independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Tue 10th Dec 2019 10:28am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Wade Robson: 'Pedophile' abused me for 7 years
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 9 of 12 « First<3456789101112>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #240 posted 05/21/13 11:58am

LiLi1992

avatar

whatsgoingon said:

LiLi1992 said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice

But everything is presumption. Yea there was a settlement, yet 12 years later when Jordan was invited back to testify against his abuser he refused. Why did he refused? We also have second hand sources saying that Jordan has stated in private that no abuse ever took place.

We have Wade Robson who swore under oath in 2005 and continue to praise MJ up last year that nothing happen ( and please this is not the same as a victim staying quiet) doing a U-turn and sueing the estate for money. The whole case is not as black and white as people like to make it.

Quite frankly I am surprise not alot more people have come out accusing MJ after his death, I expected the alleged victims to run into hundreds a bit like the Jimmy Saville case.

in a normal society presumed innocence in criminal cases ...


presumed only that which is not known for certain, the "true until proven otherwise"
the facts of reality, proven by science - it's not a presumption


I just can not understand how someone can say something with certainty in this matter ... it looks pathetic.
a man who claims something he does not know and can not know .... and still calls people who think otherwise blind, lunatics, fanatics, etc. .... it's some kind of pathology.
I wrote that I can not be 100% sure in the innocence (I was not there), but I do not think he's guilty.
each of us can only guess

[Edited 5/21/13 12:02pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #241 posted 05/21/13 12:14pm

midnightmover

PatrickS77 said:

midnightmover said:

It was actually two kids' families who were paid off, not just one. As I stated earlier, one of those kids (Jason Frascia) came back twelve years later - as an adult - to testify against Jackson in the 2005 trial. It's amazing how little coverage that received in the media. To this day most people don't know about it. Frascia broke down as he related what Jackson had done to him. According to Vanity Fair, the star-struck jurors looked on with total indifference.

Oh and the insurance company thing is total bs. MJ himself confirmed in his Diane Sawyer interview that he did indeed pay off the boys. He said he did it so he could put it behind him. The fact that MJ fans still repeat the bullshit about the insurance company shows they'll even ignore their idol's own words when it suits them. These are seriously dishonest people.

[Edited 5/21/13 11:05am]

Ah, I see you're making shit up as you go along. It was widely reported all over the media at the time, that Jason Francia testified. And really, why wouldn't he? He is looked at as a liar an opportunist, if he doesn't. This was his chance for vindication. By the same token you can ask, why did the other "victim" not testify? Why did Chandler refuse? If you use one "victim" as "proof" that it was true, than you have to look at the other "victim" refusing to testify as "proof" that it was not true. And Jason Francia was only making money, because his mother jumped on the Chandler bandwagon.

And regarding the money that was paid. It was not Michael's money. The settlement agreement is out there. Even one of the biggest detractors (Diane Dimond) had to admit that it was insurance talk and that they coughed up the money. The term used was "neglicence" happening to a visitor of Neverland. And Michael never stated where that money originated, as he was, per the settlement agreement not allowed to talk about it. Chandler even sued him afterwards.

Dude, if it was "widely reported" that Frascia testified against MJ at the time then how come neither I nor almost anyone else heard about it? You and the fellow fanatics heard about it because you follow these things religiously, but the rest of us didn't hear about it. Given how much coverage the trial got at the time it's amazing how limited the coverage was of that part.

It's not the first time Jackson has benefited from muted coverage of the most damning facts. He was caught red-handed making despicable anti-semitic comments on an answer-phone at around the same time and - incredibly - it was barely mentioned in the media at all. Almost no-one heard about it.

The same thing is happening RIGHT NOW with this Wade Robson thing. As two of your fellow fans have already said, it's barely getting any coverage at all, here in the UK. I myself only found out about it by chance when someone left a days' old tabloid lying around. I flicked through it and saw the story buried away on page 8 or something. Unbelievable.

As for the insurance thing, that statement was put out by MJ's team, headed by the sleazebag Johnny Cochran who got OJ Simpson off the hook for double murder just a year later. Why the hell would MJ not be allowed to say that the insurance company paid if - as you've said - it was already publicly acknowledged? Your story doesn't make any sense. Can you even tell me the name of this phantom insurance company? Of course not. Because the insurance thing is a red-herring cooked up by Johnny Cochran to make a bad situation look better. The floons lap it up as if it actually has some meaning. It doesn't.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #242 posted 05/21/13 12:17pm

alphastreet

Actually from what I recall, the jason francia story I heard about for 3-5 days in the regular paper if not more and it was talked about more than testimony from wade and brett barnes, though maculay got some attention cause of his name.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #243 posted 05/21/13 12:18pm

SoulAlive

Ace said:

As Joan Rivers said, 'You don't give away $20 million for shaking hands.'


There could be a video of Michael Jackson with his penis in a boy's rectum and some of his fans would still try to explain it away.


I understand the desire to not want to believe horrific things about someone you've admired, but the pay-off to the first kid is proof enough for me (as it should be for you, if you're not wilfully donning blinders). And please spare me the rationalization that the insurance company made him settle. We all know how insurance companies love to give millions of dollars away.


It's okay, folks - you can like the art, but not the artist.

If such a video existed,then yes,I would believe it.But all we have seen so far is unproven accusations,contradictory stories,unreliable "witnesses" and now,a guy who is changing his original story,claiming that he has "repressed memories".Wtf?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #244 posted 05/21/13 12:23pm

midnightmover

alphastreet said:

Actually from what I recall, the jason francia story I heard about for 3-5 days in the regular paper if not more and it was talked about more than testimony from wade and brett barnes, though maculay got some attention cause of his name.

The paper? What about the TV news? They covered that trial extensively, but that part was glossed over. It was the most damning part of the trial and to this day most people don't know about it.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #245 posted 05/21/13 12:28pm

SoulAlive

This article says it all.....

Michael Jackson, Delayed Allegations and Witch Hunts

by JOE VOGEL on MAY 17, 2013

When Michael Jackson died unexpectedly in June of 2009, then-26-year-old choreographer Wade Robson – who has recently made headlines for accusing the pop star of molestation – wrote about his longtime friend and mentor:

Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk.

Such a gushing statement came as no surprise to those who knew Robson’s backstory. During Jackson’s Bad World Tour in 1987, five-year-old Robson won a local dance competition in Australia. The reward was attending a backstage meet-and-greet with the King of Pop and the opportunity to join his idol on stage at the end of the concert.

Two years passed before Robson saw Jackson again. This time he was performing at Disneyland when his mother, Joy, decided to reach out to Jackson’s secretary to see if they could meet again. Jackson allowed the Robson family to visit him at the recording studio at Record One where he was working on his Dangerous album. He also invited them to stay at his Neverland Ranch. This hospitality was not unusual for Jackson. Around this same time, Jackson also spent countless hours at his Ranch with AIDS victim, Ryan White, who had been shunned, taunted and bullied at his school in Kokomo, Indiana. “Those trips to California kept me going,” Ryan White said. Similar positive experiences have been shared by hundreds of others.

Not long after their visit to Neverland, the Robson family decided to move to California to allow Wade and his sister, Chantal, more opportunities in the entertainment industry. Over the subsequent years, a friendship blossomed between the Robsons and Jackson. Wade Robson was ambitious and talented, and Jackson took on the role of mentor, teaching him the nuances of his craft and signing him to his MJJ Productions label. Jackson also gave him small parts in his music videos, including “Black or White.”

Robson went on to have a successful career in the industry, choreographing for the likes of Britney Spears and ‘N Sync, and later having his work showcased on shows like So You Think You Can Dance. In 2005, he married Hawaii native Amanda Rodriguez.

That same year, Robson, who had every reason to avoid the circus that was the 2005 Michael Jackson child molestation trial, decided to testify under oath about his experiences with the singer. First questioned by Jackson’s attorney Thomas Mesereau and then under rigorous cross-examination, Robson matter-of-factly gave his account of his time with the artist. Robson repeatedly and adamantly denied being molested or of any other inappropriate sexual activity.

After Jackson was acquitted of all charges a few months later, Wade Robson’s mother Joy spoke of their family’s relief about the verdict. “We were crying and screaming and crying and screaming…We all believed ultimately the truth would come out…I’ve always said to Michael, ‘I wished the world could know the Michael we do.’”

Wade Robson invited Jackson to his wedding later that year, but Jackson decided not to attend because he did not want to turn the joyous occasion into a media circus.

Jackson and Robson, however, remained good friends. Whenever asked, Robson continued to praise Jackson as his biggest inspiration.

They last met in Las Vegas in 2008. Jackson was living there with his three children and Robson was working on a show in the city. “Me, my wife and him and his three kids had a barbecue,” recalled Robson. “It was the most normal thing in the world.”

It had been over twenty years since they first met, and Robson was still, by his own admission, completely unaffected by any past abuse or trauma. His life and career were thriving. He also seemed to have no concerns about Jackson’s own young children.

According to initial reports, Robson’s attorney, Henry Gradstein, claimed the reason his client lied under oath and continued to praise the pop star following his death was because the alleged abuse was a “repressed memory.” Repressed memories — instances in which an individual believes they have blocked or forgotten a traumatic event before “recovering” it years or decades later — has become a highly controversial subject in the field of psychology. According to the American Psychological Association, “experienced clinical psychologists state that the phenomenon of a recovered memory is rare (e.g., one experienced practitioner reported having a recovered memory arise only once in 20 years of practice).” The overwhelming consensus by experts is that such “memories” are not reliable without corroborating evidence. Dr. Richard McNally, Professor and Director of Clinical Training in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, describes the phenomenon of belatedly recovered memories as “the most pernicious bit of folklore ever to infect psychology and psychiatry.”

In his interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show, however, Robson claimed that that his memories of abuse were not repressed; he was simply unable to process them emotionally or psychologically. Robson claims that he was fully aware Jackson was a child abuser at the time of his 2005 trial, but decided to lie under oath because he didn’t yet realize what happened to him was wrong. Robson was 22 at the time. But perhaps, one might assume, in the months or years to come he regretted his decision and went to authorities — at least to prevent further “victims.” Nope. Instead, he was barbecuing with MJ and family in 2008, and praising him without any pressure or prompt in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.

It goes without saying that accusations of abuse must always be taken seriously. When an individual has told one story very credibly and convincingly as an adult, however, and then suddenly changes it with no corroborating evidence (letters, photos, phone conversations, witnesses, etc.) to file a creditor’s claim, it deserves a healthy dose of skepticism. Believing such claims on faith can be dangerous, destroying lives and reputations with absolutely no proof beyond the accusation.

According to Wade Robson’s attorney, Henry Gradstein, it was sometime in 2012 when the choreographer had a mental breakdown, and “collapsed under the stress” of his recovered memory. Robson’s career had also taken a downturn with the choreographer mysteriously dropping out of many projects. Soon after, Robson decided to file a creditor’s claim against Jackson’s estate. Robson also filed a civil lawsuit in L.A. County Superior Court, in which he is reportedly targeting companies associated with Jackson. Whatever one makes of his allegations, then, they are not simply to heal. Robson clearly wants a payout.

In a statement, Howard Weitzman, an attorney representing Jackson’s estate, called Robson’s accusations “outrageous and pathetic…This is a young man who has testified at least twice under oath over the past 20 years and said in numerous interviews that Michael Jackson never did anything inappropriate to him or with him. Now, nearly 4 years after Michael has passed this sad and less than credible claim has been made. We are confident that the court will see this for what it is.

Jackson’s attorney, Thomas Mesereau, feels Robson’s claims are shamelessly motivated by money, given the timing (a high-stakes trial between Jackson’s mother and concert promoter AEG Live, is currently being litigated) and the enormous amount of wealth the Jackson estate has generated since the singer’s death.

Regardless of one’s views of Jackson, Robson’s case raises serious questions about the nature and validity of decade-delayed allegations, especially when attached to money.

Dr. Elizabeth F. Loftus, a renowned cognitive psychologist and human memory expert from the University of Washington, notes that these memories can often be triggered by therapist suggestion. “Some contemporary therapists have been known to tell patients, merely on the basis of a suggestive history or symptom profile, that they definitely had a traumatic experience…Once the ‘diagnosis’ is made, the therapist urges the patient to pursue the recalcitrant memories.”

Wade Robson, then, could very well believe he was abused even if it never happened.

In any case, objectivity and fairness should compel at least some burden of proof. Robson’s own family members have repeatedly defended Jackson over a period of twenty years. Were all of them completely oblivious to what happened until just months ago?

Numerous other individuals who were close to Jackson as children continue to defend him with no apparent incentive for doing so. Since the latest allegations, several people who visited Jackson’s Neverland Ranch as children, have once again spoken out in support of the artist, including Alfonso Ribeiro, Frank Cascio, Brett Barnes, and Jackson’s nephews, Taryll, T.J. and Taj Jackson.

In defense of his uncle, Taj Jackson wrote movingly on Twitter:

As an eccentric, wealthy man who opened his home to thousands of people, including disadvantaged and ill children, Jackson was an undeniably easy target. But is it conceivable that of the hundreds of children who spent time with him, only a handful were abused? Is it possible that after two unannounced, scouring searches of his homes, in 1993 and again in 2003, resulting in no child pornography or other corroborating evidence, that the artist was nonetheless masterfully hiding criminal behavior?

Or have we, as a society, conflated Jackson’s difference and eccentricity with criminality? In 2005, infotainment pundit Nancy Grace infamously deduced Jackson’s guilt from his strange appearance and childlike sensibility. It was inconceivable to her that a grown man would want to spend so much time with children without wanting to have sex with them.

No doubt, after hearing these latest accusations, some will likewise conclude that “where there is smoke there is fire.”

Jackson, of course, is no longer here to defend himself. But the unacknowledged tragedy the fair-minded person must at least consider is this: the life and career of one of the most talented and creative artists of the past century was derailed and ultimately destroyed by allegations, innuendo, sensationalism and speculation, but no concrete evidence and no witnesses or accusers who didn’t want money.

The term “witch hunt” is often used to describe the moral panic and hysteria caused by individuals who threaten our sense of normalcy, order and social assumptions. They must be disciplined or punished to allow people to feel safe, regardless of actual guilt or innocence. So, for example, in the Salem witch trials, women were profiled, accused and sentenced to death for a range of perceived “suspicious” behaviors or traits. Or, historically, African American men have been unfairly targeted and lynched because of myths and culturally-ingrained hysteria about their “predatory” intentions with white women (see D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation).

Over his lifetime (and now in death), Michael Jackson faced more frivolous lawsuits than any individual in American history. During the Thriller era, dozens of women claimed he was the father of their children. As recently as 2010, a woman named Billie Jean filed a $600 million paternity lawsuit against Jackson’s estate.

In 2010, part of Jackson’s FBI file was released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) at the request of media, including British journalist Charles Thomson. “A lengthy report,” writes Thomson, “shows that when Jackson’s Neverland Ranch was raided in 2003, the FBI went over every computer seized from the property with a fine tooth comb looking for any incriminating files or internet activity. Jackson’s file contained individual summaries of the FBI’s findings for each of the 16 computers. Scrawled in capital letters across each of those 16 reports – ‘NOTHING’.”

Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi, an incisive cultural critic with no investment whatsoever in Jackson’s legacy, described the 2005 court case against Jackson like this:

Ostensibly a story about bringing a child molester to justice, the Michael Jackson trial would instead be a kind of homecoming parade of insipid American types: grifters, suckers and no-talent schemers, mired in either outright unemployment…or the bogus non-careers of the information age, looking to cash in any way they can. The MC of the proceedings was District Attorney Tom Sneddon, whose metaphorical role in this American reality show was to represent the mean gray heart of the Nixonian Silent Majority – the bitter mediocrity itching to stick it to anyone who’d ever taken a vacation to Paris. The first month or so of the trial featured perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case – almost to a man a group of convicted liars, paid gossip hawkers or worse…

In the next six weeks, virtually every piece of his case imploded in open court, and the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles. Sneddon’s hard-on for Jackson was a faith-based vengeance grab every bit as blind and desperate as George Bush’s “case” against Saddam Hussein…

Jackson, of course, was acquitted of all charges in 2005 after two grueling years of investigations, testimony and proceedings. Four years later, in 2009, after years of living as a cultural pariah, a vagabond drifting from country to country, he died at the age of fifty in Los Angeles. The silver lining, one assumed, was that at least his many troubles would end and the focus could return to his rich artistic legacy. But as long as big money is involved, it seems, the relentless stream of grifters will continue.

And in the court of public opinion, the Michael Jackson witch trial goes on.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #246 posted 05/21/13 12:35pm

whatsgoingon

avatar

midnightmover said:



PatrickS77 said:




midnightmover said:


It was actually two kids' families who were paid off, not just one. As I stated earlier, one of those kids (Jason Frascia) came back twelve years later - as an adult - to testify against Jackson in the 2005 trial. It's amazing how little coverage that received in the media. To this day most people don't know about it. Frascia broke down as he related what Jackson had done to him. According to Vanity Fair, the star-struck jurors looked on with total indifference.







Oh and the insurance company thing is total bs. MJ himself confirmed in his Diane Sawyer interview that he did indeed pay off the boys. He said he did it so he could put it behind him. The fact that MJ fans still repeat the bullshit about the insurance company shows they'll even ignore their idol's own words when it suits them. These are seriously dishonest people.


[Edited 5/21/13 11:05am]





Ah, I see you're making shit up as you go along. It was widely reported all over the media at the time, that Jason Francia testified. And really, why wouldn't he? He is looked at as a liar an opportunist, if he doesn't. This was his chance for vindication. By the same token you can ask, why did the other "victim" not testify? Why did Chandler refuse? If you use one "victim" as "proof" that it was true, than you have to look at the other "victim" refusing to testify as "proof" that it was not true. And Jason Francia was only making money, because his mother jumped on the Chandler bandwagon.

And regarding the money that was paid. It was not Michael's money. The settlement agreement is out there. Even one of the biggest detractors (Diane Dimond) had to admit that it was insurance talk and that they coughed up the money. The term used was "neglicence" happening to a visitor of Neverland. And Michael never stated where that money originated, as he was, per the settlement agreement not allowed to talk about it. Chandler even sued him afterwards.



Dude, if it was "widely reported" that Frascia testified against MJ at the time then how come neither I nor almost anyone else heard about it? You and the fellow fanatics heard about it because you follow these things religiously, but the rest of us didn't hear about it. Given how much coverage the trial got at the time it's amazing how limited the coverage was of that part.



It's not the first time Jackson has benefited from muted coverage of the most damning facts. He was caught red-handed making despicable anti-semitic comments on an answer-phone at around the same time and - incredibly - it was barely mentioned in the media at all. Almost no-one heard about it.



The same thing is happening RIGHT NOW with this Wade Robson thing. As two of your fellow fans have already said, it's barely getting any coverage at all, here in the UK. I myself only found out about it by chance when someone left a days' old tabloid lying around. I flicked through it and saw the story buried away on page 8 or something. Unbelievable.



As for the insurance thing, that statement was put out by MJ's team, headed by the sleazebag Johnny Cochran who got OJ Simpson off the hook for double murder just a year later. Why the hell would MJ not be allowed to say that the insurance company paid if - as you've said - it was already publicly acknowledged? Your story doesn't make any sense. Can you even tell me the name of this phantom insurance company? Of course not. Because the insurance thing is a red-herring cooked up by Johnny Cochran to make a bad situation look better. The floons lap it up as if it actually has some meaning. It doesn't.


Probably you were not paying attention, but frascia testimony was reported, it may not have neen taken seriously by the jurors and his testimony was quite short but it was reported. And as for Wade story, MJ is dead so it is not like we can ever see him arrested again. Plus by Wade admission he has committed perjury, he is hardly the ideal victim that the media wants to get 100% behind. There is a very high chance his case will either be thrown out of court or if it foes reach court his sworm testimony will come back to haunt him.
[Edited 5/21/13 12:46pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #247 posted 05/21/13 12:42pm

Beautifulstarr
123

avatar

Emancipation89 said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

^^^So as you've stated, all you have is gut feeling statements after it's all said and done. I was looking and reading to see if you posted something that would solidify the fact that MJ is a pedophile, but it doesn't. Nothing to show that he was caught in the act.

Why is this Robson guy coming forward with these allegations now? MJ is not even here to defend himself.

[Edited 5/21/13 6:52am]

When I saw how the poster thought this blog was "fascinating", I knew this was gonna be about someone's opinion based on hunches, but I soon realized that's not it, it is someone's second guesses and personal interpretation of other people's gut feelings. Pretty sad, but what kind of people would find this elementary writing worth reading and posting, you can guess lol

[Edited 5/21/13 9:44am]

How "fascinating" lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #248 posted 05/21/13 12:44pm

alphastreet

It was reported that jason was smiling when identifying that it was mj in the room, and the jurors laughed when tickling was mentioned, maybe that's why you don't remember people talking about it, too good for mj. But it was reported on cnn as well. I'm going to leave it at that.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #249 posted 05/21/13 12:52pm

midnightmover

mjscarousal said:

The org moderators here are on some bullshit. No wonder nobody comes here no more

And the orgers who wanna believe this bullshit, let them.. dumbasses

So its okay to talk about lies related to Michael Jackson (that have NOTHING to do with his music) in the non prince MUSIC discussion of the board BUT when someone else brings up their personal encounters with Prince in which a org member admitted to having sex with Prince after he invited her after attending the Lovesexytour 1988 and afterward Prince disses her and drives her out in the middle of no where and abandons her and anything could have happened to her (enigmagirl) BUT they were quick to delete that shit because it paints Prince as a senseless asshole. THERE WAS 5 THREADS RELATED TO HER STORY that the mods in the Prince section deleted without any justifications for it eek

Nobody is not dumb, people are aware of what is going on.

Prolly going to delete this one...kiss my ass

Its not right to randomly censor people just because they say something you disagree with. Whats the point of having rules if the mods are not going to follow them themselves? If nobdoy is not fighting, bickering or being disrespectful why are people being censored?

So negative things said about Prince are censored but not MJ? hmmm

I know this is a Prince forum but still..... we are not in elementary school, BE FAIR.

[Edited 5/21/13 11:38am]

The fact that you could seriously think that random allegation made by one anonymous orger against Prince has the same credibility as the charges against Jackson really does show how clueless you floons really are.

And I hope the moderators will be strong enough to resist the pressure of you MJ fans to delete or lock this thread. Too many times when inconvenient truths are being spoken about MJ, the floons pressure the mods (via orgnotes) into shutting it down. It's a sure sign of insecurity on their part (not to mention immaturity).

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #250 posted 05/21/13 12:57pm

midnightmover

whatsgoingon said:

midnightmover said:

Dude, if it was "widely reported" that Frascia testified against MJ at the time then how come neither I nor almost anyone else heard about it? You and the fellow fanatics heard about it because you follow these things religiously, but the rest of us didn't hear about it. Given how much coverage the trial got at the time it's amazing how limited the coverage was of that part.

It's not the first time Jackson has benefited from muted coverage of the most damning facts. He was caught red-handed making despicable anti-semitic comments on an answer-phone at around the same time and - incredibly - it was barely mentioned in the media at all. Almost no-one heard about it.

The same thing is happening RIGHT NOW with this Wade Robson thing. As two of your fellow fans have already said, it's barely getting any coverage at all, here in the UK. I myself only found out about it by chance when someone left a days' old tabloid lying around. I flicked through it and saw the story buried away on page 8 or something. Unbelievable.

As for the insurance thing, that statement was put out by MJ's team, headed by the sleazebag Johnny Cochran who got OJ Simpson off the hook for double murder just a year later. Why the hell would MJ not be allowed to say that the insurance company paid if - as you've said - it was already publicly acknowledged? Your story doesn't make any sense. Can you even tell me the name of this phantom insurance company? Of course not. Because the insurance thing is a red-herring cooked up by Johnny Cochran to make a bad situation look better. The floons lap it up as if it actually has some meaning. It doesn't.

Probably you were not paying attention, but frascia testimony was reported, it may not have neen taken seriously by the jurors and his testimony was quite short but it was reported. And as for Wade story, MJ is dead so it is not like we can ever see him arrested again. Plus by Wade admission he has committed perjury, he is hardly the ideal victim that the media wants to get 100% behind. There is a very high chance his case will either be thrown out of court or if it foes reach court his sworm testimony will come back to haunt him. [Edited 5/21/13 12:46pm]

I didn't say it wasn't reported. I said it was given only muted coverage. If only you could see how all your comments are straining to miss the point. You're contorting all over the place and can't even see it.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #251 posted 05/21/13 1:01pm

midnightmover

SoulAlive said:

This article says it all.....

Michael Jackson, Delayed Allegations and Witch Hunts

by JOE VOGEL on MAY 17, 2013

When Michael Jackson died unexpectedly in June of 2009, then-26-year-old choreographer Wade Robson – who has recently made headlines for accusing the pop star of molestation – wrote about his longtime friend and mentor:

Jackson, of course, was acquitted of all charges in 2005 after two grueling years of investigations, testimony and proceedings. Four years later, in 2009, after years of living as a cultural pariah, a vagabond drifting from country to country, he died at the age of fifty in Los Angeles. The silver lining, one assumed, was that at least his many troubles would end and the focus could return to his rich artistic legacy. But as long as big money is involved, it seems, the relentless stream of grifters will continue.

And in the court of public opinion, the Michael Jackson witch trial goes on.

Didn't you post this exact same (extremely lengthy) article on page 7? Either you're losing your marbles or you're trying to flood this thread with pointless shit to try and overshadow the uncomfortable things that are coming up.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #252 posted 05/21/13 1:03pm

SoulAlive

midnightmover said:

SoulAlive said:

This article says it all.....

Didn't you post this exact same (extremely lengthy) article on page 7? Either you're losing your marbles or you're trying to flood this thread with pointless shit to try and overshadow the uncomfortable things that are coming up.

I posted it again so that YOU wouldn't miss it this time.I want you to read it and try to refute what it says.Go ahead....give it your best shot lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #253 posted 05/21/13 1:05pm

PatrickS77

avatar

midnightmover said:

Dude, if it was "widely reported" that Frascia testified against MJ at the time then how come neither I nor almost anyone else heard about it? You and the fellow fanatics heard about it because you follow these things religiously, but the rest of us didn't hear about it. Given how much coverage the trial got at the time it's amazing how limited the coverage was of that part.

It's not the first time Jackson has benefited from muted coverage of the most damning facts. He was caught red-handed making despicable anti-semitic comments on an answer-phone at around the same time and - incredibly - it was barely mentioned in the media at all. Almost no-one heard about it.

The same thing is happening RIGHT NOW with this Wade Robson thing. As two of your fellow fans have already said, it's barely getting any coverage at all, here in the UK. I myself only found out about it by chance when someone left a days' old tabloid lying around. I flicked through it and saw the story buried away on page 8 or something. Unbelievable.

As for the insurance thing, that statement was put out by MJ's team, headed by the sleazebag Johnny Cochran who got OJ Simpson off the hook for double murder just a year later. Why the hell would MJ not be allowed to say that the insurance company paid if - as you've said - it was already publicly acknowledged? Your story doesn't make any sense. Can you even tell me the name of this phantom insurance company? Of course not. Because the insurance thing is a red-herring cooked up by Johnny Cochran to make a bad situation look better. The floons lap it up as if it actually has some meaning. It doesn't.

Oh, yes... Michael Jackson got a free pass on the negative things about him. You are so full of shit it's unbelievable. It was widely reported at the time. If you choose to rewrite history now or have trouble remembering things, that's on you. Media did report about it at the time that Jason Francia testified. People who cared about what was going on, and followed proceedings, to form their own opinion, do remember that it was reported.

And regarding that insurance money. No. That statement was not put out by Johnnie Cochran. Up until the 2003-5 proceedings no one knew that a insurance company was involved in paying the alleged "victims". Here is the memo in support of objection to subpoena for settlement documents: http://www.sbscpublicacce...prtobj.pdf If there would have been no insurance company involved and would be all made up lies, I'm sure Mr. Feldman (Chandler's lawyer... or even Chandler Senior himself) could and would have pointed Mr. Sneddon into the right direction. And of course, the settlement agreement eventually did leak. I remember reading it.

Edit: Here it is: http://www.thesmokinggun....ion-payoff It was actually already leaked in 2004.

And here a CNN write up, regarding the leak.

[Edited 5/21/13 13:22pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #254 posted 05/21/13 1:08pm

whatsgoingon

avatar

midnightmover said:



whatsgoingon said:


midnightmover said:


Dude, if it was "widely reported" that Frascia testified against MJ at the time then how come neither I nor almost anyone else heard about it? You and the fellow fanatics heard about it because you follow these things religiously, but the rest of us didn't hear about it. Given how much coverage the trial got at the time it's amazing how limited the coverage was of that part.



It's not the first time Jackson has benefited from muted coverage of the most damning facts. He was caught red-handed making despicable anti-semitic comments on an answer-phone at around the same time and - incredibly - it was barely mentioned in the media at all. Almost no-one heard about it.



The same thing is happening RIGHT NOW with this Wade Robson thing. As two of your fellow fans have already said, it's barely getting any coverage at all, here in the UK. I myself only found out about it by chance when someone left a days' old tabloid lying around. I flicked through it and saw the story buried away on page 8 or something. Unbelievable.



As for the insurance thing, that statement was put out by MJ's team, headed by the sleazebag Johnny Cochran who got OJ Simpson off the hook for double murder just a year later. Why the hell would MJ not be allowed to say that the insurance company paid if - as you've said - it was already publicly acknowledged? Your story doesn't make any sense. Can you even tell me the name of this phantom insurance company? Of course not. Because the insurance thing is a red-herring cooked up by Johnny Cochran to make a bad situation look better. The floons lap it up as if it actually has some meaning. It doesn't.



Probably you were not paying attention, but frascia testimony was reported, it may not have neen taken seriously by the jurors and his testimony was quite short but it was reported. And as for Wade story, MJ is dead so it is not like we can ever see him arrested again. Plus by Wade admission he has committed perjury, he is hardly the ideal victim that the media wants to get 100% behind. There is a very high chance his case will either be thrown out of court or if it foes reach court his sworm testimony will come back to haunt him. [Edited 5/21/13 12:46pm]

I didn't say it wasn't reported. I said it was given only muted coverage. If only you could see how all your comments are straining to miss the point. You're contorting all over the place and can't even see it.


No your missing the point. You thought Jason testimony was not reported because you did not hear about it and one or two peeps corrected you because there was coverage. The problem with you is that you think you know it all, but you do not. And you may have thought Jason testimony was the most damning but the jurors obviously did not. And even if they did the trial was about the ARIVIZOS and not Francia and they decided the evidence in this particular case was not solid enough to convict. And you know what even many hard nose journalist after the trial came to the same conclusion, the evidence was filmsy at best.
[Edited 5/21/13 13:13pm]
[Edited 5/21/13 13:17pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #255 posted 05/21/13 1:13pm

midnightmover

SoulAlive said:

midnightmover said:

Didn't you post this exact same (extremely lengthy) article on page 7? Either you're losing your marbles or you're trying to flood this thread with pointless shit to try and overshadow the uncomfortable things that are coming up.

I posted it again so that YOU wouldn't miss it this time.I want you to read it and try to refute what it says.Go ahead....give it your best shot lol

Don't you ever quit with the fake laughter? It's fooling no-one.

And you need to read reply#204. In that post I ran through about ten different points clearly pointing towards MJ's guilt. Not a single one of you denialists has even attempted to refute them. Too hard. They were just the tip of an iceberg too. As I'm sure many of your comrades know.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #256 posted 05/21/13 1:28pm

midnightmover

whatsgoingon said:

midnightmover said:

I didn't say it wasn't reported. I said it was given only muted coverage. If only you could see how all your comments are straining to miss the point. You're contorting all over the place and can't even see it.

No your missing the point. You thought Jason testimony was not reported because you did not hear about it and one or two peeps corrected you because there was coverage. The problem with you is that you think you know it all, but you do not. And you may have thought Jason testimony was the most damning but the jurors obviously did not. And even if the did the trial was about the ARIVIZOS and not Francia and they decided the evidence in this particular case was not solid enough to convict. period.our [Edited 5/21/13 13:13pm]

God, you really are dim, aren't you? I said quite clearly that it received relatively little coverage given how high profile the trial was. No-where did I say that it wasn't reported at all. Please learn how to read.

As for the jurors, do I really need to remind you that jurors also thought that OJ Simpson and R. Kelly were "not guilty" too? So that argument has ZERO credibility, particularly since two of the jurors came out later to say how completely blinkered and biased the other jurors were and how the few of them who were thinking logically were intimidated into going along with an obviously ridiculous verdict.

That process of the stupid pressuring the smart into acquiescence is played out on a larger scale in society and online too. Many times on this website I get supportive orgnotes from people who agree with me, but who don't have the energy to say so on the forum because they know the online mob will attack them.

[Edited 5/21/13 14:02pm]

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #257 posted 05/21/13 1:45pm

whatsgoingon

avatar

midnightmover said:



whatsgoingon said:


midnightmover said:


I didn't say it wasn't reported. I said it was given only muted coverage. If only you could see how all your comments are straining to miss the point. You're contorting all over the place and can't even see it.



No your missing the point. You thought Jason testimony was not reported because you did not hear about it and one or two peeps corrected you because there was coverage. The problem with you is that you think you know it all, but you do not. And you may have thought Jason testimony was the most damning but the jurors obviously did not. And even if the did the trial was about the ARIVIZOS and not Francia and they decided the evidence in this particular case was not solid enough to convict. period.our [Edited 5/21/13 13:13pm]

God, you really are dim, aren't you? I said quite clearly that it received relatively little coverage given how high profile the trial was. No-where did I say that it wasn't reported at all. Please learn how to read.



As for the jurors, do I really need to remind you that jurors also thought that OJ Simpson and R. Kelly were "not guilty" too? So that argument has ZERO credibility, particularly since two of the jurors came out later to say how completely blinkered and biased the other jurors were and how the few of them who were thinking logically were intimidated into going along with an obviously ridiculous verdict.



That process of the stupid pressuring the smart into acquiescence through sheer vociferousness is played out on a larger scale in society and online too. Many times on this website I get supportive orgnotes from people who agree with me, but who don't have the energy to say so on the forum because they know the online mob will attack them.


No one is dimmer than you. You made a statement, infact you should take look at your own statement and some peeps corrected you. I know you can not stand being corrected because you think you know it all.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #258 posted 05/21/13 2:01pm

midnightmover

PatrickS77 said:

midnightmover said:

Dude, if it was "widely reported" that Frascia testified against MJ at the time then how come neither I nor almost anyone else heard about it? You and the fellow fanatics heard about it because you follow these things religiously, but the rest of us didn't hear about it. Given how much coverage the trial got at the time it's amazing how limited the coverage was of that part.

It's not the first time Jackson has benefited from muted coverage of the most damning facts. He was caught red-handed making despicable anti-semitic comments on an answer-phone at around the same time and - incredibly - it was barely mentioned in the media at all. Almost no-one heard about it.

The same thing is happening RIGHT NOW with this Wade Robson thing. As two of your fellow fans have already said, it's barely getting any coverage at all, here in the UK. I myself only found out about it by chance when someone left a days' old tabloid lying around. I flicked through it and saw the story buried away on page 8 or something. Unbelievable.

As for the insurance thing, that statement was put out by MJ's team, headed by the sleazebag Johnny Cochran who got OJ Simpson off the hook for double murder just a year later. Why the hell would MJ not be allowed to say that the insurance company paid if - as you've said - it was already publicly acknowledged? Your story doesn't make any sense. Can you even tell me the name of this phantom insurance company? Of course not. Because the insurance thing is a red-herring cooked up by Johnny Cochran to make a bad situation look better. The floons lap it up as if it actually has some meaning. It doesn't.

Oh, yes... Michael Jackson got a free pass on the negative things about him. You are so full of shit it's unbelievable. It was widely reported at the time. If you choose to rewrite history now or have trouble remembering things, that's on you. Media did report about it at the time that Jason Francia testified. People who cared about what was going on, and followed proceedings, to form their own opinion, do remember that it was reported.

And regarding that insurance money. No. That statement was not put out by Johnnie Cochran. Up until the 2003-5 proceedings no one knew that a insurance company was involved in paying the alleged "victims". Here is the memo in support of objection to subpoena for settlement documents: http://www.sbscpublicacce...prtobj.pdf If there would have been no insurance company involved and would be all made up lies, I'm sure Mr. Feldman (Chandler's lawyer... or even Chandler Senior himself) could and would have pointed Mr. Sneddon into the right direction. And of course, the settlement agreement eventually did leak. I remember reading it.

Edit: Here it is: http://www.thesmokinggun....ion-payoff It was actually already leaked in 2004.

And here a CNN write up, regarding the leak.

[Edited 5/21/13 13:22pm]

It's a FACT that the anti-semitic rant by MJ was given very little coverage, considering what a huge star MJ was. Go up to the average person and ask them if they know about it and you'll find they had no idea. No honest person can deny this. As for Frascia you've confirmed what I said. "People who cared and followed proceedings" remember it. No-one else remembers it because it wasn't covered much. And let me repeat myself to avoid misunderstanding. I'm not saying it wasn't reported at all, simply that the coverage was muted.

As for the insurance thing it's important to point out that you are making a totally different argument to the one MJ fans usually do. They usually say the insurance company stepped in to pay off the boys without Jackson's approval. In fact you can go on wikipedia, check out the page on the 1993 allegations and you'll see exactly that claim written there. The entire page is quite clearly drafted by MJ fans. Since I discredited that argument earlier, you've taken a different tack. You admit that it was Michael himself who chose to pay the boys off, but are merely quibbling about who wrote the check. This is a red herring. The point is he chose to pay them to make them go away. You agree about that, so really this argument is just a distraction from the main point.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #259 posted 05/21/13 2:11pm

midnightmover

whatsgoingon said:

midnightmover said:

God, you really are dim, aren't you? I said quite clearly that it received relatively little coverage given how high profile the trial was. No-where did I say that it wasn't reported at all. Please learn how to read.

As for the jurors, do I really need to remind you that jurors also thought that OJ Simpson and R. Kelly were "not guilty" too? So that argument has ZERO credibility, particularly since two of the jurors came out later to say how completely blinkered and biased the other jurors were and how the few of them who were thinking logically were intimidated into going along with an obviously ridiculous verdict.

That process of the stupid pressuring the smart into acquiescence through sheer vociferousness is played out on a larger scale in society and online too. Many times on this website I get supportive orgnotes from people who agree with me, but who don't have the energy to say so on the forum because they know the online mob will attack them.

No one is dimmer than you. You made a statement, infact you should take look at your own statement and some peeps corrected you. I know you can not stand being corrected because you think you know it all.

This argument can be settled very easily. Simply produce the quote where I said that it wasn't reported. You can't produce that quote because I never said it. What I said was that it received little coverage, particularly considering what a huge media event the trial was. But by all means, go back and look for yourself. I'm sure you'd love to prove me wrong, and I'd love to see you happy. You go and get that quote, girl! lol

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #260 posted 05/21/13 2:14pm

mjscarousal

midnightmover said:

The fact that you could seriously think that random allegation made by one anonymous orger against Prince has the same credibility as the charges against Jackson really does show how clueless you floons really are.

This IS the same as that.

You just believe its not true because your a Prince stan lol

There was no reason for that posters threads to be deleted. There was no bickering or fighting in those threads.

The deletion of those threads are a pure example of individuals taking advantage of there authoritian roles simply because.... they can.

You are more dumber than I thought. There are no charges made against Michael. Wade filed a creditors claim ASKING FOR MONEY.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #261 posted 05/21/13 2:21pm

GoldDolphin

avatar

midnightmover said:

mjscarousal said:

The org moderators here are on some bullshit. No wonder nobody comes here no more

And the orgers who wanna believe this bullshit, let them.. dumbasses

So its okay to talk about lies related to Michael Jackson (that have NOTHING to do with his music) in the non prince MUSIC discussion of the board BUT when someone else brings up their personal encounters with Prince in which a org member admitted to having sex with Prince after he invited her after attending the Lovesexytour 1988 and afterward Prince disses her and drives her out in the middle of no where and abandons her and anything could have happened to her (enigmagirl) BUT they were quick to delete that shit because it paints Prince as a senseless asshole. THERE WAS 5 THREADS RELATED TO HER STORY that the mods in the Prince section deleted without any justifications for it eek

Nobody is not dumb, people are aware of what is going on.

Prolly going to delete this one...kiss my ass

Its not right to randomly censor people just because they say something you disagree with. Whats the point of having rules if the mods are not going to follow them themselves? If nobdoy is not fighting, bickering or being disrespectful why are people being censored?

So negative things said about Prince are censored but not MJ? hmmm

I know this is a Prince forum but still..... we are not in elementary school, BE FAIR.

[Edited 5/21/13 11:38am]

The fact that you could seriously think that random allegation made by one anonymous orger against Prince has the same credibility as the charges against Jackson really does show how clueless you floons really are.

And I hope the moderators will be strong enough to resist the pressure of you MJ fans to delete or lock this thread. Too many times when inconvenient truths are being spoken about MJ, the floons pressure the mods (via orgnotes) into shutting it down. It's a sure sign of insecurity on their part (not to mention immaturity).

Why should this thread not be locked down tho? Wade isn't a damn artist, so this should be locked.

Prince has been with underaged girls, Anna Garcia anyone? I don't buy the story that they waited till she turned 18 lol... Even so, Prince isn't perfect neither is Michael Jackson but one thing is for sure - MJ was innocent. Just because you don't want to read the facts and information that is out there, doesn't mean others wont. I've talked to many people who once thought mj was guilty and when i showed them the facts they finally changed their minds, because MJ WAS framed. They wanted MONEY... IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY...

When the power of love overcomes the love of power,the world will know peace -Jimi Hendrix
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #262 posted 05/21/13 2:47pm

midnightmover

mjscarousal said:

midnightmover said:

The fact that you could seriously think that random allegation made by one anonymous orger against Prince has the same credibility as the charges against Jackson really does show how clueless you floons really are.

This IS the same as that.

You just believe its not true because your a Prince stan lol

There was no reason for that posters threads to be deleted. There was no bickering or fighting in those threads.

The deletion of those threads are a pure example of individuals taking advantage of there authoritian roles simply because.... they can.

You are more dumber than I thought. There are no charges made against Michael. Wade filed a creditors claim ASKING FOR MONEY.

Yes, I am "more dumber" than you thought. And my grammar is even more worser!

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #263 posted 05/21/13 3:12pm

PatrickS77

avatar

midnightmover said:

It's a FACT that the anti-semitic rant by MJ was given very little coverage, considering what a huge star MJ was. Go up to the average person and ask them if they know about it and you'll find they had no idea. No honest person can deny this. As for Frascia you've confirmed what I said. "People who cared and followed proceedings" remember it. No-one else remembers it because it wasn't covered much. And let me repeat myself to avoid misunderstanding. I'm not saying it wasn't reported at all, simply that the coverage was muted.

As for the insurance thing it's important to point out that you are making a totally different argument to the one MJ fans usually do. They usually say the insurance company stepped in to pay off the boys without Jackson's approval. In fact you can go on wikipedia, check out the page on the 1993 allegations and you'll see exactly that claim written there. The entire page is quite clearly drafted by MJ fans. Since I discredited that argument earlier, you've taken a different tack. You admit that it was Michael himself who chose to pay the boys off, but are merely quibbling about who wrote the check. This is a red herring. The point is he chose to pay them to make them go away. You agree about that, so really this argument is just a distraction from the main point.

I said all along, that it was him, who decided (or at least agreed) to pay. Even before you "discredited" it (fyi: saying that you discredited it, doesn't actually discredit anything, it just makes you a fool, who makes up his own stories to support his theory... by the time word got out, that an insurance company paid, Johnnie Cochran was dying. He had nothing to do with it. As for why Michael wasn't allowed to speak out... read the settlement... he also said so much in the Sawyer interview). That's also what Michael said in the Diane Sawyer interview.


But really, it doesn't matter whether the insurance company suggested that he'd agree to a settlement or whether he voluntarily of his own will decided on the settlement or whether the insurance made the decision for him. Fact of the matter is, the insurance company paid, it wasn't his money. He didn't pay a dime. So considering that a settlement didn't come out of his pocket and that no one could guarantee him a positive outcome of the ordeal that already blocked his career for 5 months at the time and 'caused the cancellation of the Dangerous tour and most likely would have dragged his life through the mud for at least another year (the Arvizo case took out 19 months of his life and left him in shatters for months after that), it's quite understandable that he choose to throw some money at the accusers to make them go away (and, I have to state this again; THEY TOOK THE MONEY AND RAN... BOTH OF THEM) and to be able to return to a normal life. So, no red herring there. Quite understandable on his part. Of course, fools like you have a hard time admitting that in the same vain you think it's proof that he's guilty, it's also proof that something is fishy on the accusers part.


About the supposed anti-semitic rant. Americans talked about it, in the rest of the world, all that BS that get's the american panties in a knot is not such a big issue as it is in the states. And really, what does it have to do with anything? It's a general rule, that negative things were reported about Michael. Wether you wanted a bigger ruckus or the ruckus wasn't big enough for you again is on you. And regarding Francia, again... it was reported... widely, when you and other people have problems with your memories that's your problem.


And really, that's it now for me with you. You're a sack full of shit. Totally biased, making up your own shit to fit your theories, thinking you know it all and basically doing the same shit that you accuse the fans (or should I say, the people who mistrust theses stories) of doing. You're blinded by your dislike of Jackson. Would you have just the slightest of an open mind you would see that most of these stories and people involved are too problematic and fishy to fully believe them and fully condem Michael Jackson. There is a huge air of doubt, even if you want to blieve he's guilty. And the quantity of accusations is irrelevant. It's the the quality that counts. And again, none of these stories have any quality whatsoever.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #264 posted 05/21/13 3:57pm

Mintchip

avatar

midnightmover said:

mjscarousal said:

This IS the same as that.

You just believe its not true because your a Prince stan lol

There was no reason for that posters threads to be deleted. There was no bickering or fighting in those threads.

The deletion of those threads are a pure example of individuals taking advantage of there authoritian roles simply because.... they can.

You are more dumber than I thought. There are no charges made against Michael. Wade filed a creditors claim ASKING FOR MONEY.

Yes, I am "more dumber" than you thought. And my grammar is even more worser!

That one's a bully, and calls anyone who's opinion differs "dumb", "a fool", or (in my case) "insane". She's spirited though, and kind of fun wink

For me, the essential question is why did Wade do a 180?

1) MJ loyalists say "THE MONEY", and I get where they're coming from. He is, in fact, asking for money. But it doesn't makes sense to me, mostly because THIS IS THE MOST ROUNDABOUT WAY OF GETTING MONEY IMAGINABLE.

Unless Wade is dumb, or in an altered mindset, suing his friend's estate for damages when he's already sworn under oath that no damages took place is completely absurd. Deciding to do that just because he "needs money" (when he's already a name choreographer) makes almost no sense at all.

I'd be surprised if he gets a dollar out of this. Meanwhile he's confessing to being, by definition, a liar.

2) On the other side, he was molested, and is doing this for justice. In that case, why ask for money? It sullies his arguement, and gives the defence a tool against him.

I don't know about "recovered memories", but the idea that a kid would lie about Michael Jackson molesting them makes perfect sense.

He's your idol, you're ashamed, and saying anything means media circus. Meanwhile he is actively helping you start your career. It's not right, but makes more sense than one day Wade Robson's bank account ran low, so he decided to throw his name under the bus and sue the Jackson estate for things he already testified never happened.

The whole situation is mysterious, and more than a little sad.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #265 posted 05/21/13 4:09pm

musicology54

Man I'm glad I'm not apart of this war.
[Edited 5/21/13 16:13pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #266 posted 05/21/13 4:15pm

midnightmover

PatrickS77 said:

midnightmover said:

It's a FACT that the anti-semitic rant by MJ was given very little coverage, considering what a huge star MJ was. Go up to the average person and ask them if they know about it and you'll find they had no idea. No honest person can deny this. As for Frascia you've confirmed what I said. "People who cared and followed proceedings" remember it. No-one else remembers it because it wasn't covered much. And let me repeat myself to avoid misunderstanding. I'm not saying it wasn't reported at all, simply that the coverage was muted.

As for the insurance thing it's important to point out that you are making a totally different argument to the one MJ fans usually do. They usually say the insurance company stepped in to pay off the boys without Jackson's approval. In fact you can go on wikipedia, check out the page on the 1993 allegations and you'll see exactly that claim written there. The entire page is quite clearly drafted by MJ fans. Since I discredited that argument earlier, you've taken a different tack. You admit that it was Michael himself who chose to pay the boys off, but are merely quibbling about who wrote the check. This is a red herring. The point is he chose to pay them to make them go away. You agree about that, so really this argument is just a distraction from the main point.

I said all along, that it was him, who decided (or at least agreed) to pay. Even before you "discredited" it (fyi: saying that you discredited it, doesn't actually discredit anything, it just makes you a fool, who makes up his own stories to support his theory... by the time word got out, that an insurance company paid, Johnnie Cochran was dying. He had nothing to do with it. As for why Michael wasn't allowed to speak out... read the settlement... he also said so much in the Sawyer interview). That's also what Michael said in the Diane Sawyer interview.


But really, it doesn't matter whether the insurance company suggested that he'd agree to a settlement or whether he voluntarily of his own will decided on the settlement or whether the insurance made the decision for him. Fact of the matter is, the insurance company paid, it wasn't his money. He didn't pay a dime. So considering that a settlement didn't come out of his pocket and that no one could guarantee him a positive outcome of the ordeal that already blocked his career for 5 months at the time and 'caused the cancellation of the Dangerous tour and most likely would have dragged his life through the mud for at least another year (the Arvizo case took out 19 months of his life and left him in shatters for months after that), it's quite understandable that he choose to throw some money at the accusers to make them go away (and, I have to state this again; THEY TOOK THE MONEY AND RAN... BOTH OF THEM) and to be able to return to a normal life. So, no red herring there. Quite understandable on his part. Of course, fools like you have a hard time admitting that in the same vain you think it's proof that he's guilty, it's also proof that something is fishy on the accusers part.


About the supposed anti-semitic rant. Americans talked about it, in the rest of the world, all that BS that get's the american panties in a knot is not such a big issue as it is in the states. And really, what does it have to do with anything? It's a general rule, that negative things were reported about Michael. Wether you wanted a bigger ruckus or the ruckus wasn't big enough for you again is on you. And regarding Francia, again... it was reported... widely, when you and other people have problems with your memories that's your problem.


And really, that's it now for me with you. You're a sack full of shit. Totally biased, making up your own shit to fit your theories, thinking you know it all and basically doing the same shit that you accuse the fans (or should I say, the people who mistrust theses stories) of doing. You're blinded by your dislike of Jackson. Would you have just the slightest of an open mind you would see that most of these stories and people involved are too problematic and fishy to fully believe them and fully condem Michael Jackson. There is a huge air of doubt, even if you want to blieve he's guilty. And the quantity of accusations is irrelevant. It's the the quality that counts. And again, none of these stories have any quality whatsoever.

I discredited the insurance thing before you said a word about it. I was talking to Ace at the time. He was referring to the insane claim made by MJ fans (and still on wikipedia even now) that the insurance company went over Michael's head to pay off the boys. You agree with me that that is ridiculous, so there is no point us arguing about that. What's interesting is your blatant double standard. You think MJ wanting to avoid a trial is not at all proof of his guilt. Yet Jordan wanting to avoid a trial is proof that he must be lying. Even the dimmest of the dim would see what complete hypocrisy that is on your part.

Also, you talk about MJ's "supposed" anti-semitic rant... SUPPOSED?! SUPPOSED? Are you serious? It's not "supposed", you liar. It's right there on tape, him saying how "the Jews do it on purpose". This is the same time he was associating with the Nation of Islam who are known for their radical anti-semitism. And we all remember the original lyrics to TDCAU, don't we? Still, I'm glad you made that half-hearted attempt to dispute the indisputable. It merely proves how dishonest you guys are. You have to be. There is no other way to maintain the MJ-was-a-great-guy illusion.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #267 posted 05/21/13 5:27pm

SoulAlive

midnightmover said:

SoulAlive said:

I posted it again so that YOU wouldn't miss it this time.I want you to read it and try to refute what it says.Go ahead....give it your best shot lol

Don't you ever quit with the fake laughter? It's fooling no-one.

And you need to read reply#204. In that post I ran through about ten different points clearly pointing towards MJ's guilt. Not a single one of you denialists has even attempted to refute them. Too hard. They were just the tip of an iceberg too. As I'm sure many of your comrades know.

Your ten different points don't "prove" anything.Unless there is some clear,undisputable evidence,all we have are UNPROVEN ACCUSATIONS that don't mean nothing.I see you're choosing to ignore that lengthy article,but that writer makes alot of interesting points.Desperate times call for desperate measures.Shady,broke ass people will do or say anything for money.Wade Robson is just the latest example.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #268 posted 05/21/13 6:02pm

SoulAlive

It goes without saying that accusations of abuse must always be taken seriously. When an individual has told one story very credibly and convincingly as an adult, however, and then suddenly changes it with no corroborating evidence (letters, photos, phone conversations, witnesses, etc.) to file a creditor’s claim, it deserves a healthy dose of skepticism. Believing such claims on faith can be dangerous, destroying lives and reputations with absolutely no proof beyond the accusation.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #269 posted 05/21/13 7:52pm

allsmutaside

Please God, don't let this one come talking about "Michael ..."

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 9 of 12 « First<3456789101112>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Wade Robson: 'Pedophile' abused me for 7 years