifted for at least extended.

        • ShawntayUStay

          Personally, Kat, I don’t think Wade should even bother with an appeal, but I guess it is just standard procedure to get a second (or third) opinion. The Jackson family and Conrad Murray appealed and failed, for example; the Jacksons then appealed to the state supreme court and were rejected. So the likelihood of Wade being successful is very, very slim. Judge Beckloff took a little over a month to write a 19 pg decision granting summary judgment; I doubt three appeals court judges will overturn his ruling.

          And besides, Wade isn’t even in the best position to appeal. Like I said previously, he isn’t “conventionally sympathetic” because he benefited from his relationship with Jackson for the most part, becoming a well-known choreographer. His breakdown, based on the timeline, was probably not directly related to his sexual abuse; more likely, his acknowledgment of his abuse came out of being in therapy for stress. Remember, he had two breakdowns, and the first one in 2011 he talked about MJ but didn’t talk about the abuse. It was only a few weeks into his second therapy that he disclosed. Which is a good thing he finally say something, but legally speaking, the connection is far too tenuous to get over the statute of limitations. And he did work with the Estate, however brief, so the judge probably wasn’t persuaded that he lacked knowledge of the administration of the Estate, a requisite for getting over § 9103. With all of this against him, why appeal? Better to just tell your story in some other way.

          And a part of me doesn’t really think that Judge Beckloff wanted to stick his neck out and allow him to file his late claim. He seemed to be concerned about the lack of previous cases allowing equitable estoppel in a probate court setting. Most judges are very ‘status quo”; this isn’t a very risk-taking occupation, the law. And the Estate basically threatened him that if he denied the MSJ, they’d seek legal redress in circuit court. As a judge, who’d you rather want appealing your decision: a party that has the statute of limitations against them and is thus using a “last-ditch” equitable estoppel argument in order to proceed, or a [super rich and powerful] party that has firm legal footing and can reasonably say that they are only seeking an appeal because the judge “threw caution to the wind” and “felt sorry” for abuse victims, ignoring written law? I’d argue the former…less risk to one’s judicial record.

          These are all hard facts that we must contend with as supporters of Michael Jackson’s accusers. Like you’ve mentioned, the SOL prevented any of Bill Cosby’s accusers from seeking legal redress, but that doesn’t mean he’s innocent of rape. And any lawyer trying to convince a victim to sue with the SOL against them is just out for a payday, IMO. They’re just getting victims’ hopes up. Just imagine how easy it is to tell a victim that it’ll be a piece of cake to convince a judge/jury the obvious, that Michael Jackson was a pedo, so they should go ahead and file? The truth is on your side so you just have to win! But it’s never that simple because judges care about “slippery slope” and “bad precedent”, however guilty the defendant may be. It’s just the way the adversarial system works.

    • It is a pity that Wade’s case wasn’t allowed to proceed, but the law is the law. Once we read the judges ruling in full we can make a more complete evaluation of it.

  • TC


    Link to Judge Beckloff’s decision On the Robson case. You can download it here.

    • ShawntayUStay

      Thanks so much for posting that link, TC! It was great to read the judge’s reasoning in a case like this. Unfortunately, it seems like a dismissal was the only possible ruling for Wade Robson, and I think James Safechuck will get the same treatment. But on the bright side, the judge made clear that if Wade (and James) had filed timely and/or in compliance with the late creditor’s claim statutes, they would’ve absolutely been allowed to file a claim for sexual abuse. The estate would then either have to pay up or risk complete exposure of Michael Jackson’s sexual deviance in civil court.

  • Kat

    Yes, Invincible was terrible. In my opinion, none of his albums are great, but Invincible has to be the worst. There’s hardly a good song on that record, and even the good stuff – like the musical hooks on You Rock My World – come from Rodney Jerkins production rather than from MJs songwriting. His vocal performance is also supbar; he seems to be unable to reach high notes like he used to. It’s crazy to think that 30 million dollars were spent on that album. I guess even a huge amount of money put into production can’t save an artist from a failure, if this artist is clearly past his prime. Of course, Jackson still had to blame Tommy Mottola for it and say that he didn’t promote it as he should’ve had…

    He didn’t release a lot of new music in his last decade, but maybe that’s for the best. I fear that, if he would have released another album after Invincible, it would have been even worse. Also, that title is so narcissistic! Jackson probably thought that despite all those scandals and controversy that dogged his life at that point, he was still the biggest star in pop, he was ‘invincible’, hence he named his album that.

  • Lodi

    He’s dead they need to all get a life, yes admire his music but in all honesty he was a real creep!

  • yaso

    With Trial Date Approaching, Michael Jackson Accuser Wade Robson Wants An End To Secrecy
    Robson’s new legal team asks the Jackson Estate to release other alleged Jackson victims from confidentiality agreements


  • Pingback: Wade Robson – The Marathon Part II - MJ Facts()