Wade Robson: What The Heck Is Really Going On? Pt 1

Michael Once Said He Could Count His True Friends On One Hand. That Number Continues To Shrink.
Michael Once Said He Could Count His True Friends On One Hand. That Number Continues To Shrink.

How the heck did we go from this:

I used to talk to Michael for three hours a day. I never really worked out how he came to find so much time because he seemed so busy, but he would ring me and we would talk and talk and talk. When he got a cell phone he would call and text all the time.It was part of an amazing friendship that lasted for 20 years.
I had firdt met Michael when he was kicking off his bad tour in 1987. I was five, but Michaels company were holding a dance competition in every country and i entered the one in brisbane. I remember being a kid and dancing to his video- the first iever say was “Thriller” when i was two. It was my mum’s tape and i just went nuts over it. I used to run into the kitchen scared everytime the wereworlf came on. By the time i was three i had pretty much learned its entire choreoghraphy.
I ended up winning the dance competition. We went to see Michael in brisbane and at a meet and greet i was introduced to him. I remember wearing a custome made outfit from “Bad”- my mum’s belt was wrapped around me, like five times. Michael was impresssed and asked me if I had danced. I told him that I did and he said ” Do you want to perform with me in the show tomorrow night?”
I couldn’t believe it. He was due to play brisbane the next night. His idea was for me to come out for the last song of the show which was “Bad”. He was bringing on some orphaned children so he figured it would be cool to bring me out in the full “Bad” outfit. At the end of the song we were all onstage- Stevie Wonder was there too and Michael came on and said “Come on”. | took it as him meaning “Get into it!”.I moved downstage and threw my hat into the crowd and started going crazy. When i turned around Michael was saying goodbye to the crowd, the other kids were gone and Stevie Wonder was being escorted off. What he meant was “Come on lets go, It’s over”.
When I realised, I ran off. After my mum and I spent two hours with Michael into his hotel and we became friends. He showed us clips from the new Moonwalker he was working on and we talked and talked. We didn’t really stay in contact but i joined a dance company- literally the next day and two years later i was in America to play at Disneyland. I got in touch with Michael through his people, he remembered me. Me and my family went to Record one studio where he was mixing the dangerous album.I showed him some of my dance videos and he said to me. “Do you and your family want to come to Neverland tonight”? We all agreed and ended up staying for two weeks.
Our friendship blossomed. For two weeks he’d take me into his dance studio, put some music on and we’d dance and jam for hours.We’d sit there and watch films like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.Other time we’d just leave Neverland and drive out in a car, blasting music really loud.
He even taught me how to do the moonwalk.We were in his dance studip. He taught me foot by foot. I couldn’t sleep that whole night. The thrill of pushing off the bar and sliding backwards in a moonwalk with the guy that made it famous was so exciting.
Later, me and my mym wanted to move to America to pursue my dreams of becoming a dancer and he helped us out. He gave me a big start by putting me in some of his videos like “Black or White”. The role he took on was one of a mentor. He told when I was seven that I’d be a film director and thats what I became, he created a thirst for knowledge in me.Once, a mini recording studio turned up on my doorstep, but what was cool was that he stopped me from becoming a spoiled brat. He would say “This is for you, but I want to see you do something with it. Dont take it for granted or I”ll take it back”. The last time I saw him was in July 2008. I was in Vegas working on a show and he was living there.Me, my wife and him and his three kids had a barbecue. It was the most normal thing in the world. Me and my wife had been to Whole foods and bought stuff to cook. But when we got there he’d provided loads of catering. I said “Dude, Why did you bring loads of catering? We’ve got regular food here”.I remember cooking outside while Michael sat there under an umbrella.
We had great times because he was such a caring person. Most of all I’ll miss those phone conversations. I still have my mobile phone with his number on it. I just cant bear the thoughts of deleting his messages.

Hope you all enjoy reading as much as I did.-Wade Robson, Introduction to Michael Jackson Opus


To this?



Even with all of the AEG trial news going on last week, this was the story that rocked the fan community.  It has been almost a week ago as I am typing the finishing touches on this post, and “some” of the dust has started to settle a bit. But as the initial shock has begun to wear off, the deeper and more puzzling questions remain. Why the heck is Wade Robson doing this-and the bigger question so many are asking, Why now?

Wade-robson-and-Michael-Jackson-1While I am sure that most of my diehard readers know the full details of this story by now, I will just reiterate briefly for the sake of those casual readers who may be stumbling across this for the first time. On May 1st, 2013, an attorney representing choreographer Wade Robson-a longtime friend and supporter of Michael Jackson and one of the young men who defended him most adamantly in his 2005 molestation trial-filed a debtor’s claim against the Michael Jackson estate. While the details of the claim are sealed, Robson, via his attorney, is apparently seeking monetary compensation for childhood sexual abuse he claims to have suffered for seven years, from 1989-1996. Ordinarily, the statute of limitations for such a claim would have long expired, but Robson is relying on the still relatively new and unproven science of “repressed memory” to make a case. You see, according to his claim (if you find this believable) the whole reason he so adamantly defended MJ all those years, and paid such glowing tributes to him as his mentor and friend, was because…well, simply that he didn’t remember any such abuse happening. Until he had a breakdown and went for some therapy. Now, voila…he has a memory, and needs some cash. Get it? Good. Because that’s the story, in a nutshell.

The problem is that many might have been inclined to take his claims a lot more seriously if : 1:He had come forward years ago, and sought a criminal or even civil charge when Michael was alive to defend himself, rather than waiting four years after his death to file a debtor’s claim, and 2: If he hadn’t testified under oath-not once, but twice-that nothing ever happened. The thing about Robson, in fact, is that he not only swore under oath, but actively and aggressively defended his friend.

You can read the full document here:


Mr. Robson’s claim is 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.”-Howard Weitzman, Michael Jackson Estate Attorney, In A Statement To TMZ.

All I can say is that I’m glad my schedule prevented me from firing off any knee jerk responses to this story. Instead, I was able to take a few days to cool my heels, gather some facts, and really take a good, long, hard look at what the heck is going on with Wade Robson.

First of all, this news isn’t separate from the AEG trial at all. I think most reasonable people-including even the media-have recognized the suspicious timing of Robson’s accusations. Here is what Michael’s attorney Thomas Mesereau had to say:


And from the looks of things, Robson isn’t exactly getting a lot of sympathy. After all, it’s one thing for a child victim to accuse someone. It’s quite another when said “victim” is a thirty-year old-man who has sung the praises of his “abuser” for years, was a star witness for him in court, and now waits-hold on-not one, not two, but four years after said “abuser” is dead and cannot defend himself-to suddenly have “repressed memories” that entitle him-again, not to file a criminal complaint, or even a civil complaint, but a debtor’s claim-in hopes that he can somehow convince the Michael Jackson estate to pay him enough “yum yum” money dollars” to make him go away.

Roger Friedman: Wade Robson Will Have To Refute This Video: http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/05/08/michael-jackson-accuser-will-have-to-refute-this-video-we-had-a-wonderful-relationship


Sharon Osbourne rips Wade Robson a good one on The Talk!


Omarion rips him another one!



TMZ Poll: Readers Speak!


Do You Believe Robson?

  • No
  • Yes

Total Votes: 59,119

Now add to this mix the fact that all of this just “happens” to break with the start of the AEG trial, and you have The Perfect Storm…and the perfect recipe for so few are taking this story seriously. For sure, it certainly looks like a crass money grab at the very least (if one believes Robson is acting alone) or perhaps part of a much larger, and deeper conspiracy (if one believes that AEG is behind it).

I have been asking myself a lot of hard questions the last few days. Just how plausible might Wade’s story be? How reliable is the science of repressed memory? Is it just possible that he was lying in 2005, and is telling the truth now? I know there are some fans who are so adamant in their unwavering belief in Michael’s innocence that they will never entertain, for a moment, the need to question a story like Robson’s.   But I think that is the wrong approach to take.  In order to get to the truth, we have to ask the tough questions-and not be afraid to do so.  The possibilities have to be at least examined before they can be debunked. So hear me out and follow where I am going with this.

There is very good reason why this story is so upsetting to the fan community. Wade Robson was, as stated, a key witness in Michael’s 2005 molestation trial-one who was not only adamant, but unwavering in his testimony that no abuse or inappropriate behavior had ever occurred. For years, Robson’s testimony-in addition to that of Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes-has been the cornerstone of fans who take comfort in being able to point out, “Look, of all these kids that Michael supposedly hung out with, only two have ever accused him of anything. All of the others have sworn up and down that nothing ever happened, and have been more than reliable witnesses.”

Wade Robson Arriving To Testify In Michael's 2005 Trial
Wade Robson Arriving To Testify In Michael’s 2005 Trial

Robson, in fact, was more than just a reliable witness. He was, in the words of Thomas Mesereau, a “star witness” for the defense.

As has been pointed out time and again, Robson certainly has a “lot of explaining to do,” to quote Roger Friedman. If he purjured himself in 2005, he’s got to explain that. If he’s been lying all these years that he’s been singing Michael Jackson’s praises to the skies, he’s got a lot of explaining to do.

And if he’s been telling the truth all these years, he has even more  explaining to do.

I can’t claim to know what is true or not. Even though I know fans take issue with those who say things like, “Only Michael and Wade know for sure” it is, nevertheless, true. I did not, for example, take offense when Lisa Marie said in her Oprah interview that she could only vouch for what she had seen, and that she had never seen any inappropriate behavior between Michael and children. Her comment that she wasn’t “in the room” with Michael and his alleged victims drew some ire from those who felt she was leaving a chink open for the doubters. (Ironically enough, according to the timeline Robson has given, at least some of the alleged abuse would have been during the time of Michael’s marriage to LMP). But really, what else could she say with good conscience?  I know people wanted her to say adamantly, “Absolutely not, Michael would never have done such a thing!” But here is the truth. No matter how much we might think we know someone (even our own spouses!); no matter how much we might want to believe, “Michael wasn’t that kind of person” the unfortunate reality of child sexual abusers is that we can’t base anything on the person’s character or what kind of person we “think” they are. This is fact, and I’m not going to entertain any comments to the contrary. There is simply no way to judge whether someone is or is not a pedophile or a child molestor based on their good works, their good name, or their good character. I have mentioned here several times that I, myself, am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. I won’t reveal the identity of my abuser, except to say he was a family member and a most upstanding citizen-to the outside world. Someone no one would have ever suspected of such things. But as a child sexual abuse survivor, it also gives me some clearer insight into Michael’s “alleged” victims. Of course, every victim’s case is somewhat different, and there is no one-size-fits-all gauge with which to assess a “victim’s” story. But it does, in some ways, give me the ability to better filter what is truthful and plausible vs. what is total BS.

Secondly, I consider myself a Michael Jackson fan second, and a Michael Jackson researcher/scholar first. Which, simply translated, means I am proud to say that my belief in Michael’s innocence is based on factual research and evidence, rather than knee-jerk, emotional responses based on what I “want” to believe.  I’m sorry if my blunt approach offends some. I don’t mean for it to offend. I just believe that in order to truly vindicate Michael, it takes a hard stance approach and the ability to not flinch at some less-than-pleasant muck that has to be waded through.

I Do Believe 100% In Michael's Innocence. But I Don't Believe The Truth Can Be Obtained By Avoiding The Tough Questions, Or Going For The Easy, Obvious Defenses.
I Do Believe 100% In Michael’s Innocence. But I Don’t Believe The Truth Can Be Obtained By Avoiding The Tough Questions, Or Going For The Easy, Obvious Defenses.

And I’m going to say one thing right now in regards to all this “repressed memory” nonsense. It is pure bs. Yes, it may have some validity if we’re talking a five year old child. It may have some validity if we’re talking a child too young to have comprehension of what sex is, or more aptly, too young to realize that what an adult is doing is making them uncomfortable. It would be perfectly logical in that case to assume that the memory might become repressed, only to be triggered later in life.

But I don’t buy it in the case of an older child, especially a child over the age of seven. I was nine when my abuse first occurred. I was molested repeatedly from the age of nine to fourteen. Trust me, you don’t forget. You can block it out as a coping mechanism, but the images; the memories do not just go away or become “blanked out.”  What actually happens has more to do with one simple fact: Some people simply have a higher tolerance for trauma than others. While some may become emotionally debilitated by such a trauma, to the point of being almost dysfunctional, some can simply accept it as something bad that happened, and move on. This is really, essentially, what the “compartmentalization” is all about that some therapists speak of. It is, however, not so much compartmentalization as simply being able to put the bad memory on a shelf-or on the backburner of one’s life-and move on.

However, that doesn’t mean the memory isn’t there. My abuser didn’t conk me on the head and force me to black out. I didn’t quite know what was happening when I was nine, but I knew it was sick and unnatural; that it was NOT something an adult and a child were supposed to be doing together. By the time I knew what sex was, I was very consciously aware of what had been done to me.

I reported him the first time; that led to years of therapy that basically went nowhere (the abuse continued, despite the best efforts of DHR to keep the family together) and finally, at fifteen, I just removed myself from the situation altogether. I lived with my grandmother until I was a legal adult.

I moved on with my life. Eventually, I forgave my abuser, but I never forgot. I simply made a conscious choice to not allow this to be something that ruled my life. I still have my “issues” but I don’t dwell on what happened to me. I think that abuse victims make a conscious choice-either to work at healing and to get on with life, or to let another person’s actions overtake their life. However, I can say that sexual abuse does f_k with a kid’s head on so many levels, it isn’t even funny. There is just something about that manipulation of trust, and abuse of power, that one never gets over.

Which is also why it is something one never forgets. There was never a time when I couldn’t recall, in exact, vivid detail, exactly what was done to me-where, when, even down to what time of day it was. I could tell you in most instances what I was wearing. I could tell you that the first time I remembered it happening, I was lying on a rug in the living room, coloring in my coloring book. I remember that exact moment when the complete innocence of childhood ended for me.

How does one just forget a thing like that? If anything, traumatic experiences are even more branded into memory than the inconsequential stuff. I certainly couldn’t tell you anything about the first time I ate a bowl of breakfast cereal (but I could tell you all about the time I got salmonella poisoning from eating a bowl of cereal when I was eleven!). I couldn’t tell you about the first day I went to school, but I could tell you all about the day in second grade when a bully slapped me so hard on the playground that it knocked me dizzy.

And, yes, I could tell you more detail about the night I was first molested by my abuser than my first, consensual sexual experience as an adult.

You simply don’t forget a thing like that, if you’re old enough to have conscious memory at all. While I do think it is certainly possible that one can consciously bury a memory, I don’t buy into the idea that one can simply blank them out. Certainly not someone claiming a long-standing abuse that went on, allegedly, for seven years! That puts the time frame of Wade’s “abuse” roughly equivalent with my own, with only a difference of one year, for in my case, it was six years.

Okay, so even if a reasonable minded person bought into the idea of one repressed memory from one incident, we are supposed to believe that Wade Robson somehow miraculously blocked out seven whole years of his life?

Gosh gee, I sure remember my six years of abuse, cause I was living in fear and revulsion every single day of it! I went to school every morning sick to my stomach; I came home from school sick to my stomach. I couldn’t concentrate in class, and my grades plummeted. How the hell does one forget such feelings?

Robson Expects A Gullible Public To Buy That He Somehow Mnagaed To Block Out Seven YEARS Of His Life!
Robson Expects A Gullible Public To Buy That He Somehow Mnagaed To Block Out Seven YEARS Of His Life!

In short, the whole idea of “repressed memory” is really a bogus science that has yet to be proven. Its reliability as grounds for a civil or criminal case in a court of law is still very much up for debate.  While some cases based on “repressed memory” have gone in favor of the plaintiffs, many more have not.

This was a very good, unbiased article that I found which examines both the validity and shortcomings of repressed memory as a science-and especially as a valid, legal claim for adults seeking compensation for alleged abuses that occurred 20, 30, even 40 years ago!


The article is too long to paste here in its entirety, and not all of it is directly relevant to Wade Robson’s claims, but I did want to include this excerpt, which  I found extremely interesting, on  how it is possible for false memories to be implanted, which the unsuspecting patient may then take as genuine repressed memory (to be fair, the first half of this article deals with cases in which the memories are authentic, which in some cases they have proven to be. But let’s look at what is said about non-authentic memories (note that the case of Patti Barton, beneath the heading “Litigation Accounts” is an example of a so-called “repressed memory” that occurred when the victim was fifteen months old-again, a perfect example that repressed memory may be viable for abuse that occurs before the child is consciously old enough to be aware of the act, but becomes increasingly doubtful the older the child is at the time of the alleged abuse:

The Memories Are Not Authentic

To say that memory might be false does not mean that the person is deliberately lying. Although lying is always possible, even psychotherapists who question the authenticity of reports have been impressed with the honesty and intensity of the terror, rage, guilt, depression, and overall behavioral dysfunction accompanying the awareness of abuse ( Ganaway, 1989, p. 211 ).

There are are at least two ways that false memories could come about. Honestly believed, but false, memories could come about, according to Ganaway (1989), because of internal or external sources. The internal drive to manufacture an abuse memory may come about as a way to provide a screen for perhaps more prosaic but, ironically, less tolerable, painful experiences of childhood. Creating a fantasy of abuse with its relatively clear-cut distinction between good and evil may provide the needed logical explanation for confusing experiences and feelings. The core material for the false memories can be borrowed from the accounts of others who are either known personally or encountered in literature, movies, and television. 5


Sources of Details That Could Affect Memory
There are at least two important sources that could potentially feed into the construction of false memories. These include popular writings and therapists’ suggestions.

Popular Writings

All roads on the search for popular writings inevitably lead to one, The Courage to Heal ( Bass & Davis, 1988 ), often referred to as the “bible” of the incest book industry. The Courage to Heal advertises itself as a guide for women survivors of child sexual abuse. Although the book is undoubtedly a great comfort to the sexual abuse survivors who have been living with their private and painful memories, one cannot help but wonder about its effects on those who have no such memories. Readers who are wondering whether they might be victims of child sexual abuse are provided with a list of possible activities ranging from the relatively bening (e.g., being held in a way that made them uncomfortable) to the unequivocally abusive (e.g., being raped or otherwise penetrated). Readers are then told “If you are unable to remember any specific instances like the ones mentioned above but still have a feeling that something abusive happened to you, it probably did” (p. 21). On the next page, the reader is told


You may think you don’t have memories, but often as you begin to talk about what you do remember, there emerges a constellation of feelings, reactions and recollections that add up to substantial information. To say, “I was abused,” you don’t need the kind of recall that would stand up in a court of law. Often the knowledge that you were abused starts with a tiny feeling, an intuition… Assume your feelings are valid. So far, no one we’ve talked to thought she might have been abused, and then later discovered that she hadn’t been. The progression always goes the other way, from suspicion to confirmation. If you think you were abused and your life shows the symptoms, then you were. (p. 22)

What symptoms? The authors list low self-esteem, suicidal or self-destructive thoughts, depression, and sexual dysfunction, among others. 6

Others have worried about the role played by The Courage to Heal. A recent survey of several hundred families accused by derepressed memories revealed that the book was implicated “in almost all cases” ( Wakefield & Underwager, 1992, p. 486 ). Complaints about the book range from its repeated suggestion that abuse probably happened even if one has no memories of it and that demands for corroboration are not reasonable, to its overt encouragement of “revenge, anger, fantasies of murder or castration, and deathbed confrontations” ( Wakefield & Underwager, 1992, p. 485 ). In all fairness, however, it should be mentioned that the book is long (495 pages), and sentences taken out of context may distort their intended meaning. Nonetheless, readers without any abuse memories of their own cannot escape the message that there is a strong likelihood that abuse occurred even in the absence of such memories.

The recent incest book industry has published not only stories of abuse but also suggestions to readers that they were likely abused even if there are no memories, that repressed memories of abuse undoubtedly underlie one’s troubles, or that benefits derive from uncovering repressed memories and believing them. One popular book about incest is the paperback by E. Sue Blume (1990), the book jacket of which itemizes one of the author’s chief credentials as the “Creator of the Incest Survivors’ Aftereffects Checklist.” Blume, a private practice therapist, tells readers that she has “found that most incest survivors have limited recall about their abuse” (p. 81). She goes on to say that “Indeed, so few incest survivors in my experience have identified themselves as abused in the beginning of therapy that I have concluded that perhaps half of all incest survivors do not remember that the abuse occurred” (p. 81).

Some of the volumes provide exercises to help readers lift the repression. Farmer (1989), for example, tells readers to try one particular exercise “whether or not you have any conscious recollection of the abuse you suffered” (p. 91). The reader is to sit down, relax, and mentally return to childhood. The next step is to choose a particular memory, whether fuzzy or clear, and “bring that memory to your full attention” (p. 91). Details about what to do with the memory are provided, along with an example from the life of “Danielle,” who thought about how verbally abusive her father had been, and “Hazel,” who remembered anger at her mother’s treating her like a rag doll. This exercise allegedly helped to “lift the lid of repression” and unbury the “Hurting Child.”

Do these examples lift the lid of repression? Perhaps. But another equally viable hypothesis is that the examples influence the creation of memories or, at the very least, direct the search through memory that the reader will ultimately take. 9

Therapists’ Suggestions

Blume’s (1990) observation that so many individuals enter therapy without memories of abuse but acquire memories during therapy naturally makes one wonder about what might be happening in therapy. According to Ganaway (1989), honestly believed but false memories could come about in another way, through unintentional suggestion from therapists. Ganaway noted a growing trend toward the facile acceptance and expressed validation of uncorroborated trauma memories, perhaps in part due to sensitization from years of accusations that the memories are purely fantasy. Herman (1992, p. 180) made a similar point: Whereas an earlier generation of therapists might have been discounting or minimizing their patients’ traumatic experiences, the recent rediscovery of psychological trauma has let to errors of the opposite kind. 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. Even if there is no memory, but merely some vague symptoms, certain therapists will inform a patient after a single session that he or she was very likely the victim of a satanic cult. Once the “diagnosis” is made, the therapist urges the patient to pursue the recalcitrant memories. Although some therapists recommend against persistent, intrusive probing to uncover early traumatic memories (e.g., Bruhn, 1990), others enthusiastically engage in these therapeutic strategies. Evidence for this claim comes in a variety of forms: (a) therapist accounts of what is appropriate to do with clients, (b) client accounts of what happened during therapy, (c) sworn statements of clients and therapists during litigation, and (d) taped interviews of therapy sessions.

Therapist accounts.

One therapist, who has treated more than 1,500 incest victims, openly discussed her method of approaching clients ( Forward & Buck, 1988 ). “You know, in my experience, a lot of people who are struggling with many of the same problems you are, have often had some kind of really painful things happen to them as kids–maybe they were beaten or molested. And I wonder if anything like that ever happened to you?” (p. 161). Other clinicians claim to know of therapists who say “Your symptoms sound like you’ve been abused when you were a child. What can you tell me about that?” ( Trott, 1991a, p. 18 ); or worse, “You sound to me like the sort of person who must have been sexually abused. Tell me what that bastard did to you” ( Davis, 1991, p. 82 ).

At least one clinician advocated “It is crucial…that clinicians ask about sexual abuse during every intake” ( Frawley, 1990 ). The rationale for this prescription is that a clinician who asks conveys to the client that the client will be believed and that the clinician will join with the client in working through the memories and emotions linked with childhood sexual abuse. Asking about sexual abuse along with a list of other past life events makes sense given the high instance of actual abuse, but the concern is how the issue is raised and what therapists do when clients initially deny an abusive past.

Evidence exists that some therapists do not take no for an answer. One therapist (who otherwise seemed sensitive to problems of memory tampering) still recommended “When the client does not remember what happened to her, the therapist’s encouragement to `guess’ or `tell a story’ will help the survivor regain access to the lost material” ( Olio, 1989, p. 6 ). She went on to provide the example of a client who suspected sexual abuse but had no memories. The client had become extremely anxious at a social gathering in the presence of a three-year-old girl. She had no idea why she was upset except that she wanted the little girl to keep her dress down. When encouraged in therapy to tell a story about what was going to happen to the little girl, the client ultimately related with tears and trembling one of the first memories of her own abuse. She used the story to “bypass her cognitive inhibitions and express the content of the memory” (p. 6). Later she “integrated the awareness that she was indeed the little girl in the story” (p. 6). One cannot help but wonder about these mental fantasy exercises in light of known research showing that the simple act of imagination makes an event subjectively more likely (e.g., Sherman, Cialdini, Schwartzman, & Reynolds, 1985).

Even if the therapist does not encourage the client to guess or tell a story, stories sometimes get told in the form of client dreams. If discussions of incest go on during the day, and day residue gets into the dreams at night, it would not be surprising to see that dreams of incest might result. Poston and Lison (1990) described a woman with “repressed memories” of incest who reported a dream about watching a little girl ice skate on a frozen river. In her dream, the woman tried desperately to warn the child that monsters and snakes were making their way through the ice to devour her. Although frightened, the woman was powerless and could not warn the innocent child. A few days later, the client began remembering incest from her childhood. Knowing she had “a trusted relationship with a therapist and a survivor’s group that would understand and accept her” (p. 197), the memories began to flow.

Examples of therapists interpreting dreams as signs of memory of abuse can be found throughout the literature. One clinician described with pride how she communicated to her male patient the basis for her suspicions that he had been abused: “On many occasions, I explained that these dreams had preserved experiences and impressions of an indelible nature” ( M. Williams, 1987, p. 152 ).

Frederickson (1992), who has worked with many incest survivors, has also described in detail her methods of getting patients to remember. She recommended that the therapist guide the patient “to expand on or explore images that have broken through to the conscious mind, allowing related images of the abuse to surface. The process lets the survivor complete the picture of what happened, using a current image or flash as a jumping-off point” (p. 97). She also suggested that the therapist help the patient expand on the images and sensations evoked by dreams “to shed light on or recover our repressed memories” (p. 98). She extolled the virtues of hypnosis to “retrieve buried memories” (p. 98) and recommended that patients “jot down suspected memories of abuse you would like to explore. Include your own felt sense of how you think you were abused” (p. 102).

Even if clinicians are not the first to bring up sexual abuse, they will often reinforce what begins as a mere suspicion. One client developed the idea that she might have been sexually abused, tried hypnosis to help her recover memories, and obsessed for years. Only after her therapist stated that she believed sexual assault was “indeed possible” and cited nightmares, phobia of men, and other symptoms as evidence did the client come up with some specific memories ( Schuker, 1979, p. 569 ).

Before leaving the examples of therapist accounts of what goes on in therapy, it is important to add a word of caution. Sherrill Mulhern, a psychiatric anthropologist, has documented the alarming discrepancies that often exist between therapists’ accounts of what they have done in therapy and what is revealed in video- or audiotapes of those same sessions ( Mulhern, 1991 ).

If memories are uncovered–whether after repeated probing, after telling stories, after dreams, or seemingly spontaneously–or even if the memories remain buried, therapists often send their clients to support groups. In one study of clients who had, in the course of therapy, verbalized their victimization through ritualistic abuse, the majority reported that they had participated in these types of groups ( Shaffer & Cozolino, 1992 ). One group, Survivors of Incest Anonymous (SIA), publishes extensive reading materials intended to aid the recovery of incest survivors. (SIA merged with Sexual Abuse Anonymous in 1987.) The criteria for admission make it clear that entry is fine for those with no memories of sexual abuse: “Do you have blocks of your childhood you can’t remember? Do you have a sense that `something happened’?” ( SIA, 1985 ). These and other questions (e.g., Do you have problems with self-confidence and self esteem? Do you feel easily intimidated by authority figures?) are among the set of 20 questions that help a potential survivor decide whether SIA can be of assistance. SIA emphasizes that it is OK not to remember at first, because “Many survivors have `repressed’ actual abuse memories in order to survive.” However, the goal is to remember: “Participating in SIA helps us to remember what happened to us so we can stop being controlled by incest” ( SIA, 1990, p. 1 ).

Although support groups are undoubtedly invaluable for genuine survivors of sexual abuse, as they are for other survivors of extreme situations, such as combat and political persecution ( Herman, 1992, p. 215 ), concerns about the incest survivor groups have been expressed. Do these groups foster the development of constructed memories? An investigative journalist attending a four-day workshop watched the construction of memory at work ( Nathan, 1992 ). With members recounting graphic details of SRA abuse, how long will they listen to the person who can only say “I think I was abused, but I don’t have any memories.” Others have worried in the literature that such groups may induceproto-extension –that is, they actually encourage a troubled person to remember details from other survivor stories as having happened to them as well ( Ellis, 1992 ).

Client accounts.

Another source for suggestions in therapy can be found in client accounts of what happened to them. Recently, clients have been reporting that a therapist has suggested that childhood abuse was the cause of their current distress. However, these clients have no memories of such abuse. One woman from Oregon entered therapy to deal with depression and anxiety, and within a few months her therapist suggested that the cause could be childhood sexual abuse. She wrote asking for help in remembering:


Since that time, he has become more and more certain of his diagnosis… I have no direct memories of this abuse…. The question I can’t get past is how something so terrible could have happened to me without me remembering anything. For the past two years I have done little else but try to remember. I’ve tried self-hypnosis and light trance work with my therapist. And I even travelled to childhood homes…in an attempt to trigger memories.


 One client revealed the suggestive nature of his therapist’s questioning on ABC’s Primetime Live ( ABC News, 1992 ). Attorney Greg Zimmerman went to a psychotherapist in Boulder, Colorado, to deal with his father’s suicide. He told ABC, “I would try to talk to her about the things that were very painful in my life and she kept saying that there was something else” (p. 1). Zimmerman grew more and more depressed as the mystery of that “something else” would not unravel, and then, during a therapy session, his therapist stunned him with her diagnosis: “I don’t know how to tell you this, but you display the same kinds of characteristics as some of my patients who are victims of Satanic ritualistic abuse” (p. 1). Zimmerman had said nothing whatsoever to her to provoke this diagnosis, apparently her standard.

It is easy to find published accounts that describe the emergence of memories in therapy and the techniques that therapists have used to uncover those memories (e.g., Bass & Thornton, 1991). One account, written under the pseudonym of Jill Morgan, told of a series of positively horrifying memories of abuse by her father. He raped her when she was 4 years old, again at age 9, once again at age 13, for seven straight days and nights at age 15, and for the final time at age 18. For the next several years, all misery was withheld from conscious memory, and then, at age 29, she was helped to remember in therapy: “Through hypnosis and age regression, a skilled therapist gave me back my memory” (p. 111). The involvement of hypnosis and age regression prompts the natural inquiry into whether these techniques produce authentic memories. Unfortunately, the evidence is discouraging: There is an extensive literature seriously questioning the reliability of hypnotically enhanced memory in general ( Smith, 1983 ), and hypnotic age regression in particular ( Nash, 1987 ). Hypnotic attempts to improve memory increase the confidence in what is recalled more than the accuracy ( Bowers, 1992 ). Even more worrisome is the impossibility of reversing the process; the hypnotically induced memory becomes the person’s reality ( Orne, 1979 ). With hypnotic regression, men and women have been known to recall being abducted by aliens aboard exotic spacecraft and other forgotten events ( Gordon, 1991 ).

A more detailed client account is that of Betsy Petersen (1991), as described in an autobiographical account, Dancing With Daddy. Petersen, a Harvard graduate and accomplished writer, revealed in her first book that she repressed memory of sexual abuse by her father until she was 45 years old. She now remembers sexual abuse from the time she was 3½ until she was 18. Betsy entered therapy (with “Kris”) for problems relating to her children, and almost a year after starting therapy she started worrying, “I’m afraid my father did something to me.” She tried hard to recall, putting “together a scenario of what might have happened” (p. 65). When she told her therapist about this, she said “I don’t know if I made it up or if it’s real.” Kris replied, “It feels like a story to you, because when something like that happens, everybody acts like it didn’t.” Betsy: “You mean it might really have happened!” Kris told her there was a good chance it had happened. Kris told her, in Betsy’s words, “It was consistent with what I remembered about my father and my relationship with him, and with the dreams I had been having, and with the difficulties I had being close to my children, and also, she said, with the feelings I had during and after sex with my husband” (p. 65). Betsy worked hard to retrieve incest memories: “I had no memory of what my father had done to me, so I tried to reconstruct it. I put all my skill–as a reporter, novelist, scholar–to work making that reconstruction as accurate and vivid as possible. I used the memories I had to get to the memories I didn’t have” (p. 66). 10 If accurate, this account tells us something about one therapist’s approach. The therapist convinces the patient with no memories that abuse is likely, and the patient obligingly uses reconstructive strategies to generate memories that would support that conviction. These techniques can be found in numerous autobiographical accounts (see also Smith & Pazder, 1980.

In addition to the first-person accounts, more formal studies of incest survivors provide clues to what might be happening in therapy. One study ( Shaffer & Cozolino, 1992 ) of 20 adults who uncovered ritualistic abuse memories stemming from childhood revealed that the majority sought psychotherapy because of symptoms (e.g., depression and anxiety). The primary focus of their therapy was “the uncovering of memories” (p. 189). The majority participated in 12-step programs (e.g., Incest Survivors Anonymous) as “necessary adjuncts to their psychotherapy” (p. 190). These groups provided substitute families for the clients who had severed ties with their families of origin. Other similar studies of ritualistic abuse rememberers have revealed that most of the victims have no memory of the abuse before therapy (e.g., Driscoll & Wright, 1991) but that techniques such as hypnosis ( Driscoll & Wright, 1991 ) or dreams and artwork (e.g., Young, Sachs, Braun, & Watkins, 1991) were used by therapists to unlock those recalcitrant memories.

Litigation accounts.

Information gathered during litigation is another source of knowledge about the emergence of memories in therapy. Take the case of Patti Barton against her father, John Peters, a successful businessman. 11 Depositions taken in the case of Barton v. Peters (1990) reveal that Patti Barton began therapy with a Dr. CD, a doctor of divinity, in July 1986. Dr. CD’s notes indicate that, during the 32nd session of therapy, Patti expressed “fear her father has sexually tampered with her” (Deposition of CD, April 21, 1991, Barton v. Peters, 1990, p. 39). This was the first time that anything like that had come up in any of the sessions. Shortly thereafter, Patti related a dream that a man was after her. 12 Dr. CD apparently then used the technique of visualization wherein Patti would try to visualize her past. He got her to remember eye surgery at the age of 7 months. As for the abuse, one of the earliest acts of abuse he managed to dredge up with this method occurred when Patti was 15 months old. “I visualized that my father stuck his tongue in my mouth”.

After he stuck his tongue in my mouth–Well, it seemed to last for hours and hours even though I know it didn’t. But it was awful to me and an event that seemed to last for hours. I started crying, and I crawled over to the wall. And I started banging my head on the wall. And my mother came into the room, and she picked me up. And I tried to tell her in baby talk what had happened. I said “Ma, ma, ma, ma,” and I said, “Da, Da, Da, Da” and I said, “Me-e-e-.” And that’s all that I can remember. (Deposition of PB, May 1991, Barton v. Peters, 1990, p. 193)

Later, Patti would remember that her father touched her in her crotch and put his penis in her mouth when she was three years old, and that she stroked his penis over and over at age four. Rape would come later. Patti’s father eventually agreed to give his daughter the deed to a piece of land he owned, but he continued to deny the charges. Her brother, a Baptist minister in Alaska, claimed that Satan’s wicked spirits planted untruths in Patti’s head ( Laker, 1992 ). Did it take 30-some sessions for the therapist to uncover actual memories of abuse, or 30-some sessions for false memories of abuse to begin to be visualized and constructed?

Taped interviews.

Often, confidentiality considerations prevent access to interactions between therapists and clients. However, when cases get into litigation, special interviewing is frequently done, and occasionally it is recorded. Recordings were done in a case implicating a man named Paul Ingram from Olympia, Washington ( Watters, 1991 ). Ingram was arrested for child abuse in 1988, amid expressions of shock from his community. At the time he was chair of the county Republican committee and was chief civil deputy in the sheriff’s office. He had worked in law enforcement for more than a decade.

The Ingram case began at a time when waves of rumor and media hype over satanic ritualistic abuse were rampant. At first Ingram denied everything, and detectives told him he was in denial. With the help of a psychologist who exerted enormous pressure over endless hours of interrogation, Ingram’s memories of abusing his daughter began to appear. Then the psychologist, with the help of a detective, “interviewed” Ingram’s son. In that interview, the son reported on his dreams, and the therapist and detective convinced him that the dreams were real. 13

In another case, a father (Mr. K) hired a private investigator after his 26-year-old daughter reported a recently uncovered repressed memory and accused him of incest. The investigator, acting under cover, went to see the daughter’s therapist complaining that she had night-mares and had trouble sleeping. On the third visit, the therapist told undercover agent that she was an incest survivor. According to the investigator’s report ( Monesi, 1992 ), the therapist said this to her pseudopatient: “She then told me that she was certain I was experiencing body memory from a trauma, earlier in life, that I could not remember. I could not remember because my brain had blocked the memory that was too painful to deal with.” When the patient said she didn’t remember any trauma, the therapist told her “that is the case and many people at far later times in their lives go through this when the memory starts to surface.” The therapist told her that many people go through this experience, such as “Viet Nam Vets, Earthquake Survivors and Incest Survivors.” When the patient said that she had never been in Vietnam or in an earthquake, the therapist nodded her head and said “Yes, I know.” The therapist then said she should read Courage to Heal, a book she recommends to all abuse survivors. After that there was the Courage to Heal Work-book, which tells survivors how to cope with the fears and memories. She pulled Secret Survivors by E. S. Blume (1990) from the shelf, opened the cover, and read the list of symptoms of incest survivors. With two thirds of the symptoms, she would look at the pseudopatient and shake her head yes as if this was confirmation of her diagnosis. She recommended incest survivor groups. In the fourth session, the diagnosis of probable incest victim was confirmed on the basis of the “classic symptoms” of body memory and sleep disorders. When the patient insisted that she had no memory of such events, the therapist assured her this was often the case.

Why Would Therapists Suggest Things to Their Patients?

The core of treatment, it is widely believed, is to help clients reclaim their “traumatic past” ( Rieker & Carmen, 1986, p. 369 ). Therapists routinely dig deliberately into the ugly underbelly of mental life. They dig for memories purposefully because they believe that in order to get well, to become survivors rather than victims, their clients must overcome the protective denial that was used to tolerate the abuse during childhood ( Sgroi, 1989, p. 112 ). Memory blocks can be protective in many ways, but they come at a cost; they cut off the survivors from a significant part of their past histories and leave them without good explanations for their negative self-image, low self-esteem, and other mental problems. These memories must be brought into consciousness, not as an end in itself but only insofar as it helps the survivors acknowledge reality and overcome denial processes that are now dysfunctional (p. 115).

Another reason therapists may be unwittingly suggesting ideas to their clients is that they have fallen prey to a bias that affects all of us, known as the “confirmatory bias” ( Baron, Beattie, & Hershey, 1988 ). People in general, therapists included, have a tendency to search for evidence that confirms their hunches rather than search for evidence that disconfirms. It is not easy to discard long-held or cherished beliefs, in part because we are eager to verify those beliefs and are not inclined to seek evidence that might disprove them.

The notion that the beliefs that individuals hold can create their own social reality is the essence of the self-fulfilling prophecy ( Snyder, 1984 ). How does “reality” get constructed? One way this can happen is through interview strategies. Interviewers are known to choose questions that inquire about behaviors and experiences thought to be characteristic, rather than those thought to be uncharacteristic, of some particular classification. If therapists ask questions that tend to elicit behaviors and experiences thought to be characteristic of someone who had been a victim of childhood trauma, might they too be creating this social reality?

Whatever the good intentions of therapists, the documented examples of rampant suggestion should force us to at least ponder whether some therapists might be suggesting illusory memories to their clients rather than unlocking authentic distant memories. Or, paraphrasing Gardner (1992), what is considered to be present in the client’s unconscious mind might actually be present solely in the therapist’s conscious mind (p. 689). Ganaway (1989) worried that, once seeded by the therapist, false memories could develop that replace previously unsatisfactory internal explanations for intolerable but more prosaic childhood trauma.

Creation of False Memories

The hypothesis that false memories could be created invites an inquiry into the important question of what is known about false memories. Since the mid-1970s at least, investigations have been done into the creation of false memories through exposure to misinformation. Now, nearly two decades later, there are hundreds of studies to support a high degree of memory distortion. People have recalled nonexistent broken glass and tape recorders, a cleanshaven man as having a mustache, straight hair as curly, and even something as large and conspicuous as a barn in a bucolic scene that contained no buildings at all ( Loftus & Ketcham, 1991 ). This growing body of research shows that new, postevent information often becomes incorporated into memory, supplementing and altering a person’s recollection. The new information invades us, like a Trojan horse, precisely because we do not detect its influence. Understanding how we can become tricked by revised data about our past is central to understanding the hypothesis that suggestions from popular writings and therapy sessions can affect autobiographical recall.

One frequently heard comment about the research on memory distortion is that all changes induced by misinformation are about trivial details ( Darnton, 1991; Franklin & Wright, 1991 ). There is no evidence, the critics allege, that one can tinker with memories of real traumatic events or that one can inject into the human mind whole events that never happened.

 Can Real Traumatic Memories Be Changed?

There are some who argue that traumatic events leave some sort of indelible fixation in the mind (e.g., “traumatic events create lasting visual images…burned-in visual impressions,” Terr, 1988, p. 103; “memory imprints are indelible, they do not erase–a therapy that tries to alter them will be uneconomical,” Kantor, 1980, p. 163). These assertions fail to recognize known examples and evidence that memory is malleable even for life’s most traumatic experiences. If Eileen Franklin’s memory of witnessing her father murder her eight-year-old best friend is a real memory, then it too is a memory replete with changes over different tellings. However, there are clearer examples–anecdotal reports in which definite evidence exists that the traumatic event itself was actually experienced and yet the memory radically changed.

In the category of documented anecdotes there is the example of one of the worst public and personal tragedies in the history of baseball ( Anderson, 1990; described in Loftus & Kaufman, 1992 ). Baseball aficionados may recall that Jack Hamilton, then a pitcher with the California Angels, crushed the outfielder, Tony Conigliaro, in the face with a first-pitch fastball. Although Hamilton thought he remembered this horrible event perfectly, he misremembered it as occurring during a day game, when it was actually at night, and misremembered it in other critical ways. Another example will be appreciated by history buffs, particularly those with an interest in the second world war. American Brigadier General Elliot Thorpe recalled the day after the bombing of Pearl Harbor one way in a memoir and completely differently in an oral history taken on his retirement. Both accounts, in fact, were riddled with errors ( Weintraub, 1991 ).

Evidence of a less anecdotal, more experimental nature supports the imperfections of personally experienced traumatic memories. For example, one study examined people’s recollections of how they heard the news of the 1986 explosion of the space shuttle Challenger ( Harsch & Neisser, 1989; Neisser & Harsch, 1992 ). Subjects were questioned on the morning after the explosion and again nearly three years later. Most described their memories as vivid, but none of them were entirely correct, and more than one third were wildly inaccurate. One subject, for example, was on the telephone having a business discussion when her best friend interrupted the call with the news. Later she would remember that she heard the news in class and at first thought it was a joke, and that she later walked into a TV lounge and saw the news, and then reacted to the disaster.

Another study ( Abhold, 1992 ) demonstrated the malleability of memory for a serious life-and-death situation. The subjects had attended an important high school football game at which a player on the field went into cardiac arrest. Paramedics tried to resuscitate the player and apparently failed. The audience reactions ranged from complete silence, to sobbing, to screaming. (Ultimately, fortunately, the player was revived at the hospital.) Six years later, many of these people were interviewed. Errors of recollection were common. Moreover, when exposed to misleading information about this life-and-death event, many individuals absorbed the misinformation into their recollections. For example, more than one fourth of the subjects were persuaded that they had seen blood on the player’s jersey after receiving a false suggestion to this effect.

These anecdotes and experimental examples suggest that even details of genuinely experienced traumatic events are, as Christianson (1992) put it, “by no means, completely accurate” (p. 207).

Can One Inject a Complete Memory for Something That Never Happened?

It is one thing to discover that memory for an actual traumatic event is changed over time but quite another to show that one can inject a whole event into someone’s mind for something that never happened. There are numerous anecdotes and experimental studies that show it is indeed possible to lead people to construct entire events.

Piaget’s memory.

Whole memories can be implanted into a person’s real-life autobiography, as is best shown by Piaget’s classic childhood memory of an attempted kidnapping ( Piaget, 1962; described in Loftus & Ketcham, 1991, p. 19 ). The false memories were with him for at least a decade. The memory was of an attempted kidnapping that occurred when he was an infant. He found out it was false when his nanny confessed years later that she had made up the entire story and felt guilty about keeping the watch she had received as a reward. In explaining this false memory, Piaget assumed, “I, therefore, must have heard, as a child, the account of this story, which my parents believed, and projected into the past in the form of a visual memory.”

Loud noises at night.

Although widely disseminated and impressive at first glance, Piaget’s false memory is still but a single anecdote and subject to other interpretations. Was this really a memory, or an interesting story? Could it be that the assault actually happened and the nurse, for some inexplicable reason, lied later? For these reasons it would be nice to find stronger evidence that a false memory for a complete event was genuinely implanted.

An apparently genuine 19th-century memory implantation was reported by Laurence and Perry (1983) : Bernheim, during hypnosis, suggested to a female subject that she had awakened four times during the previous night to go to the toilet and had fallen on her nose on the fourth occasion. After hypnosis, the woman insisted that the suggested events had actually occurred, despite the hypnotist’s insistence that she had dreamed them. Impressed by Bernheim’s success, and by explorations by Orne (1979), Laurence and Perry asked 27 highly hypnotizable individuals during hypnosis to choose a night from the previous week and to describe their activities during the half hour before going to sleep. The subjects were then instructed to relive that night, and a suggestion was implanted that they had heard some loud noises and had awakened. Almost one half (13) of the 27 subjects accepted the suggestion and stated after hypnosis that the suggested event had actually taken place. Of the 13, 6 were unequivocal in their certainty. The remainder came to the conclusion on basis of reconstruction. Even when told that the hypnotist had actually suggested the noises, these subjects still maintained that the noises had occurred. One said “I’m pretty certain I heard them. As a matter of fact, I’m pretty damned certain. I’m positive I heard these noises” ( Laurence & Perry, 1983, p. 524 ).

The paradigm of inducing pseudomemories of being awakened by loud noises has now been used extensively by other researchers who readily replicate the basic findings. Moreover, the pseudomemories are not limited to hypnotic conditions. Simply inducing subjects to imagine and describe the loud noises resulted in later “memories” for noises that had never occurred ( Weekes, Lynn, Green, & Brentar, 1992 ).

Other false memories.

Other evidence shows that people can be tricked into believing that they experienced an event even in the absence of specific hypnotic suggestions. For example, numerous studies have shown that people misremember that they voted in a particular election when they actually had not ( Abelson, Loftus, & Greenwald, 1992 ). One interpretation of these findings is that people fill in the gaps in their memory with socially desirable constructions, thus creating for themselves a false memory of voting.

In other studies, people have been led to believe that they witnessed assaultive behavior when in fact they did not (e.g., Haugaard, Reppucci, Laurd, & Nauful, 1991). In this study, children aged four to seven years were led to believe that they saw a man hit a girl, when he had not, after hearing the girl lie about the assault. Not only did they misrecall the nonexistent hitting, but they added their own details: Of 41 false claims, 39 children said it happened near a pond, 1 said it was at the girl’s house, and 1 could not specify exactly where the girl was when the man hit her.

Violent false memories

People can hold completely false memories for something far more traumatic than awakening at night, voting in a particular election, or a simulation involving a man and a girl. Pynoos and Nader (1989) studied children’s recollections of a sniper attack at an elementary school playground. Some of the children who were interviewed were not at the school during the shooting, including some who were already on the way home or were on vacation. Yet, even the nonwitnesses had memories:

One girl initially said that she was at the school gate nearest the sniper when the shooting began. In truth she was not only out of the line of fire, she was half a block away. A boy who had been away on vacation said that he had been on his way to the school, had seen someone lying on the ground, had heard the shots, and then turned back. In actuality, a police barricade prevented anyone from approaching the block around the school. (p. 238)

The memories apparently were created by exposure to the stories of those who truly experienced the trauma.

Memories of being lost.

A question arises as to whether one could experimentally implant memories for nonexistent events that, if they had occurred, would have been traumatic. Given the need to protect human subjects, devising a means of accomplishing this was not an easy task. Loftus and Coan (in press), however, developed a paradigm for instilling a specific childhood memory for being lost on a particular occasion at the age of five. They chose getting lost because it is clearly a great fear of both parents and children. Their initial observations show how subjects can be readily induced to believe this kind of false memory. The technique involved a subject and a trusted family member who played a variation of “Remember the time that….?” To appreciate the methodology, consider the implanted memory of 14-year-old Chris. Chris was convinced by his older brother, Jim, that he had been lost in a shopping mall when he was 5 years old. Jim told Chris this story as if it were the truth: “It was 1981 or 1982. I remember that Chris was 5. We had gone shopping at the University City shopping mall in Spokane. After some panic, we found Chris being led down the mall by a tall, oldish man (I think he was wearing a flannel shirt). Chris was crying and holding the man’s hand. The man explained that he had found Chris walking around crying his eyes out just a few mements before and was trying to help him find his parents.”

Just two days later, Chris recalled his feelings about being lost: “That day I was so scared that I would never see my family again. I knew that I was in trouble.” On the third day, he recalled a conversation with his mother: “I remember mom telling me never to do that again.” On the fourth day: “I also remember that old man’s flannel shirt.” On the fifth day, he started remembering the mall itself: “I sort of remember the stores.” In his last recollection, he could even remember a conversation with the man who found him: “I remember the man asking me if I was lost.”

It would be natural to wonder whether perhaps Chris had really gotten lost that day. Maybe it happened, but his brother forgot. But Chris’s mother was subjected to the same procedure and was never able to remember the false event. After five days of trying, she said “I feel very badly about it, but I just cannot remember anything like this ever happening.”

A couple of weeks later, Chris described his false memory and he greatly expanded on it.


I was with you guys for a second and I think I went over to look at the toy store, the Kay-bee toy and uh, we got lost and I was looking around and I thought, “Uh-oh. I’m in trouble now.” You know. And then I…I thought I was never going to see my family again. I was really scared you know. And then this old man, I think he was wearing a blue flannel, came up to me…he was kind of old. He was kind of bald on top…he had like a ring of gray hair…and he had glasses.

Thus, in two short weeks, Chris now could even remember the balding head and the glasses worn by the man who rescued him. He characterized his memory as reasonably clear and vivid.

Finally, Chris was debriefed. He was told that one of the memories presented to him earlier had been false. When asked to guess, he guessed one of the genuine memories. When told that it was the getting-lost memory, he said, “Really? I thought I remembered being lost…and looking around for you guys. I do remember that. And then crying. And mom coming up and saying ‘Where were you. Don’t you…Don’t you ever do that again.'”

A false memory of abuse.

The lost-in-a-shopping-mall example shows that memory of an entire mildly traumatic event can be created. It is still natural to wonder whether one could go even further and implant a memory of abuse. Ethically, of course, it would not be possible, but anecdotally, as it happens, it was done. It is one of the most dramatic cases of false memory of abuse ever to be documented–the case of Paul Ingram from Olympia, Washington ( Ofshe, 1992; Watters, 1991 ). As described above, Ingram, was arrested for child abuse in 1988 at the time he was chair of the county Republican committee. At first Ingram denied everything, and detectives told him he was in denial. After five months of interrogation, suggestions from a psychologist, and continuing pressure from detectives and advisors, Ingram began to confess to rapes, assaults, child sexual abuse, and participation in a Satan-worshiping cult alleged to have murdered 25 babies ( Ofshe, 1992 ). To elicit specific memories, the psychologist or detectives would suggest some act of abuse (e.g., that on one occasion, Ingram and several other men raped his daughter). Ingram would at first not remember these fragments, but after a concerted effort on his part, he would later come up with a detailed memory.

Richard Ofshe, a social psychologist hired by the prosecution to interview Ingram and his family members, decided to test Ingram’s credibility. Ofshe had made up a completely fabricated scenario. He told Ingram that two of his children (a daughter and a son) had reported that Ingram had forced them to have sex in front of him. As with the earlier suggestions, Ingram at first could not remember this. But Ofshe urged Ingram to try to think about the scene and try to see it happening, just as the interrogators had done to him earlier. Ingram began to get some visual images. Ingram then followed Ofshe’s instructions to “pray on” the scene and try to remember more over the next few hours. Several hours later, Ingram had developed detailed memories and wrote a three-page statement confessing in graphic detail to the scene that Ofshe had invented ( Ofshe, 1992 ;Watters, 1991 ). Ofshe (1989, 1992) noted that this was not the first time that a vulnerable individual had been made to believe that he had committed a crime for which he originally had no memory and which evidence proved he could not have committed. What is crucial about the Ingram case is that some of the same methods that are used in repressed memory cases were used with Ingram. These include the use of protracted imagining of events and authority figures establishing the authenticity of these events.

These examples provide further insights into the malleable nature of memory. They suggest that memories for personally experience traumatic events can be altered by new experiences. Moreover, they reveal that entire events that never happened can be injected into memory. The false memories range from the relatively trivial (e.g., remembering voting) to the bizarre (e.g., remembering forcing one’s daughter and son to have sex). These false memories, with more or less detail, of course do not prove that repressed memories of abuse that return are false. They do demonstrate a mechanism by which false memories can be created by a small suggestion from a trusted family member, by hearing someone lie, by suggestion from a psychologist, or by incorporation of the experiences of others into one’s own autobiography. Of course, the fact that false memories can be planted tells nothing about whether a given memory of child sexual abuse is false or not; nor does it tell how one might distinguish the real cases from the false ones. These findings on the malleability of memory do, however, raise questions about the wisdom of certain recommendations being promoted in self-help workbooks, in handbooks for therapists, and by some therapists themselves. The false memories created in the examples above were accomplished with techniques that are not all that different from what some therapists regularly do–suggesting that the client was probably abused because of some vague symptoms, labeling a client’s ambiguous recollections as evidence of abuse, and encouraging mental exercises that involve fantasy merging with reality.

What does this mean in relation to Wade Robson? For the moment, we’ll just give him benefit of the doubt and assume that maybe he, at least, genuinely believes he is having repressed memories of abuse. We know from reports that he supposedly suffered his breakdown-or the beginning of it-in 2010.  It’s certainly conceivable that an aggressive therapist, already familiar with Wade’s history as a friend of Michael Jackson’s-could have planted the idea of repressed memories and could have worked to extract those “memories.” If Robson was in a vulnerable state, he certainly could have been susceptible to the planting of false memories-except in that case, it wouldn’t explain why he then went on to pay glowing tribute to his mentor in July of 2011, when the breakdown and resultant therapy supposedly occurred in March of 2011! (It’s hard to keep track of the dates, however, as they keep changing conveniently to suit the story!). Note, however, that at the time  Robson is speaking here, praising his mentor and his “essence” that he had supposedly already started the therapy that had unleashed his repressed memories of abuse! At the very least, he was supposedly already suffering his breakdown here. Hmm. All I can say is, he looks pretty cool and collected here to me!


It gets better. This interview was from 2012. Watch how utterly at ease he is talking about Michael and their friendship here, supposedly five months after beginning therapy and the resurfacing of his repressed memories!


And watch how coolly he shoots down d**kwad Jimmy Kimmel back in 2003!


This might be an interesting time to look at a recent statement made by body language expert Craig Baxter, whose book on Michael’s body language, “Behind The Mask: What Michael Jackson’s Body Language Had To Tell The World” has become an Amazon best seller. Granted, body language is no more an exact science than repressed memory, and I am in no way endorsing or suggesting this as infallible proof. But I do think it’s very interesting what Baxter had to say in regards to the above videos from Wade Robson:

I have been inundated with messages to cover Wade Robson’s body language in relation to his recent claims that Michael Jackson sexually abused him for 7 years.

I have watched many videos of Wade talking positively about Michael and I see no hidden or concealed emotions. I see NO flashes of disgust, anger, fear, contempt or any other negative emotion linked with the abuse he now claims. Furthermore, I see no other body language behaviour correlated with anxiety or stress. In… my opinion, if Wade had been sexual assaulted by Michael, there would be an abundance of behavioural leakage. There is N-O-N-E.

“I hope the evidence I have presented in my book will prove Michael’s doubters to be wrong, as there is an overwhelming body of evidence that shows Michael to be innocent in every sense of the word.” < This is final sentence I wrote in my book about Michael Jackson. The sooner the world realises this the better.

Kind regards,



It Was The Highest Grossing North American Tour Of 2012...And Wade Robson Was Out!
It Was The Highest Grossing North American Tour Of 2012…And Wade Robson Was Out!

For the moment, I want to return to Robson’s 2011 vid discussing the Cirque du Soleil show. Let’s ask the logical question: If you had suddenly remembered that this person abused you-not once or twice, but repeatedly over a seven year period, would you want to be involved with a multi-million dollar production that is glorifying your abuser?

Well, maybe. If you were getting to be said director of such production. Except that never happened, either.  That gig went to Jamie King (also directing the current Michael Jackson One Cirque show, and who also replaced Robson on the Britney Spears Circus tours).

“But here’s the rub.  A spokesperson for the Michael Jackson Estate — which produced the Cirque du Soleil show — tells TMZ … Robson was “on the list of choreographers but his son got sick and he wasn’t used.”  The spokesperson said there was never a contract between Wade and the show.”

And it has not escaped the notice of some that Robson (or his attorney, more aptly) filed the claim on the same day as the opening of the One show. Hmm. Kind of begs the question: Could this have possibly been the motivation behind the suspicious timing of the claim, and not the AEG trial, as so many have suspected? Or is there still a connection? While it seems plausible, it doesn’t explain the motivation for the two, other alleged claims that has been hinted by at least one tabloid source.  So what exactly is going on? Obviously, some force is behind this latest rash of “claims.” I do not buy for an instant that three perfectly grown men have suddenly had a rash of repressed memories, all bubbling forth simultaneously.

That being said, the possibility had always been in my mind that, at some point, someone might try something like this. It’s a crying shame, considering that a dead man should be allowed to rest in peace. In my estimation, this is lower than anything the Chandlers or Arvizos ever did. At least, they brought their allegations when Michael was alive to defend himself-and when some type of real justice (provided the accusations had been true) could have been carried out. Although as pointed out in the article I quoted above, civil litigation is sometimes encouraged by therapists as a way for victims to reclaim ownership of what happened to them, the unique circumstances in this case just makes the whole thing very, very suspect. The person being accused is deceased; there is no chance for criminal justice, and no chance of a defense. Michael isn’t here to deny the charges. His estate, meanwhile, is generating money hands over fist. And Michael Jackson is an easy target, since there is still a lot of public doubt and speculation regarding past allegations.

The simple fact is, these days it doesn’t really matter whether Michael is/was guilty or innocent. The accusation alone is sufficient, for it is the accusation that will guarantee Robson the attention and the results he wants. Those who want to believe Michael was a pedophile and child molestor, and already have their minds made up regardless, will believe it, anyway. It will guarantee maximum negative publicity, which is something we know the estate doesn’t want. Therefore, if we are thinking the way any logical extortionist would think, we might conclude: Paydirt. Either the estate is going to give me what I want, to make this go away, or I will make such a stink that they wish they had.

We don’t know how this will turn out until it goes before the probate judge, who of course may still toss the whole thing out unless he/she buys into the repressed memory excuse. Otherwise, the statute of limitations has long expired on Robson. At any rate, the absolute worst thing the estate could do would be to pay this guy a dime. If they do, they are only setting a precedent for many more bogus such claims to come out of the woodwork (as the Daily Star reported, those other two so-called allegations waiting in the wings are doing just that…that is, waiting to see how the Robson case pans out. Let’s translate: They are waiting to see if, ultimately, there is any pay out!).

And speaking of setting a precedent, that is definitely something that needs to be discussed in more detail, and which will be in upcoming installments. If I’ve heard the phrase “Where there is smoke, there must be fire” one time, I’ve heard it a million since this story broke. But what the average layperson fails to take into account is the unique history of how the first set of allegations made against Michael Jackson paved the way for a trail of “phantom” cases and bogus, “phantom victims.” The reputation that unfortunately dogged Michael after (and even before) the Chandler case made such accusations all too easy to pull off. It didn’t even particularly matter if the claims could be disproven; for many, simply making the accusations could mean a huge payoff in terms of media attention and lucrative offers from tabloids. If you’re not familiar with the long trail of phantom victims and bogus claims from those who have unsuccessfully tried to set Michael Jackson up through the years, then just wait until we get to Part 5…it will boggle your mind! The simple truth is that, at this point, Wade Robson doesn’t even have to have his own memories or his own story to make a semi-credible case for himself. With so much detail of the Chandler and Arvizo cases being public record, all he has to do is parrot the details of those cases; maybe twist a few details around here and there, and he will have a perfectly believable story to sell. And those prone to believing Michael was guilty will simply see it as evidence of a repeated pattern, rather than questioning the source of his information.

Regardless of what happens with this debtor’s claim, Robson may well end up with a substantial payoff, just in terms of the offers he will get to speak to the tabloids. It’s an established fact that the tabloid magazines and news shows will pay big bucks for anyone willing to make up dirt on Michael Jackson. Whether the story is true or not has never been a matter for concern. Michael’s former maid Blanca Francia was offered $20,000 to lie outright for Hard Copy. When I interviewed Michael’s artist friend David Nordahl in 2010, he spoke of having been offered as much as $25,000 by the tabloids and media.

Nordahl says he was constantly bombarded by tabloid and media requests, some even offering up to as much as “$25,000″ to “dish dirt” on Michael. True or not, it didn’t matter. “They would want to know who the kids in the paintings were, what their names were,” he said. “Well, we couldn’t give them any names, because none of the kids really existed. They were all made up.”

(That interview in its entirety is still on the OldAllforloveblog website, but the link may be currently down; however you can also read it here:
Wade’s own mother, Joy Robson, was reportedly offered a six-figure sum from The National Enquirer to change her story and claim that Michael Jackson had molested her son. She was also approached and bribed by Victor Guiterrez, according to Jermaine Jackson’s book You Are Not Alone. The following is an excerpt from sanemjfan’s latest post on Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0 (and who, btw, is also posting the entire transcript of Robson’s 2005 testimony, as well as that of his mother and sister Chantal):

The below commentary is from sanemjfan:

Before we get to her testimony, I want to share an interesting tidbit of information from Jermaine Jackson’s book “You Are Not Alone”; on page 155 , he briefly describes how Joy was approached by a “journalist” name Victor Gutierrez in 1992. He was conducting an “investigation” to prove his suspicions that Jackson was a pedophile, and after meeting with Gutierrez, Joy immediately phoned Jackson’s office:

Excerpt from Jermaine's book about VG approaching Joy Robson, part 1

Gutierrez published the trash book “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” overseas, but was unable to get a US publisher to distribute it after he lost a multi-million dollar slander lawsuit against Jackson in 1997. Throughout the book, Gutierrez wrote about his interactions with Joy Robson and other associates of Jackson (including the Chandlers), but fortunately his book was fact checked by using Joy’s testimony in this aptly post titled “Joy Robson vs. Victor Gutierrez: The Truth against Lies”. There are almost two dozen posts that have been written to refute the lies of Victor Gutierrez (that number of posts is indicative of how instrumental he was in Jackson’s downfall), and you can see them all here.

Not only did Joy reject any money that Victor Gutierrez offered her, but she also turned down a six figure bounty from the National Enquirer! Here is an exceprt from page 159 of Jermaine’s book:

Joy Robson turned down money from National Enquirer to lie on MJ

It’s really unbelievable that Joy would turn down money from the tabloids and reject Victor Gutierrez’s assertions during Jackson’s darkest hour, yet all of a sudden do a complete 180 degree turnaround and support her son (in my opinion, he silence so far is a sign of support for her son).


Joy Robson and the rest of her family defending Michael in 1993:


Just to add my own two cents to what sanemjfan wrote above, it really doesn’t bother me what Chantal or Joy have to say about this-or not, as the case may be. They are Wade’s family, so I would expect that they would support him. I bear them no particular enmity. They weren’t the ones who made this claim; that was solely Wade’s own doing. This time-unlike the Chandler and Arvizo cases, where the “accusers” were minors and their parents the ones who were largely orchestrating things-we have an adult who is acting solely of his own accord. I am sure that Wade’s family may be going through their own shock at this bomb Wade has dropped, and may not be quite sure how to deal with it. So for now, at least, I am not concerning myself too much with them. I will, however, keep an eye on their future words and actions. I am sure they are once again getting offers from tabloids, so we’ll see if Joy Robson maintains the same integrity she has displayed in the past. In upcoming installments, I will be looking at some of both her and Chantal’s court testimony, as well as Wade’s (remember, Robson has sworn under oath-twice!-that nothing inappropriate ever happened!).

Will The REAL Wade Robson Please Stand Up?
Will The REAL Wade Robson Please Stand Up?

The big question that remains is…will the real Wade Robson ever stand up? Which one do we believe, the old, reliable 1989-2011 version that we all grew to believe and know so well, or this new (and not so  improved) 2013 version who has suddenly become a stranger to us-someone we thought we knew, but apparently did not? (Perhaps we never did).

In upcoming installments, I am going to be addressing several issues. Of course, this is still a developing story, so as with all SIP’s (that’s stories in progress!) I have to allow some flexibility to accomodate those developments. But among the things I will be looking at in more depth in upcoming installments will be: 1. The psychological (and misunderstood)nature of Michael’s relationships with children, which is really where this all begins; 2. Michael’s relationship with the Robson family, and how it compares to other families he befriended; 3. Wade’s staunch, adamant, and nearly 20-year-defense of Michael (so what the heck was that all about if he really believes what he’s saying now?); 4. How the pattern of this case follows the ones that have gone before-and why that may actually vindicate Michael; 5. The peculiar and unique history of the allegations made against Michael (why he’s been targeted so often, and why so many bogus/phantom cases), and 6: What the future and implications of this latest claim may mean-regardless of what a judge decides.

Given how closely entwined these topics are, I expect there will be lots of overlapping, but that’s okay. None of these can exist in isolation, as they all form an essential role in understanding what is happening-and more importantly, in arriving at some sense of just what the heck is really going on here.

UPDATE: 5/15/13: We may just have the answer to the question, What the heck is really going on? Answer: Wade Robson has lost his frickin’ mind! Now he has apparently decided that his debtor’s claim isn’t enough. In what has to be one of the most weirdly bizarre and unprecedented cases in recent history, Robson has decided to sue a dead man-or at the very least, it seems, every profitable entity connected with him! TMZ broke the story today. As a rule, I don’t link to TMZ or any of the trashier tabloids, but since TMZ seem to be the ones breaking these stories and updates exclusively, there isn’t much of a way to avoid them, unfortunately.

Here was the story TMZ reported:

Wade Robson WILL have his day in court in his attempt to prove he was molested by Michael Jackson … even if he’s shut down by the Michael Jackson Estate.

TMZ has learned … Robson has filed a civil lawsuit in L.A. County Superior Court … and it has nothing to do with his creditor’s claim against the Estate. We broke the story … Robson belatedly filed his creditor’s claim, alleging MJ molested him between the ages of 7 and 14.

Robson may get shut down by the probate judge because he waited too long to file his claim.  But the civil lawsuit we found will NOT go away that easily.

The allegations in the civil lawsuit are sealed, but TMZ has obtained the face page of the complaint, which shows Robson is suing DOE 1, an individual, DOE 2, a California corporation, and DOE 3, a California corporation.  As for who these anonymous DOES are … TMZ has done some digging, and it’s clear.  Robson is targeting MJJ Productions — Michael’s record label (owned by Sony) which hired Wade when he was 11 — and MJJ Ventures … which produced Michael’s music videos.
The two corporations may have been involved in bringing Wade to the U.S. from his home in Australia, and it’s clear Wade will argue they had some responsibility for protecting him — kind of like the relationship between priests who molest and the Catholic Church.

As for the individual DOES (Wade names 50 DOES) … it’s very clear from our research that Robson is targeting the two executors of the MJ Estate — John Branca and John McClain.

Short story — even if Wade loses in probate court, he can probably have his day in civil court and put Michael Jackson and allegations of molestation before a jury.

And-just as I predicted here yesterday-Wade is apparently planning to do the media circuit, kicking off with an interview on The Today Show scheduled for 5/16. TMZ posted this video of him  arriving at JFK airport, ostensibly for his Today Show interview. In the comment section, we were discussing Wade’s body language here as compared to many of the earlier videos posted here, where he was still adamantly defending Michael as his friend. I am going to say that after watching this vid twice, I have somewhat reassessed my earlier opinion. I don’t think he has the same, calm and easy demeanor as in those earlier videos-and certainly none of the sincerity. He seems curt, angry, and evasive. Yes, dealing with paparazzi is annoying, but all the same, something just seems very off about Wade now. To me, his very demeanor now comes across as someone with something to hide, and as someone with malicious, ulterior motives. Dare I say it? He just looks like a snake in the grass here!

This seems a really good time to call attention back to this, and redouble our efforts to get this passed!



UPDATE: 5/16/13: Wade’s TODAY SHOW interview and my analysis of it: (Note: I am no Craig Baxter, but I’m going to give a good stab at it, anyway! Hopefully, Baxter -the REAL body language expert-will be weighing in shortly).

However, let’s note already that Robson has dropped a huge bombshell, in having publicly recanted his “repressed memory” defense. Well, good for you, Wade! We knew it was baloney, so at least you came to your senses on that one. But…where does this leave his credibility now?

Since the show’s airing and the posting of the vid this morning, I’ve been reading various amateur attempts at analysis (and admittedly, mine is one more amateur attempt to add to the growing list). But I want to caution against placing too much emphasis on things like eye contact and breaking gaze. These things can mean someone is lying. But they can also be signs of intense concentration or a kind of defense mechanism when speaking on a subject that is emotionally distressing.

However, Wade’s entire demeanor here seems to me incredibly calculated and rehearsed-far more than he ever appeared in all of his videos praising Michael, which seemed to derive from a naturally bubbly personality and the easy, spontaneity of truth.

That is gone now. THIS Wade appears calculated and restrained, and under duress. (The duress of his lie? Fear of its repercussions? Guilt? Fear of not living up to his coaches/sponsors? Or the strain of bearing the burden of truth? It could well be all of these; I’ll explain more in due order).

I do sense a lot of anger in Wade. I believe the stories of the breakdown are true. But just who is he angry at, and why? Well, if we could get to the heart of that, we could certainly get to the heart of this whole mystery.

There are a couple of very obvious stress triggers for Wade in this interview: Any mention of money, his coaching story, and when pressed directly about his feelings for Michael-then and now. I think it would be fair to say that his interview represents a mixed bag of lies and truth. But how to separate which is which?

At 1:54 Robson is asked how he feels. His statement, “I feel strong” is a huge contradiction between words and body language, and to me is at the core of everything that is wrong and “off” about him in this interview. He is not feeling strong or confident at all; quite the contrary, his body language and entire demeanor is that of someone feeling very vulnerable and unsure of himself. Ever hear the phrase squirming? I believe wholeheartedly this is a man squirming inside.  He keeps a very defensive pose throughout the interview, with legs crossed and body posture very rigid. This is a sign of extreme discomfort. Since Wade is already a public figure, and has been for much of his life, we can’t attribute this to nerves, so obviously it is the discomfort with the subject at hand.Now, possibly, there are two ways to read into this. One could be that he is under duress because he is lying, and knows it. Another “possible” explanation could be that coming out the other end of a traumatic ordeal, such as a complete emotional breakdown, can leave one feeling drained and devoid of animation. It’s too close to call which it might be, but I would reason to guess that Wade HAS been through some sort of trauma in the past year, and it has either left him  shell shocked OR has just completely transformed him into a bitter, lying jackass. Take your pick.

What does he mean by “MY truth?” His sister Chantal used that same choice of words on her FB page.

Here is something Wade would have learned from his idol MJ: When Michael released his album “HIStory” there was a reason that the emphasis was placed on “HIS,” giving the title an instant double meaning-or additional layer of meaning. History, in essence, is written by the conquerors. History is a narrative written by others, of past events that have shaped us into who we are. But in emphasizing “HIS” Michael was personalizing the story to say, “This is MY history and MY story.” It remains to this day one of the most clever album titles in all the “history” of pop music.

But it can also be a very neat way to circumvent truth. After all, no one can invalidate one’s personal truth because truth is always in the eye of the beholder. A child, for example, may recall an event completely differently from the way the adults around him remember it. Does that, then, make the child’s version invalid? Or the adults’? No. It is simply two versions of the same truth, or the same reality-but viewed differently because the perceptions of an adult are vastly different from those of a child. A house that looks incredibly small to an adult may, for example, appear incredibly large to a small child. You get the idea.

If Wade Robson says, “This is my truth,” who is going to argue that? I think his words are coming from a complete knowledge and understanding that, from this moment going forward, there are going to be two distinct versions of this “truth”-the one he puts out vs. what the fans of Michael and his proponents will continue to put out to deflect him, not to mention the attorneys down the road who will rip him under cross examination.  By phrasing it as “my truth” he is getting an early edge on the uphill battle against his credibility that he knows is coming.

It can also be read as a defiant statement against what the rest of the world thinks. Either way, he is making his phrasing very deliberate in order to circumvent the tough questions to his credibility that are surely coming.

It’s like trying to argue with a class of freshmen in English 102 that everyone’s interpretation of a piece of literature has validity…to a point. But then, at some point, you have to be able to back your claim. If you don’t have the evidence to back it up, your entire thesis/hypothesis will fall through. Same thing here.

Wade is asked about his 2005 testimony. Here is where he drops the ball completely and admits this was never an issue of repressed memory. But here is a huge problem for Wade. His own attorney has already made the statement to the press that this was a case of repressed memory! He has doctors who have already sworn to repressed memory as the entire basis of his claim! And basically, by admitting now that it was not repressed memory and that he was always aware of what was happening to him (alleging anything “did” happen), he is confessing that-as a fully competent adult in 2005-he knowingly committed perjury on the witness stand!

Either way, his credibility is shot because the way any judge is going to look at this case is: This guy either lied big time-twice!-under oath, and once as a fully competent adult, OR he is lying now. In either event, it puts his credibility into dire question.

I wanted to share with you a kick-ass comment I read from GlitterySocks on the Positively Michael forum (the underlined emphasis is mine):

I hope that people are not conflating the issues you mentioned with the facts at hand. Here, the facts at hand are that 1) his lawyer said that it is a repressed memory, and 2) that is what the case is built on. This is the entire psychological phenomenon that they used as a basis to be eligible for this late filing, and to explain the discrepancies in his 2005 testimony. Surely Wade was complicit with this assessment prior to filing– I would imagine that extensive tests and analysis occurred before deciding to go forward with this lawsuit. Doctors are involved in this case based on the repressed memory theory and lawyer statements have been made to the public (ie-potential judge and jurors). Now this incredibly critical point is suddenly dismissed and it is a case built on something else entirely (and which may not be eligible for a late filing). 

I do not see how any judge or jury will ever be able to ascertain if this man is ever telling the truth about anything.



The problem is that, regardless of whether this is being treated as a civil matter of a debtor’s claim, the statute of limitations isn’t that easily circumvented. And Wade has just effectively shot down whatever slim chance he had on the repressed memory angle-not to mention having called his entire history of credibility into serious questioning!

Wade’s next uncomfortable trigger is when pressed about his 2005 testimony. He waivers visibly under any direct questions regarding money or this alleged “coaching” from Michael Jackson. Here is why I have a very hard time buying his coaching story: He states very specifically that after the Chandler allegations broke, Michael would call him every day and they would role play, rehearsing what Wade was to say.

For starters, Michael would have been way too smart to be having such phone conversations with ANY kid at ANY time, but especially after 1993! Michael was all too aware that anything said in a phone conversation could be taped at any time, by anybody, and used against him. As a celebrity, he was always aware of the threat of extortion; and over the years, as his mistrust increased, he would have been extra careful to not put himself in such a vulnerable and incriminating position.

Of course, given the nature of what he was being accused of, and its dire seriousness-and knowing full well that his young friends would be questioned and even grilled, it might have been understandable that Michael may have coached him in some regard about what to say; after all, even a true statement from a child can be misconstrued by an over zealous attorney or investigator. So perhaps it might be plausible  Michael did coach him, but I don’t buy that these sessions occurred over the phone, and certainly not every day.

Wade breaks his gaze and shifts when asked directly about what Michael did to him. Of course, that again could be read two ways: Shame and embarrassment with discussing such a private issue, or lying. It seemed to me that he was almost fishing for a plausible response that would sound honest enough without making him sound as if he was totally throwing Michael under the bus (even though, of course, he was doing just that!). It is interesting that the information he did share sounded suspiciously like Jordan Chandler’s interview with Dr. Gardner. Again, this “could” be proof of a pattern, but just as likely, could also mean nothing more than that Wade is familiar with these sources. Take it for what it’s worth.

And just to reiterate a very powerful comment I saw on TMZ, “Michael wasn’t role playing with him for the last three years!”

And let’s go back to this point, which can’t be stressed enough: Wade Robson was a 22-year-old ADULT when he testified in 2005. If he was being manipulated, he was freely and willingly allowing himself to be manipulated!

No, here is the straight and skinny on that. He was either being completely truthful in 2005, OR:

He is a stinking, lying piece of offal who thoroughly enjoyed having sex with MJ, loved it, loved Michael, and loved what Michael was doing for him, and loved him even into adulthood, so much that he was perfectly willing to throw Gavin Arvizo and the others under the bus…and is just as willing now to throw Michael under that bus with him. (And isn’t it strange that he would use the term “an expression of our love?” Yes, I know he was supposedly quoting Michael, but I detected more than a hint of mutual sincerity in that statement. As they always say, it’s a very thin line between love and hate, and what I believe is that something-whatever-has pushed Wade over that edge from love to hate).

Sorry to be so blunt, but those are the only two choices. Wade doesn’t get to have it both ways. And given his adult status at the time, he can’t just admit he lied in 2005 and brush it all off that easily. “Oh, I was brainwashed.”

Like I said before, this is a young man with a LOT of answering to do, either way. It boils down to one simple truth: He is a liar. Whether he lied in 2005 or now, either way he is a liar. And I can’t wait for the cross examinations to begin!

Is there any sincerity in his interview? I believe there is still some genuine. mixed emotion when he is asked how he feels about Michael. There is a hint of the old animation here. All of his praise of Michael’s talent and as an inspiration to him through the years has been sincere, and that still comes through here. But there is also a lot of obvious discomfort with once again being put in a position to describe Michael in even these mixed terms. Again, this can be read one of two ways: Discomfort because it is a distressing and painful subject, or guilt because it forcing him to confront and acknowledge what he is doing to this man’s legacy and to his children. Since it can be read either way, I don’t know how much weight to give it, but clearly it is a sore point for him.

Whatever the case may be, it was a done deal when he uttered the “p” word and Michael’s name in the same breath, on national TV. There is no turning back from this point. Fans are never going to forgive Wade Robson. Michael Jackson’s family and children are never going to forgive him.

Okay, so maybe he doesn’t need the fans, or the Jackson family.

But he does need a judge to take him seriously, and at the rate he’s going, he is effectively shooting himself in the foot.

And besides, there’s something to be said about burned bridges. You never know when you might want to turn back, or wish you’d never been so quick to light that match.

Wade has burned his bridges along with his credibility.

Of all the things I take from this interview, there are only two things for which I believe Wade is truly sincere: Something has happened to him in the last year or so. Perhaps he was abused (but who’s to say that Michael was the abuser? As Corey Feldman has said, pedophilia is rampant in Hollywood). Could it be possible that he is simply transferring his anger and pain at another onto Michael, simply because Michael is an easier target and/or AEG is sponsoring him to lie?

Well, that is getting into the realm of pure speculation, but here is one thing that is not speculation: Wade Robson, currently, is a very angry and troubled man. My personal belief is that he is making Michael a scapegoat for his own issues-and not for the reasons he is raising here.  His current demeanor also reveals a strong, sociopathic streak that was not evident before. He seems to be out for #1 now, and will stop at no means to do that.

I will apologize again if some of my words seem uncharacteristically blunt, but either way the scales are tipped (whether you believed Wade in 2005, or now) he has openly revealed himself as a liar who places his own needs and his own motives ahead of the welfare of others. He did not care about other abused children in 2005 (and let me remind you again, he was a fully capable adult at that time) and he does not care about them now.

What he does care about, very much,  is Michael Jackson’s money.

But I have a feeling all the money in the world can’t fix Wade Robson’s problems.

Whatever they are.

UPDATE: 5/17/13: Craig Baxter has posted his analysis of the interview. Here are Parts I and II:



ETA: And…while it may not seem like much, this latest video from TMZ Live does set something of a historical precedent. For perhaps the first time ever, we see a gossip outlet seriously questioning the story of an MJ accuser. While I’m not ready to give TMZ any cookies just yet-trust me, they are relishing this story just as they have always relished any dirt on Michael-I think this does represent an important and progressive step forward. (Harry Levin is still a douche, however; just maybe a slightly less douche than before!):



132 thoughts on “Wade Robson: What The Heck Is Really Going On? Pt 1”

  1. Great start, Raven, to what promises to be a time of examination, re-examination, and though-provoking analysis of Human Nature. I’ve allowed myself to wonder down those dark roads of ugly possibilities, too, because I felt I owed it to Michael Jackson and to myself. Glad to say I emerged at the other end with a good result. Again, thank you for all your great work here.

    1. I think what is puzzling and troubling many (who are not necessarily MJ fans and therefore have no emotional investment in this story one way or another) is this: IF Wade is telling the truth now, and was lying all those years, then why? That is another whole spectrum of abuse and the psychology of abuse victims that I’m going to be looking into, because the simple fact is that it can and does happen. I am sure that everyone is familiar with Stockton Syndrome. What has to be determined is whether this possibly applies in Wade’s case. But again, we now have these reports of these other claims and that, to me, is enough to shoot down the theory. It is just too conveniently coincidental that three alleged “victims” would all surface at the same time, making similar claims.

      1. “IF Wade is telling the truth now, and was lying all those years, then why?” 2 words: Stockholm Syndrome. The point could be made that Wade identified with Michael and was trying to protect him.

        “. . But again, we now have these reports of these other claims and that, ….It is just too conveniently coincidental that three alleged “victims” would all surface at the same time, making similar claims.” Not at all Raven. The attorney for WR could have hire private investigators, or gone thru old trial transcripts and contacted other kids who they believe could help bolster WR’s case. It is not coincidental at all. Each would have their own attorney. Or the story could be bogus, but I tend to believe it.

        1. “The attorney for WR could have hire private investigators, or gone thru old trial transcripts and contacted other kids who they believe could help bolster WR’s case…”

          Yes, the latter especially could certainly be a plausible possibility.

  2. That 2011 video is very strange. He knew at the time that he wasn’t going to work for the show. The video is from the end of July 2011 and the tour started in October. I guess, by July, the Cirque and the Estate already made their choice.

  3. Although TMZ first reported the breakdown happened in March 2011, later they modified it to March 2012. That Masterclass Legends 2012 video was uploaded on YT in July, 2012, but fans checked out the Twitter account of the reporter and it seems the interview was made Mid-March, 2012. So Robson can say that the breakdown happened after that, in the second half of March, 2012. But it doesn’t matter much IMO, his story still stinks.

    Either it’s a repressed memory case or he will have to say he deliberately lied all these years, including under oath. Not only that, but he will have to explain 20-years of non-stop praising of Michael! Even if for some reason he’d choose to cover for his molester in court, no one forced him to make all those gushing comments about Michael in almost every interview he gave! Often he brought it up voluntarily and he did not only praise him as an artist, but also as a human being!

    Right after MJ’s death he wrote this on his website:

    “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 human kind.”
    Wade Robson in 2005. 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.

    I love you Michael.”

    I would not think of my molester as the person who made me believe in the pure goodness of human kind, but maybe that’s just me. He could have stayed silent or issued a statement with some cool and distant praising of MJ’s artistry, but no, he volunteered to praise him as a person as well and in gushing terms! Just like in many other interviews before and since Michael’s death!

    His other choice is to go the repressed memory route. And as you detailed in this article that doesn’t look very good either. It’s an extremely controversial theory. This is what the American Psychological Association writes about repressed memories:

    “If there is so much controversy about childhood memories of abuse, should I still seek help from a mental health provider if I believe I have such a memory?

    Yes. The issue of repressed or suggested memories has been overreported and sensationalized by the news media. Media and entertainment portrayals of the memory issue have succeeded in presenting the least likely scenario (that of a total amnesia of a childhood event) as the most likely occurrence. The reality is that most people who are victims of childhood sexual abuse remember all or part of what happened to them. Also true is the fact that thousands of people see a psychologist every day and are helped to deal with such things as issues of personal adjustment, depression, substance abuse and problems in relationships. The issues of childhood abuse or questionable memory retrieval techniques never enter into the equation in the great majority of therapy relationships.”


    So they say that someone has genuine repressed memories is the least likely scenario as most people who had been victims of childhood sexual abuse remember it very well! Just like what you said from your own experience, Raven. And in this case it seems increasingly unlikely, since he apparently claims he’d been abused for 7 years and we are talking about a guy who for 20 years had been constantly bombarded with questions about whether MJ molested him. I don’t think it’s possible to repress memories under such circumstances.

    And while the scenario of genuine repressed memories is the least likely, we know implanting false memories is more than possible – and it doesn’t even seem that difficult. Here are some videos.

    This is a two part video about how unreliable repressed memories are:

    And this one is about an experiment when they planted false memories in people’s mind about a certain event in their childhood that in reality never happened. A week was enough for 50% of the people in the experiment to think the event really happened…

    I also think that July 2011 video where he talks about the Cirque show as if he’s already working on it is very, very strange. According to the Estate, although he was on a shortlist he was never picked and there was no contract between the show and Wade. So why does he talk about it in an interview as if it’s a done deal and he’s already on board and working hard on the project? It seems like he really, really wanted that job (again, why if MJ molested him as a kid?) and it must have been a massive disappointment for him that he did not get it. So massive that he would do this as a revenge? Or so massive that it’d really contribute to a breakdown and to shift blame from himself he’d accept a therapist’s offer of MJ being at fault for it at the end of the day?

    It’s also interesting that according to TMZ he put his appartment on sale on March 21 this year. He managed to sell it on May 8, a day after his allegation went public and at a higher price than what he asked for! How lucky… Here is a little timeline of the sale together with the dates of other things happened in this case. Interesting at least:

    February 27 – AEG trial to go ahead
    March 21 – Judge dismisses AEG’s appeal and trial set to go ahead, also the day the judge allowed the allegations to be raised in the trial
    March 21 – Wade Robson puts his house up for sale
    April 30 – AEG trial begins
    May 1 – Wade Robson files his claim against the estate
    May 7 – allegations go public
    May 8 – sells his LA house for a higher asking price

    He moved to Hawaii according to TMZ, where his wife is from.

    1. I am glad you mentioned the house sale. I had thought to mention it, but by the time TMZ broke the story, I already had Part 1 almost completed and, seeing as how I already had so much info crammed into this one post, I felt that update might be better served in another upcoming part of the series.

      There have been conflicting reports over whether he is, in fact, moving to Hawaii. Some have said Las Vegas. Either way, it seems pretty obvious, judging by the timeline of his sale, that he had a plan firmly in place.

      It also seems he is well aware that, once the story broke, he was bound to not be very popular or welcome in LA any longer. Of course, I could also understand why someone who has had an emotional breakdown (if there is merit to that story) might want to just get away from the hustle and bustle of LA and make a fresh start somewhere. But as with everything else concerning this story, the timeline is just fishy as hell.

  4. Hi Raven;

    I heard that Tom Mesereau was going to be on “The Today Show” this morning, but when I checked there was no mention of him. However, they did a clip advertising their “exclusive” – Wade Robson interview tomorrow, May 16th. Perhaps Mr. Mesereau will be on then to refute Robson’s claims.

    I wonder if Robson could look into Michael’s children’s eyes and accuse their father of this. Human nature never ceases to amaze me, especially the darkest side. Very sad.

    1. Apparently Today is doing a remote segment from Hawaii and other places on another story. As Robson lives in Hawaii now, it’s a perfect time to interview him. Scheduled for Thursday, May 15. I also didn’t see Mesereau scheduled for today either. The Today site isn’t user friendly in terms of listing segment times and guests. I think it’s deliberate so viewers will have to watch the entire show. Ugh!

      1. TMZ has a video of him arriving in JFK, so he’s going to be in the studios. He looked fine in the video when asked about it – relaxed, smiling, even cocky.

        1. Hmm. “Relaxed and even cocky” — exactly the way he looked in those videos praising Michael Jackson. Apparently he has limited emotional range, from A to B.

        2. I agree with Judith. The guy seems to have exactly two ranges of emotion. Perhaps we’ve been wrong in trying to read too much into his past demeanor. It seems, whatever the situation, Wade is a quite competent and cool liar-the trademark, in fact, of the pathological liar.

    2. This is exactly the route I feared he would take. (Note: You heard it here first, lol!).

      So now it looks as though Today is setting this up to, in essence, “try” Michael Jackson on TV.

      So here we have a case where a deceased man cannot even defend himself, and it’s going to be played out via a media blitz for Wade Robson.

      He will do this to put the pressure on the estate to pay out. What do you want to bet he will be willing to promise no more interviews if he “gets” what he “wants?” (To borrow from Evan Chandler).

  5. Raven,
    I know you’re right when you say that Michael’s innocence is not a faith, but it is a fact which can be reached with the study and research of the evidence. But this is a case so impossible, so ridiculous, so obviously instrumental, that I can hardly believe it’s true!
    O my God, that repressed memories resurface when? At 4 years after the death of Michael and when it circulates the opportunity to make money or advertising or other benefits!

    I feel disgust at the fact itself but also for the sense of the non-respect for the real victims of childhood sexual abuse.
    Sounds like a joke, it seems a show, it looks like shit in the round!

    Sanemjfan on his last post has also floated the idea shared by many that if they come forward to say other detractors of being abused by Michael.

    And this does not increase the absurdity, mockery and even the futility and stupidity of the thing in itself?

    1. All I can say is that if it is being orchestrated, they are doing a very stupid job of it. Throwing these possible other two allegations into the mix-as if to tease-has in my estimation simply blown the whole cover. It is a scam and someone is behind it.

      I made the comment that I did because I hear so many fans say that they just know Michael would never hurt any child because he wasn’t “that kind of person.” Well, what exactly is “that kind of person?” A pedophile doesn’t wear a sign on their back. And, contrary to what the haters say, there is no “profile” that all pedophiles fit conveniently into.

      Is it “possible” that Michael could have been such a great, global humanitarian, had such a genuine love for children and an interest in their welfare; that he could have written all those beautiful songs and profound words-and still have been a pedophile? Yes, it is possible. Absolutely, it is possible.

      That doesn’t mean, however, that he was. And that is why it is so important to look at the facts of each case-which so far have vindicated Michael in every regard. That’s why I’m not scared to wade in the muck, because having been there, done that, I found no logical reason why anyone should doubt Michael’s innocence.

      Of course, there is nothing wrong with having faith, as well. It’s just that I cringe when I hear fans using that as a defense. “I know Michael didn’t do it because he wasn’t that kind of person. Michael was charitable and kind, etc…” That kind of logic isn’t going to convince doubters. Faith is a beautiful thing, but if the goal is to convince a doubting public, it is not enough.

      1. Yes Raven, thanks for your answer, I understand this very well.

        I had a terrible mom, and without going into details, I tell you she was kind and charitable, and that many people consider her a treasure of a woman.

        I know what you want to say and why you say it, I know deep inside.

        I wanted to point out just how much this latest accusation is absurd, it is so ridiculous that it seems impossible to talk of pedophilia, but rather to attempt to extortion versus the Estate and stop.

        Does not it seem a theater of the absurd, but not just for Michael but for the manner in which is going on?

  6. One other thing – since Robson claims this happened starting when he was 7 until 14 – that is 1989 to 1996. So this predates Chandler and continues through Michael’s marriage to LMP. How is it possible he represses memory of abuse at the same time abuse is supposedly occurring? Is that even possible? When Chandler story broke, would not that have been a huge trigger? And wouldn’t he be able to help support Chandler’s claim?

    1. These are the two biggest reasons why I cannot buy his story. His age and the alleged time frame of the abuse just don’t add up to a repressed memory scenario.

      Many of those who believe his story think that he was just flat out lying all along, and knew it. I would actually believe that before I would believe that this has anything to do with “repressed memory.” Only that still wouldn’t explain his apparent cool and ease of body language in all those interviews.

      I personally believe that the sentiments he has expressed for Michael throughout the years was sincere, but that now, something for whatever reason has overridden those feelings. Just what that “something” is remains a mystery.

      1. WR will tell u they were sincere because he believed them, but now his veil has been lifted he see clearly now.

        The real problem I see for the Estate is WR & MJ shared a bed. I do not know if regularly or off & on, but it did happen, and that information was provided in 2005 by Michael’s own defense. WR can simply build on that using the repress memory as the corner stone. This is unlike the Arvizo where MJ had witnesses that he slept on the floor and gave them the bed.

      2. Many of those who believe his story think that he was just flat out lying all along, and knew it. I would actually believe that before I would believe that this has anything to do with “repressed memory.” Only that still wouldn’t explain his apparent cool and ease of body language in all those interviews.

        It’s funny because the choices here are:

        a) repressed memories of 7 years of sexual abuse and only remembered after seeing a psych after a breakdown last year
        b) knew it all along but lied and paid tribute to MJ repeatedly of his own free will and is now lying about having repressed memories in order to circumvent the statute of limitations on his claim.

        Which one makes him seem most credible? The one which is totally implausible or the one where he’s a liar?

        1. Forgive the brutality: he is a liar. I am a psychiatrist working in a public hospital in children’s areas.
          And a good therapist would immediately lie.

          A repressed memory is not valid for all these years and does not work in this manner.

          I also agree very much with Nicoletta, when she says that it is also an affront to the children who are real victims of abuse.

          “Memory can be as malleable as clay, warns a clinical psychologist, and the road to recovering memories of child abuse is strewn with the shards of “unwitting” errors by so-called expert therapists. Yapko (Trancework, not reviewed) bravely and horrifyingly suggests that accusations of child abuse are, at the moment, trendy. An expert on hypnosis with strong opinions on the subject of hidden or repressed memory, the author doesn’t hold with the popular theory that those who can’t remember childhood experiences must be repressing them, that repressed memories must be traumatic, and that trauma equals abuse–probably sexual abuse. “Abuse happens,” he mourns, “but so do false accusations.” Confronted with patients confused about whether they had been abused, and with seemingly innocent parents whose lives were disintegrating because their grown children had accused them of abuse, Yapko questioned nearly 900 therapists. What did they really know about memory and about recovering past experience under hypnosis? Not much, he found out. What led therapists to the diagnosis of childhood abuse? Commitment to their patients was often distorted by the therapists’ training and personal beliefs: Certain groups of symptoms indicated child abuse whether the patient agreed or not, and resistance equalled “denial.” As a result, vulnerable patients were “unwittingly” (Yapko emphasizes) led to memories of abuse that may or may not have happened. Once an idea is planted, the mind then adds colorful detail, a process called “confabulation.” Dream interpretation–the “astrology of psychotherapy,” he calls it–helps fill in gaps. Yapko offers guidelines for accused parents, involved siblings, and abuse victims. Yapko gives no quarter to child abusers, but offers wise guidance and support to families whose lives have been decimated by false accusations.”

          I ask you the attention this link where there are many ideas that you can read and study.

          1. Thanks for the link, Beatrice. Although it appears Wade has already changed his story and confessed it was never a case of ‘repressed memory.”

            His story is changing with every which way the wind blows now.

          2. I believe he did it, just because some expert said him that the theory is not factually arguable.

  7. Wade Robson’s career peaked about a decade ago, when he was still the “boy wonder” of choreographers. He would still be working and in demand except for his own unwise actions. He was close friends with Justin Timberlake, but he chose to screw him over by having sex with JT’s then-girlfriend Britney Spears, then making sure that JT found out about it. This occurred when Britney and Justin were working together and it caused tremendous tension between them.

    This story is well-known in music business circles. Even if Robson was supremely talented, that would be enough to cause his prospects to suffer. Why antagonize Timberlake by hiring the guy? It could be one reason that Robson was passed over for a string of plum assignments that he assumed were his. He lost three such jobs to Jamie King alone. (It’s even more likely that King is simply better.)

    Robson had to content himself with staging an occasional number for So You Think You Can Dance and appearances at dance conventions, while his rival is making millions.

    Robson is angry. Without Michael, he has no real career. He may feel that Michael abandoned him by dying. Most likely, he just sees this as an easy way to get his hands on big money.

  8. Robson is scheduled to appear on The Today Show (exclusive interview) on Thursday, May 16. I thought the interview would take place in Hawaii (since the show is doing another remote segment from that location), but TMZ (??) reports he’s in New York City which is home to The Today Show studios and had some footage of him getting off the plane at JFK airport. We’ll see how he performs.

    1. With the case still pending, can he even legally discuss it at this time? I’m not sure how this works, since his is only a debt claim and not an actual criminal or civil charge. But it still seems to me there would be some sort of legality involved with him being able to discuss this case too freely or openly.

      Also, does it not strike anyone as bizarre that The Today Show would invite someone on to discuss an ALLEGATION, when the person being accused cannot defend himself? Sort of like a trial, only without the benefit of judge or jury. I don’t see how this could be allowed, but apparently anything goes when it’s Michael.

      So basically, it is playing out just as I said. Wade is going to get his platform, regardless of what happens legally with the actual claim.

      1. Raven, with Robson’s claim being sealed, not to be heard (in closed chambers so I’m hearing) until June 6th), I believe even the Estate doesn’t know its true content. So how can Robson go on tv talking it up until it’s actually unsealed and heard by the probate judge? There’s no way the executors would pay his claim (whatever it is) but unfortunately he’s getting his bully pulpit provided by the usual sources.

        1. I am guessing that MOST LIKELY what is going to happen is that he will end up not giving out any real details about the case at all. I’ve seen these kinds of media set-ups before, where the whole thing is basically a big tease. (People tune in thinking they are going to get some real scoop, when in reality it ends up being more of a fizzle). I think what he will end up doing is answering questions about his motivations and his reasons for taking this action now. They will probably ask him what he hopes to gain by this, and why he has defended Michael all these years. But I doubt he will actually discuss the details of the case that are under seal. Of course, we won’t know for sure until after this thing airs tomorrow.

          I do believe that everyone should be encouraged to NOT tune in to this tomorrow (wait until the vid is available). The Today Show should not be encouraged with a huge ratings payoff for giving Wade this platform; doing so will only encourage other media outlets to court him as well (of course, they are going to do that anyway, so it may be futile but I don’t believe we should play our part in feeding the beast).

          1. I agree, Raven. He’ll say, “Michael Jackson molested me, but I can’t give any details, except that my shrink helped me recover the memory.”

  9. Raven I am just so angry right now about this whole mess. I hope if Mr. Mesereau does speak tomorrow he points out that this is EXACTLY the type of BS Michael had to put up with his whole life. Liars, con men, opportunists always waiting to pounce and take what Michael worked his whole life for. I hope reasonable people will see that this is a cash grab and finally realize that is what happened every time Michael was falsely accused. Then I hope the estate, his kids or whoever sues the bejesus out of him. Where are Michael’s friends to defend him? This is absolutely unbelievable!! (Sorry for the rant)

  10. According to TMZ Robson filed a civil lawsuit – besides Michael he is suing two of Michael’s companies, plus Branca and McClain. I used to give him the benefit of doubt that maybe he was truly led astray by some quack therapist. But it doesn’t seem like that to me any more. His actions seem very calculated and very much focused on the money. It’s a totally deliberate shake-down IMO.

    Here is the article:

    Wade Robson WILL have his day in court in his attempt to prove he was molested by Michael Jackson … even if he’s shut down by the Michael Jackson Estate.

    TMZ has learned … Robson has filed a civil lawsuit in L.A. County Superior Court … and it has nothing to do with his creditor’s claim against the Estate. We broke the story … Robson has belatedly filed his creditor’s claim, alleging MJ molested him between the ages of 7 and 14.

    Robson may get shut down by the probate judge because he waited too long to file his claim. But the civil lawsuit we found will NOT go away that easily.

    The allegations in the civil lawsuit are sealed, but TMZ has obtained the face page of the complaint, which shows Robson is suing DOE 1, an individual, DOE 2, a California corporation, and DOE 3, a California corporation. As for who these anonymous DOES are … TMZ has done some digging, and it’s clear. Robson is targeting MJJ Productions — Michael’s record label (owned by Sony) which hired Wade when he was 11 — and MJJ Ventures … which produced Michael’s music videos.

    The two corporations may have been involved in bringing Wade to the U.S. from his home in Australia, and it’s clear Wade will argue they had some responsibility for protecting him — kind of like the relationship between priests who molest and the Catholic Church.

    As for the individual DOES (Wade names 50 DOES) … it’s very clear from our research that Robson is targeting the two executors of the MJ Estate — John Branca and John McClain.

    Short story — even if Wade loses in probate court, he can probably have his day in civil court and put Michael Jackson and allegations of molestation before a jury.

  11. Michael Jackson’s ‘way of being’ in this world and how he expressed life remain a true puzzlement for many. It often defied the logic, judgment and tenets of basic self-preservation that we accept as common.

    The abuse charges: Jackson’s unorthodox, open and unapologetic relationships with kids-as-friends fed into this puzzlement and created instant doubt among many ordinary people who otherwise had nothing against him.

    Deliberations require us to examine all the available facts, testaments of good character, and good deeds. Yet, we do not have the indisputable evidence we long for to ease our task — smoking gun photos, phone calls or videotapes confirming that Michael Jackson did or did not molest children. Consequently, we make our decision based on the tangible evidence along with the intangible, intuitive human element that, together, conclude either, ‘Yes, he did it’ or ‘No, he didn’t do it.’

    The accusation alone initially tilts the scale in favor of the accuser. This balance may change during investigation. In Michael’s case, the damage was done and — though later found not guilty — he suffered a social death that still lingers today. It can erupt anytime to threaten his memory and legacy. Media manipulation, public hysteria, fear, witch-hunting, outrage, and righteous indignation all re-emerge to form a vortex that swallow up reason and the benefit of the doubt.

    As it is, our system is challenged to separate the good people from the bad people. Bogus claims only muddy the waters and sap needed resources away from legitimate cases of abuse.

    1. “Media manipulation, public hysteria, fear, witch-hunting, outrage, righteous indignation and to re-emerge to form a vortex That swallow up reason and the benefit of the doubt.”

      Yes, unfortunately, is very true, it seems to me also – at times – a sort of staging (so it seems impossible to me!), a theater that sets in motion a new kind of bussiness assets that need the machine to restart.

    2. This is very true, Judith. Well-stated. To make matters even more complicated: even “good” people—people of otherwise good character, who perform good deeds—have actually committed acts of child molestation.

      The system (in this case, the criminal justice system) isn’t so much challenged to separate “good” and “bad” people, as you say, as it is geared toward working out its ideological proclivities on the bodies of people it often already deems “unacceptable” or “suspicious.”

  12. Raven what touched and saddened me most is your own story. Thank you for sharing it again in this context,for an understanding how a real victim feels and goes on with his or her life.
    Ofcourse people are different in how they process trauma mentally and emotionally and its too complex to generalize and draw simple conclusions. But as laymen( most of us) we can go by our own experiences and by common sense and facts.
    My traumatic experience at 6 yrs was my niece drowning when we went swimming where we were not allowed to. Its ingrained in my memory from day one. I never think about it, but I remember that it happened , vaguely what happened and vividly how we felt: terrified and guilty.

    I am always open to look at new facts but as far as I see there is nothing new that will make me give WR the benefit of the doubt.
    I cant feel the slightest sympathy for him, all I see is a cold calculating man, a classic sociopath. Poor Michael.
    To quote Vindicate Mj( Helena) http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/aeg-jackson-trial-day-7-aegs-war-on-michael-and-alif-sankey-as-a-witness-sent-by-god/#comment-44399

    “And now came a new story of the worst human betrayal since the times of Judah Iscariot and a chance testimony from a woman who said that God kept speaking to Michael in the last days of his life.
    This made me feel like a witness standing there in awe and observing a battle which is usually not observed by us mere mortals.
    Something gigantic must indeed be happening in the spheres high above us if such incredible things keep happening. It is in rare moments like these that you realize the truly cosmic scope of the events taking place just in front of your eyes.
    Let me also note that in those days planet Earth was also heading for a solar eclipse (to take place on May 9) which only added extra weight and meaning to Wade Robson’s betrayal and Alif’s testimony about God speaking to Michael as it was happening at the time when the light over a huge part of the planet went out even in the literal meaning of the word.”

    As for WRs mothers silence , maybe she doesnt agrees but does not want to let her son down publically. Or maybe she feels the heat of people who accuse her of selling her kids to Michael.

    My loyalty for Michael still stands solid because it is not based on fandom, but on a strive for justice. In advocating for justice only facts matter or probability when not all the facts are known.
    I am confident in the outcome that Michael will be vindicated again. Judith Mason, allow me to co-sign your wise words.

    ‘I’ve allowed myself to wonder down those dark roads of ugly possibilities, too, because I felt I owed it to Michael Jackson and to myself. Glad to say I emerged at the other end with a good result.”

    1. As I was writing this post, I realized that I do still have a lot of issues with what happened to me. I could feel the anger building up all over again. I said I had forgiven him, but sometimes I wonder in my heart…have I really?

      This is why I say I absolutely do know what sexual child abuse victims go through, and why the “obvious answers” in trying to understand why victims do the things they do simply do not always apply. Every case is indeed different.

      But no matter how you slice it, what Wade is doing stinks to high heaven. If he was abused for seven years, he knew it and he knew it then. And if it was true, he owed it to Gavin and every other kid in potential danger to tell the truth. It wasn’t as if he was still a child in 2005, still having to live in brainwashed fear of his abuser. He was twenty-two frickin’ years old by that point.

      And let’s not forget, he wasn’t just defending Michael, but going above and beyond. He did that for YEARS. So what has changed now? How does a person go from being your mentor and the person who taught you “everything” to being a monstrous abuser like the flicking of a light switch? It just simply doesn’t work that way.

  13. Raven, what I would be interested in knowing is whether from the onset WR went straight to a psychotherapist to treat his nervous breakdown, or he went to a regular psychologist who then referred him.

    “Either the estate is going to give me what I want, to make this go away, or I will make such a stink that they wish they had.” – Raven

    They may want to, but a large fraction of the public will say WR had evidence and they paid to make it go away. Either way it is legacy suicide. A lot of ppl thought the final chapter on the molestation accusations was written in 2005 with an acquittal, and the footnote was written in 2009. However, up comes Wade to tell us “it aint over yet”.

    1. I’d agree with you about the claim that evidence may have been paid to go away (that was what actually worried me most about the case), but the assertion of repressed memories contradicts this greatly. If he truly had evidence of being molested, then the memories would not be repressed. I’ve come across many who believe that Jackson is a child molestor but think this case is bull. In fact, strategy would show us that he should have waited in order to to give his case validity. His timing in regards to the AEG trial, the Immortal Tour, and ONE Vegas show gives the MJJ estate far too much counter evidence of extortion. Despite what you may believe, you can’t deny that this case is grossly fishy. Personally, I believe the outpouring of anger and disbelief against Wade on the biggest trolling comment sections (Yahoo, TMZ) is a testament to how far the case is going to go. I have a feeling it will be turned down to avoid making the Michael Jackson Estate a public ATM. I also find the amount of people around Jackson who have been offered money to lie about him extremely disturbing.

      1. “…His timing in regards to the AEG trial, the Immortal Tour, and ONE Vegas show gives the MJJ estate far too much counter evidence of extortion.” -Yasmin

        I agree, I believe the attorneys for WR coordinated the filing to coincide with these events, especially the AEG trial. More momentum.

  14. Raven, do you see my point how this is much worst than the AEG trial? From the time this story broke I felt the trial was more of a side show because the ramification of this if WR cannot be proven a liar (intentional or otherwise) is way way worst. Plus the fact that this is not coming out of mid-air and that Michael has had other accusers in the past makes it all the more damaging. Plus it is WADE of all the ppl – WADE!!

    Meanwhile this has all the makings of reality tv entertainment. The handsome & charming accuser, the dead freaky superstar and lurid sex. I am will to bet WR will be making the round.

    1. “From the time this story broke I felt the trial was more of a side show…”

      But some might argue that is all the more reason to suspect that AEG is behind it. It has created a diversion from the trial-a big one at that.

      Some are saying that Wade may have simply been motivated by the AEG trial to do this, figuring if the Jacksons can sue AEG for forty billion, it might have gotten him to thinking how much he might be able to get out of the MJ estate and MJJ Productions, etc. But if that was the case, it would seem to me that it would have made more sense for him to have cooled his heels and waited to see how the AEG trial actually plays out.

      1. What if Wade approached the Estate earlier expecting a sort of ransom sum of money instead receiving the finger. This could very well explain why the claim is sealed. They may have dared him to go public in order to avoid future blackmail and extortion. Oh, and I’d like to add that the three round of applause that Sharon Osborne received from her middle aged conservative audience was very calming! Especially since the other woman entertaining the idea of these claims being true got silence in return. Very telling of the public’s opinion.

        I’d also like to express my frustration with Jackson detractors blaming the reluctance victims feel with coming forth on those who believe in his innocence. The false accusation of child molestation is just as prominent and detrimental to the accused as true claims made by a victim. Its foolproof character assassination, especially in th case of Michael Jackson who, before the accusation, established himself as the savior of the voiceless children. He was just so open and unbothered when talking anout his relation with kids. Whether its publicly showing very maternal affection (which is unusual for a man) or speaking unbothered about sleeping wih kids in the same bed. Maybe they should confront the late night comedians who are far too wiling to joke about the raping of children for this hesitance.

        1. “Maybe they should confront the late night comedians who are far too wiling to joke about the raping of children for this hesitance.”

          I agree. Jackson detractors love to joke about child molestation like it’s funny. Throughout the 2005 trial, it was the butt of every late night joke (no pun intended). Then there are the trolls who post their sick pedophile jokes all over the internet. Yet these are some of the same people who pretend to be sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo concerned about the kids Michael supposedly “molested.” In truth, most of these people could care less about the kids. Their big, over consuming drive and goal is to bring down MJ. Mark my words on this:

          If any one of these people dedicated one quarter-one quarter-of the time advocating for real abuse victims that they spend lurking on MJ fansites, stalking fan activities, and posting obsessively about MJ all over the internet, they could make some real strides in the problem of sexual child abuse. Instead, they choose to spend their time obsessing over a small handful of boys who “claim” Michael molested them. Why? Because it’s all about Michael Jackson for them, and they are as obsessed as any fans. Look at the comment sections on any article about him. Look at any general discussion board about him (that is not a fan site). You will see the same bunch commenting over and over. Some of them have been doing it for YEARS. It is their bobby and their obsession.

  15. Raven,
    His lawyers said MJ was a monster and that he threatened him for years correct? How could he know that if he couldn’t remember anything? that was repressed as well? A whole lifetime repressed.

    Also how did Joy not no about all these threats? Is he going to throw his mother under the bus as well? Wouldn’t that set her up for perjury?

    1. Apparently he’s now saying he never had repressed memory, according to his Today show interview. He is saying the press incorrectly reported that. Well wtf? That claim didn’t come from out of thin air. This shows already that his story is full of holes, and he is changing it to suit himself as he goes along.I think he realized all of the holes in his “repressed memory” story that people are now picking up on, and decided he’d better go for another tactic.

      Now he is apparently willing to admit he purjured himself in 2005, but his strategy is to blame that “monster” MJ who threatened and brainwashed him. What a crock. Wade wasn’t a kid anymore by that time, he was a grown ass man. He knew right from wrong.

      1. You know i just heard and really don’t no what to say it is so sad and pathetic.
        He’s not going away for money he was never gunna get any now he is pretending to be this voice of victims it is so wrong.
        His son was born before that july 30th interview. I really do think its about being not picked for cirque and AEG. It has been the perfect smokescreen. I dont agree with Jacksons on how they portrayed MJ but they shouldn’t back out for this reason. I think more of this will continue until they no they cant scare off Jacksons and they will offer a settlement. Jacksons better not accept. If is AEG involved they must be damn scared of what going to be revealed in emails and if other artists around the world see there treatment of mj could cost millions even if they win.

  16. His sister, Chantal on FB: “Hey guys watch the today show tomorrow morning Thursday the 16th. My brother Wade Robson will be telling his truth.”

    HIS truth? Interesting choice of words. If I’m telling the truth then I say “I tell THE truth”, not “my truth”…

  17. I watched the Today Show this morning and following is what I heard:

    Robson on Today Show – Thursday, May 16, 2013

    Footage of Robson dancing and career

    Child psychologist: Sex abused kids often take decades to acknowledge – child psychologist.

    Lauer: Estate says abuse is bid for money. First, how do you feel today?

    Robson: I feel strong, like this is right thing to do. This is my truth

    Lauer: Review testimony from 2005. You asserted Jackson’s innocence then. What happened?

    Robson: First, this is NOT a case of repressed memory as reported in the press. I never forgot what he did to me. I was unable or unwilling to acknowledge the abuse. He abused me for years.

    Lauer: Please be specific about what he did to you.

    Robson: He performed sex acts on me and forced me to perform sex acts with him from age 7 – 14.

    Lauer: You testified under oath that nothing happened. Why lie?

    Robson: I said what I was able to say at the time. Michael told me, “If you ever tell anyone, both our lives and careers will be over.” From age 11, he would call me every day and role-play with me, and remind me that if anyone ever thought we had sex, we’d both go to jail.

    Lauer: Did anyone offer you $ to lie.

    Robson: No. Michael would role-play with me and train me to lie.

    Lauer: You are a Father and have a son of your own?

    Robson: Yes. It was then that I looked at my son and thought if anyone did to you what was done to me, I would kill them. Over 18 months, I had two nervous breakdowns. I didn’t know what was wrong. I looked at my son and imagined him being sexually abused.

    Lauer read quote from Weitzman (Estate): Robson was adamant about Jackson’s innocence. Now he recants. The claim is outrageous. Lauer read quote from Jermaine Jackson: Robson is full of shit.

    Robson: I understand how hard it is to understand. But, the idea that I would put myself, my whole family through this if it weren’t true is outrageous.

    Lauer: Why didn’t you just go to the lawyers quietly?

    Robson: I’ve lived in silence and denial for years. I must speak my truth. I’m not going away and won’t be silenced for money.

    Lauer: When you say Michael Jackson today, what do you feel?

    Robson: Heartbreak , pain. There is no excuse for what he did to me and to others. But, he was a troubled man. Jackson was incredibly talented and gifted. He was many things, including a predator and sex abuser. I understand how hard this is to understand. All it takes is a little education, to understand how typical my situation is. I had no understanding of this until recently, and will probably be learning more as I begin to heal. My son is the one who saved my life.

    The End.

    1. Robson: I said what I was able to say at the time. Michael told me, “If you ever tell anyone, both our lives and careers will be over.” From age 11, he would call me every day and role-play with me, and remind me that if anyone ever thought we had sex, we’d both go to jail.

      Oh boy, oh man, now I KNOW Wade is full of sh**. Michael would NEVER have those kinds of conversations over a phone, knowing full well they could be taped. ESPECIALLY after the Chandler accusations, and Wade is placing the timing of these calls right about that time. Michael may have been naive in some regards, but he was certainly not stupid. His guard would have been up at all times, and the LAST thing he would have been doing is engaging in casual phone conversations freely admitting he was having sex with kids.

      On another note, I am taking it that Mesereau was not interviewed? I had heard that they would be playing his interview as well.

      1. I don’t know how he came accross to the general public, but to me who have seen several interviews of him on YT his whole demeneaor was totally different than how he usually is. It was like he was trying really, really hard to come accross as sympathetic and soft-spoken.

        Interesting that he started with saying it will be “my truth”. Not THE truth? Just like his sister…

        He says it’s not repressed memory. He knew it all along. He knowingly lied in 2005. When asked why he says he was threatened and brainwashed by MJ. He did not understand psychologically what was happening to him and MJ told him it was an expression of love. He claimed MJ threatened that both of their careers and lives would be over if it came out. And that both of them would go to jail (copyright by Jordan Chandler – I see they read Jordan’s interview with Dr. Gardner…). But thing is even at the age of 13 Jordan says to Gardner that he did not believe this threat. So are we to believe that at the age of 23 Wade still believed it as he testified in 2005?

        – With bringing his son into it he was clearly fishing for sympathy.

        – His argument against the accusation that he was lying was that he would not put his family through this if it was a lie. An interesting appeal to emotions fallacy.

        – Why now that MJ is dead and cannot defend himself? “I was in denial for 22 years, I just can’t live with it any more…”

        – He says people need to understand that his behavior is typical of abuse victims. Really? Abuse victims typically go out of their way to praise their abuser at every opportunity they can, volunteraly? They go out of their way to participate in tributes for them? Really? That’s typical abused behavior?

        – “Money won’t make me go away.” How ridiulous when so far they filed civil suits for MONEY. The creditor’s claim was under seal, so they clearly only wanted money from it! The Estate told them to f*** off and now all of a sudden money won’t make him go away. Right…

        It’s just extremely sad. Michael truly had no real friends on this Earth.

        Allegedly his next stop is Access Hollywood. That poor, poor “abuse victim”….

        1. The only ppl MJ had around him on his last birthday who were not on his payroll were his kids. 🙁
          On another note maybe ppl will start to realise he pushed kids away at that age cos they were starting to become the selfish men they turned out to be not because he was a P.

  18. I thought maybe it is not AEG behind it. I have alway felt that there were others, we don’t know about, that were after Michael. Why do I get the feeling now that it maybe has nothing to do with AEG ? The timing is great for that because it allows WR to flatly deny it has anything to do with AEG without lying. Or he may want to get revenge for something he felt he was mistreated by Michael or even others. I do not believe him about the molestation though. And I think he set up.

  19. A good point I saw raised by fans is: what does it make of his mother? If this is true, like he claims, why doesn’t he sue his mother too?

  20. Read from bottom to top. Wow!

    Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 2m
    Thank you everyone for the support.

    Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 22m
    Make no mistake. Since my uncle Michael is no longer here to defend himself. I WILL. Even if that means friendships.

    Taj Jackson Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 33m
    I hate that Wade made me do this, this way. But since my uncle Michael is no longer here to defend himself. I will.

    Taj Jackson Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 39m
    I always told my uncle Michael that I would take a bullet for him. I mean it today just as much as I meant it back then.

    Taj Jackson Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 49m
    “@andjustice4some: This is the note @TajJackson is referring to. via @Wiserlemming http://twitpic.com/cr0d2u ” Yes, that’s it
    View photo

    Taj Jackson Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 51m
    I don’t want to go on TV. I don’t want publicity, I just want the truth.

    Taj Jackson Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 54m
    I will not let them smear my Uncle’s legacy. #Followthetrail

    Taj Jackson Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 57m
    Don’t forget I was living at Neverland when Wade testified during my uncle’s case. I sat there and ate dinner with him and his family.

    Taj Jackson Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 59m
    My hands are still trembling.

    Taj Jackson Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 1h
    That is how I KNOW Wade is lying. Because I AM a survivor.

    Taj Jackson Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 1h
    My uncle was a support system for me and my mom. He wrote a letter to her that many have seen already, u just didn’t know what it was about

    Taj Jackson Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 1h
    I was sexually abuse. By an uncle on my mom’s side of the family when I was a kid.

    Taj Jackson Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 1h
    I am writing these words knowing that the minute I press send, my life will never be the same afterwards…

    Taj Jackson Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 1h
    I will not sit back and let someone flat out lie about my uncle. PERIOD.

    Taj Jackson Taj Jackson ‏@tajjackson3 1h
    What people will $ay and do for money and to $tay relevant is $ickening. De$perate times call for De$perate mea$ures. #Money

    This is the letter he refers to: http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/770962124.png

    1. Thank you, Suzy! Just so you know, the multiple links are what is causing the spam filter to hold your comments in que, so if you’re wondering why some of them aren’t posting immediatly, that is why.

      Yes. I saw that on FB earlier. LOL, I have to admit when I saw the headline with the words “Taj Jackson”, “uncle” and “molested” all in the same line, I was like, “OMG, please don’t tell me Taj is now claiming MJ molested him, too!”

      To be honest, things have gotten so crazy and surreal lately, I wouldn’t have been totally shocked. But no, it was an uncle on DeeDee’s side, apparently.

      This has sure been one hopping news day!

      Well, if there is anything positive to come out of this, at least Taj has now cleared up a mystery that has puzzled many for a long time-the motivation and story behind the letter Michael sent to DeeDee.

      I will write more on this explosive turn of events later, probably in its own post.

  21. “. . . he was freely and willingly allowing himself to be manipulated!”- Raven

    If you know you are being manipulated, then you are not being manipulated. That’s a quote from Nancy Grace, but it says everything.

  22. Now that the repress memory has been taken off the table it will come down to Wade’s word against. . . . against. . . .Well . . . hmmmm.

    1. I wonder what caused him to take it off the table. It wasn’t a press lie…It was extracted from his lawyers public statements. He’s going with the manipulation route- something a little harder to discredit than the concept of repressed memories. This could either end up being rejected, with a big payout (his entertainment TV rounds can only be described as blackmail), a counter lawsuit, or self incrimination. I’m equally interested in all outcomes.

      All I know is that he is a recorded and self admitted liar. Was he lying then or is he lying now. And the audacity to claim that this is not about money? lol

      1. Well I have always maintained that the repress memory was a legal tactic to filing a late creditor’s claim. I don’t know if Wade let it slip that he remembered everything, or his interview was scripted with his lawyer, I tend to believe the latter. They must have seen by now that that approach could never stand up scientifically, but it was worth a shot.

        The one good thing so far is the cryptic letter from Mj to Dee Dee was cleared up. I think the prosecutors had that as part of their evidence pool, but Taj set it straight today.

        1. Yea, that letter was actually sort of heartbreaking and contained an air of desperation. His worry for Tito’s sons seemed authentic, especially considering that Michael didn’t out his nephew in order to provide the much needed clarity the note required.

          Hmm, it seems that the entertainment outlets have already taken to interviewing ex-employees of Neverland. Funny how the ones with a history of selling to tabloids are always the first to speak out.

          1. The media are going to try to find corroborating witnesses to the molestation. I wouldn’t be surprise either if WR’s attorneys do not have private investigators on the case too. If either/both these cases go to court it will be the 2005 trial all over again with much the same players.

  23. What I find weird is that the people who do believe Michael Jackson is a child molester often make bluntly untrue and contradictory statements about Jackson. AND I MEAN COMPLETELY UNTRUE AND THOROUGHLY DISPROVED. Whether it’s citing an ex-employee who has been shown to create tabloid stories for money as factual or making sweeping assumptions about his sexuality as if they have film footage (he was gay-a pedophile-asexual-none of that really matters when it come to the molestation of children). Unfortunately when you whip out transcripts and receipts that prove otherwise they confidently state that it was Michael’s money, ‘power’ and paying off of ‘victims’ that aloud him to get away with these ‘acts’ without a lick of solid evidence….Get real.

    Then BAM, Wade denies the involvement of money (I have to admit, I was relieved) and takes back the repressed memory story which was RELEASED BY HIS ATTORNEY for Christ sake. He was acting like the press pulled it out of their arse. They probably realized how bad it sounded. But! we do know that the premise of the case is psychological. I have to admit, he seems very unstable…I truly wonder what happened with him.

    If Michael Jackson was in fact a *gulp* serial child molester, you’d think that someone as busy and well-traveled as he would have victims coming out in the TRUCK LOADS. He couldn’t possibly have paid them all off. Another point to make would also be the epic raid of Neverland back in ’05…No child pornography…Quite strange from an alleged calculated serial molester.

    *If an organization as large and powerful as the Catholic Church couldn’t keep the plethora of molestation accusations under wraps then how could Jackson????

    I’ve concluded to myself that if Michael Jackson is accused of countless more acts I still wouldn’t believe them if they contain the same lack of solid evidence and undeniably suspicious timing/circumstances of the past cases. People need to stop looking at the number accusations and start looking at the circumstances and content. The fiercest detractors can’t help but side eye some things.

    I don’t know, I just think you’re more likely to see those who believe in his innocence use hardcore facts than those who give the typical ‘he was a freaky drug addict who bleached his skin and slept with boys…therefore he is a child rapist’ (this was more or less an actual statement made on TMZ). Of course you get the stereotypical 15 year old girl proclaiming that Jackson was a Saint incapable of doing such a thing, but even they have a shocking amount of knowledge regarding the accusations. I will even go as far as to say that the sites perpetuating that Jackson was a molester use far less transcripts and investigative reports than vindicating sites. The perpetuating sites frequently rely on published unauthorized books, hearsay, perceived innuendos, and known liars

    1. To be fair, Jasmin, those who defend Michael also rely on published “unauthorized” books…. like Aphrodite Jones’s book, for instance.

      Come to think of it, we don’t have solid evidence that he *wasn’t* gay or asexual, or bisexual. Nor do we have solid evidence that was heterosexual. As for the charges of child molestation, I’ll grant that those allegations have been put more rigorously to the test—indeed, a court of law—and therefore, we can be fairly secure in asserting that it never happened.

      Even so, you say that child pornography was never found at his ranch. Did they check out his computer?

      Sorry to play the devil’s advocate here—and I DO believe in Michael’s innocence. But there’s a lot of fantastical thinking going on on both (of ALL) sides of this issue, and there is no one among us who can assert with 100-percent certainty what Michael *was* *wasn’t* (which largely depends on the larger culture’s language and mores, anyway), and what he *did* or *didn’t* do.

      It’s as Raven said: Lisa Marie is correct is asserting that she wasn’t in the room. Neither were we.

      1. I understand what you’re saying, but rarely do I ever see the use of Jone’s book during arguments or disputes. I do almost always see the use of actual quoting of transcripts. As for Michael Jackson’s sexuality, my issue was with the categorization of who he was as factual by those who really don’t know. I also agree with Lisa Marie’s statement, I just think that labelling someone something as horrific as as a child molester and predator requires a little more than circumstantial evidence. I don’t want to connect the dots when it comes to something like that, this isn’t 1972.

        1. Thanks, Yasmin and Susan. You’re right; you’ve done an estimable job of due diligence. I must admit that when I hear fans talking about Michael’s sexuality, I often lump “gay, asexual, pedophile” together (as if “pedophile even belongs in that category)!

          It really bothers me, so I often feel that I need to point out that heterosexuality isn’t necessarily any more “normal,” in general, than homosexuality.

      2. I’m actually going to be addressing the issue of his sexuality-again-in Part 2 of this series, simply because it is at the core of all these allegations. The thing is, there is no way to be 100% sure of ANYONE’s sexuality because sex is a private thing done in the bedroom, behind closed doors (ok, in most cases, lol). We have to accept at face value either, A: What the person tells us themselves, or B: Look at the partners they choose. If a male celebrity is seen mostly in the company of women; if he marries and has children, the world assumes he is straight. I wouldn’t know, for example, if Brad Pitt is gay or straight. But judging by his two marriages and the fact that he has always been linked romantically with women PUBLICLY, I have to assume he is straight.

        Elton John, on the other hand, has openly stated he is gay and is married to a male partner. Thus, I would have to assume he is, in fact, gay.

        But in the celebrity world, bisexuality is actually more common than either being gay OR straight. And many gay celebs have, nevertheless, had some straight relationships in the past. The rock world has always been largely a bisexual domain.

        The thing is, talking about sex-and someone’s sexuality-is never a black or white issue. And all we can do is look at the empirical evidence.

        Michael always maintained that he was straight. Now, obviously, given the era he grew up in and the era in which he came to prominence, admitting to being gay was a no-no if one did not wish to commit career suicide-especially someone like Michael Jackson, whose fan base is so predominantly female. (These days I am not so sure that is any longer a factor. Openly gay celebs like Adam Lambert, for example, still manage to have a VERY devoted female following. I think that these days, Michael’s fan base would still love him regardless, but in the era he grew up, that was not the case). If we take into account Michael’s Jehovah’s Witness upbringing, it becomes even more understandable. Michael was taught that homosexuality is a straight up sin. I always found it very telling that Michael never used the word gay, but always the more clinical (and less politically correct term) “homosexual.” I think this goes back to his upbringing; I also think it was a kind of thinly veiled contempt, given that he was still using the term in the 2000’s.

        But I am digressing, so let me get back on point. The fact is, Michael always maintained that he was straight. Some people, I know, will say that means nothing. But I think it means everything, because if a person insists they are what they are, it is treading on somewhat shaky ground to try to “out” them. It is simply not our place. And I feel this conviction especially now that he is gone, and cannot speak for himself. That’s why it bothers me to see journalists like Ian Halperin trying so hard to push the gay angle-now that Michael is gone. Pushing a gay agenda onto someone who, in fact, may not have been gay at all is just as damaging to “truth” as attempting to keep up a public facade of “straightness.”

        However, as I was saying, the empirical evidence is where we have to look, since Michael is not here and will never again be able to speak definitively on the matter one way or another. Michael was married twice. I believe now that the marriage to Debbie WAS pretty much a sham (and this was confirmed by Frank Cascio in his book) but I believe the marriage to Lisa Marie was absolutely real, and this is being confirmed with more and more corroborating evidence all the time. The list of women he was romantically involved with, either casually or long-term (and here I will include those he was rumored to have slept with, as well as those who simply claimed they “made out” with him, which still denotes a sexual interest on his part) is quite long. Yes, perhaps if we probed enough, some of those women could be discredited. But not all of them.

        Compared to that list, how many men have publicly claimed a relationship with Michael? I believe (anyone can feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that is exactly two: Scott Thorson and Jason Pfeiffer. And both stories have serious credibility issues.

        Additionally, we know Michael collected hetero porn. Generally, the a person’s porn does reflect their sexual tastes.

        Randy Sullivan, while pushing the asexual agenda, nevertheless was forced to admit in a TV interview that he believed Michael’s baseline was heterosexual.

        Diane Dimond, ironically enough while being one of the biggest proponents of pushing the idea of Michael as a gay pedophile, has stated that there is no credible evidence of his ever having homosexual relationships.

        I didn’t know Michael and certainly was never around him. But I have had opportunities to get to know many who did; some I have kept in close contact. And these days, social media has made it easier for all of us to connect with those who knew him. Most of these people continue to confirm that his interest was in women. At least one of them IS a female friend who says she slept with him (of course I can only take her at her word; it’s not as if I’ve demanded to see photos, lol).

        The bottom line is that I definitely think enough evidence exists to throw out the notion of a gay man. Michael, it seems to me from all indications, had a very healthy interest in women. And while I have always kept an open mind to the possibility that he “could” have been bisexual, I simply haven’t seen the evidence to confirm it.

        I know there are some reading this who are going to come back with the semen stained sheets that the defense wanted thrown out of the 2005 trial. But that’s not empirical evidence of anything. That is circumstantial evidence. Big difference. However, if there is any validity to attach to that evidence, it possibly proves nothing more than that he was a bisexual man who had the occasional bisexual fling.

        But I still have a long way to go in being convinced that this was his orientation, and like I said, I am not comfortable with the idea of trying to “out” someone who cannot speak for himself. Until I have stronger evidence than what I have seen thus far, I remain convinced he was a heterosexual man.

        1. It showed DNA evidence of two other “unidentified” males. When MJ was away in Vegas he had his cousins staying in his bedroom in his absence. We even know that one of his cousins, Elijah, looked up porn on a computer in his bedroom the night before the raid. I’ve been told they also had female friends with them at the time.

          As the prosecution refused to admit that evidence themselves my only guess is they understood this DNA was related to MJ and therefore didn’t want to pursue it as it was easily explainable – hence the difference between “unidentified” and “unknown.”

          1. Yes. Also, it was no benefit to the prosecution’s case since it was determined to NOT be the DNA of Gavin or Star.

          2. They wanted to use it to suggest other men/boys had been in his bed.

            But I think they realized MJ’s side could have it tested themselves and they’d find something much different than what they were claiming. They didn’t test for female DNA, and if MJ’s side proved it belonged to relatives of his it would make them look even more pathetic. Hence why they suddenly decided they didn’t want it entered into evidence, but did still want some other dirty underwear belonging to a guy entered into evidence (it’s against the law for MJ to let people stay in his room in his absence and to need to have their clothes washed), before saying they didn’t want it entered either LOL

          3. I imagine they wouldn’t have tested for female DNA because it would have been irrelevant to their case.

          4. I think the 2005 trial was a teachable moment for Michael with letting strangers into your bedroom. It came out in the Murray trial the Michael did not let anyone upstairs of his home.

          5. He was definitely a lot more cautious after ’93. And after 2005, from all I have gathered, such overnight stays in his bedroom-adult guests, kids or otherwise-were ceased altogether. I think once Neverland was no longer his home, there was an entire paradigm shift for Michael, both in his personal relationships and how he lived his life overall. For starters, he was never again in his own home after that, and living in a rental house after having been accustomed to the luxurious space of Neverland probably lessened some of the motivation for that kind of entertaining. Additionally, he was not in the same mindset. He was no longer that trusting of anybody.

  24. Wade claims he was molested between the ages of 7 and 14 which would have been, when, approx 1989 and 1996. So just where was his mother during this period? I’m aware of the previous statements she made, trusting Michael implicitly, etc., etc., so just wondering why Lauer didn’t raise her “invisibility” during the interview this morning. And Wade using his fatherhood as the aha awakening moment which brought him around to “his” truth, is just plain disgusting. He must have dreamed up this theory on the plane flying east when he realized the repressed memory BS wasn’t going to fly.

    1. Matt Lauer’s questions were awful. He didn’t ask many of the questions the public was actually wondering about. No mention of the videos of Wade praising Jackson, no mention of the AEG trial, no mention of Wade’s financial state, no mention of the Vegas show or the Immortal tour and no mention of the impeccable timing that has left so much of the public confused and skeptical.

      I can’t stop venting about this, sheesh lol. I’m so frustrated by the poor execution. What happened to at least trying when it came to not so subtle extortion?

      Last point- he claims to have been confused by his feeling, assuming that what he and Michael had was true love, yet in 2005 he outright denies the occurrence of absolutely anything sexual in nature. No kissing, cuddling, or inappropriate touching of any kind. That’s not confusion of feelings, that’s a self admitted liar. Did Michael also coach him to preform multiple tribute shows from the grave?

      1. I suppose there is only so much time allotted in an interview segment, and thus only so much ground that can be covered. Still, I agree. His line of questioning left a lot to be desired.

  25. Yasmin, “People need to stop looking at the number accusations and start looking at the circumstances and content.” This is so true. People are looking at the sheer numbers rather than the WHO, WHAT, WHERE of the people involved in making each accusation and the content of the claims. This needs to be addressed one by one, not in a bunch. WR’s claims in no way validate the earlier claims b/c those earlier claims never did hold water, never made sense, and the parents involved (Janet and Evan) were highly suspect and far from convincing. Did anyone really believe the tickling story by Jason Francia? Tickled once a year for 3 years?

    Which leads me to agree with June–where was/is Joy in all this and why isn’t she every bit as liable in any lawsuit as a company that hired WS to perform in a video? As WR’s mother, wouldn’t she be expected to know more about what was going on (according to WR) than a corporation or Branca and McLain?

    1. In a weird way I think these accusations further vindicate Jackson. The general public seems to currently view him as a defenceless father of three children. I don’t think his fans have ever witnessed such a blatant money-grab.

      Many young post-death fans are doing their Internet research which is very easily accessible. Facts and transcripts can be found at the click of a button. You wouldn’t believe the amount of 14 year olds correcting news organizations and gossip outlets on their facts lol. The amount of information that can be found online is stunning. There is no longer reason for ignorance.

      1. Yes, Yasmin. What has somewhat surprised me about this (but in a good way) is the overwhelming amount of support I am seeing for Michael now, and this is despite the fact that Wade-unlike Jordan and Gavin-is engaging in this whole media blitz. But I think it’s just a general, overall cynical view of the fact that his story simply doesn’t add up, the suspicious timing, and just the fact that the whole thing seems so calculated and so bizarrely unprecedented. (Actually, think it is all of the above, rather than support for Michael so much. But if people can see how fishy this story is, perhaps they will be inspired to take a deeper look at the others). I’ve decided, in fact, that after yesterday I am not worried about Wade’s media blitz. Let the fool talk. The more he talks, the more rope he is letting out with which to hang himself.

        1. If even the worse gossip talkshow over here questions Wades motives, it says enough. Its the first time a so called victim of child abuse gets no sympathy at all. Many reasons were already mentioned, but add to it Wades cockiness, his total lack of emotion and that Michael gained a lot of sympathy after he passed. People start to see him more as human than a myth and as a man who was taken advantage of left and right. And somehow many people still feel that you don’t speak ill of a deceased and its unfair to burden his family with these lies. Though I didn’t see these sentiments with Jimmy Savile.
          In the process of making his media rounds its a matter of time before his story will crumble to dust.

  26. Regarding whether repressed memory was initially claimed by them. It was claimed by TMZ that they claim repressed memory (and TMZ isn’t the most reliable source), but WR’s lawyer never actually said it. WR’s lawyer cited CCP 340.1 in that motion which says:

    “(a)In an action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse, the time for commencement of the action shall be within eight years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse, whichever period expires later, for any of the following actions:

    I think people just assumed from this that it will be repressed memory how they will try to get around the statue of limitation. However looking at WR’s interview and this section of the law, there is another way to ger around it. You do not have to say that the actual memories are recent discoveries. It’s enough if you say that it’s a recent discovery that some kind of psychological illness that you have is a result of childhood sexual abuse. And apparently this is the path they take.

    1. That would make it far too easy for the estate to dismiss him as a loon. He’s admitting to mental instability, thereby giving the defense rope to hang him with. At first this all worried me, now it’s becoming a bad episode of Law & Order SVU. Even tmz is confused. Lol

      1. very good point! he is admitting to mental instability and i think he really reflects that fact. he comes across very bizarre.

  27. Raven, thank you for thoroughly delving into this matter, and for disclosing your personal struggles here. I really appreciate that you bring the fruit of your own healing process to bear upon your reflections on Wade Robson’s claims—which (apart from body language, and Baxter’s overreaching and rather forced analysis) make your take on the matter more credible.

    “The personal is political.” That slogan, widely used by the feminist movement in the 1970s, has rung true for so many instances in our lives, I believe. It’s a way of saying that what we call our personal experience isn’t necessarily ours alone. Others have been through similar things. I think we can better understand what has happened to us—ANY of us, including Michael Jackson—by giving full credit to our subjective, interior worlds. I DO NOT mean that anyone should deny the *reality* of what has certainly occurred, or accept the BS that traumatic events are all “a figment of your imagination.” No. I mean that when we own our subjectivity, I think we can better understand and come to grips with a dynamic interplay that lies at the heart of how we feel about our relationship with the world—in this case, with Michael Jackson and his struggles.

    In other words, things not static–they are constantly in play, in flux. We don’t remain the same over time. Neither does Michael. Neither does the world that judges him, as we observe it today. Neither, for that matter, does Wade Robson. This is the only reason why I can find some justification in Robson talking about “my truth,” rather than THE truth—which, if it exists, will forever remain elusive. And to the consternation of my fellow MJ fans, I’ve been asserting this point for as long as I’ve been involved in these discussions. “THE TRUTH,” as a fixed, stable entity that we can grasp and serve up to a misinformed public, perhaps sadly, doesn’t exist.

    Raven, you’ve shown how you’ve done that, and you’ve written eloquently about not only what, but HOW you remember events that have happened in your life and in many ways shaped it. So I wonder: why always the rush to discredit personal experience when talking about MJ, or even admitting that *our own* perceptions, wishes, and desires, inevitably play a role in the ways we think?

    You say you are a researcher first and a fan second. But for myself, I prefer to say that I’m all these things; my fandom plays a large role in the way I think about matters pertaining to MJ.

    1. Nina YF says, “THE TRUTH,” as a fixed, stable entity that we can grasp and serve up to a misinformed public, perhaps sadly, doesn’t exist.” Nina, I agree that subjectivity plays a big role in the way we shape our interpretations of our world, but I must also say I think many of us are often not fully educated or informed when making interpretations. Yes, the ‘truth’ is in flux b/c we are always receiving new information, new facts, new ways of looking at the world. It is, as you say, an evolving process, but in order to evolve towards a better alignment with “reality” we need the best information, the best knowledge, the best facts we can. What disturbs me is the way we often base interpretations on very shaky ‘info’–say from tabloids or from unreliable sources (for ex., paid, unnamed ‘insiders’) or even from the more reputatable, but highly biased media sources that dominate the ‘news.’ This is a huge problem IMO.

  28. I agree with u Raven it is more a dislike/bad taste about Robson than a sympathizing of Michael. A lot of ppl feel he had his chance back in 2005 to say something, but chose to lie, and let Michael walk free.

    Even if you want to believe or like Wade, he just makes it very hard. For example if you believed that he wanted to protect his friend from prison, and lied under oath he did not have to go out of his way to do so many interviews. He simply could have chosen to say “no comment” when asked about Michael. But Wade poured out his love on facebook, twitter, tv, print media, the list goes on and on. He said on “Today” that he was “unwilling and unable” to speak about the molestation, well I feel he should have been equally “unwilling and unable” to speak about Michael – period. What was he doing wanting to design a posthumous tour in honour of his rapist/abuser/lover? It is the staggering number of times he defended Michael even after death when he had a choice not to. Culkin hardly talks about Michael, and I am not saying he was abused, but he made that choice not to immerse himself in Jackson world.

    I liked Wade Robson I looked to his defense of Michael as proof that Gavin was a liar. So what is he saying now? That he did not stand up for a cancer victim? Is he going to contact Gavin and apologize? If you don’t believe him he looks bad, and if you do believe him he looks bad.

  29. Teva said “If you don’t believe him he looks bad, and if you do believe him he looks bad.” I agree very much. The other point is that if this goes to trial (hope not) his family is bound to be involved, sister and mother. How will his mother explain that when Wade was 11 in 1993 and the allegations of the Chandlers were in all the news, how could Joy (who has been very silent about all this so far)–how will she explain that she asked Wade about it and he denied it but she did NOT ask MJ about it? Or did she? How could she have been so confident that nothing happened or was happening if, according to Wade, it went on til he was 14?? If Wade was brainwashed, as he says, he was a child–she was an adult.

    One thing that Evan, Janet, and Joy have in common is that they all wanted an in to Hollywood, for themselves and their kids. Evan was a screenwriter (Men in Tights), Janet was palling around with celebs before MJ and was sending her kids to acting school and to movie sets (Brett Ratner), and Joy was pushing her son’s career too.

  30. IUTD makes a good point about show business kids.

    Children who live their lives in show business are subject to all sorts of abuse and trauma going back to Judy Garland, Shirley Temple, Mickey Rooney, the Little Rascals, and others. Look at Michael Jackson’s life and his experiences as a child growing up in this ‘all too adult’ meat grinder. Jackson revealed the nature of that world to us and how he coped with it the best he could.

    Robson also began performing at a very young age and wanted desperately to be in show business — no doubt encouraged or even driven by his parents. Jackson became a huge star — helping and inspiring countless performers along the way who continue to sing his praises to this day. Robson was one of them. Now he is not.

    Does that mean Michael Jackson is to blame? No. Who knows what happened to Robson in his own family or among his colleagues, competitors and bosses as he climbed the ladder? Remember that Wade Robson did not spend every hour of his life with Michael Jackson. There were long periods when he wasn’t around Jackson at all. What happened then, or even before he met Michael? We really know little about his life except his resume.

    For television, Wade Robson presented a new persona and talking points to make his case. Exit the brash, cocky, confident, dancing bad boy we saw on in earlier interviews. Enter the earnest, subdued victim valiantly working through his characterization of the pain and betrayal of abuse by his former friend and idol.

    Presentation is one thing. Credibility as quite another.

    1. I can almost bet what WR’s lawyers are working on at this moment, and that is to find other “victims”. If it were me that would be job#1 b/c my client has serious credibility issues. Also look for the seal docs to be leaked sometime in the near future. The goal would be put pressure on the Estate to settle. You can bet they want to talk to Jordan Chandler, Ray Chandler etc. If it were me I would want to talk to Stacy Browne also b/c he did write in his book with Bob Jones about Wade Robson (as a kid) being hidden among luggage to get past the paps, or something like that.

      Now if I were the Estate of Michael Jackson. I would have a team combing the internet to find every single interview, tweet, etc that Wade ever gave involving Michael (Timeline).

      If this goes to trial this will be the first Michael Jackson molestation civil suit.

      1. That was supposedly Brett Barnes.

        If they look for “victims” again, I suspect Jordan and Gavin will both duck out from it and refuse to take part. Also, as June Chandler and Jordan are now close again, she’ll also be off the list.

        They’ll be left with the same crazy third party witnesses they had last time.

        1. Jordan Chandler has managed very successfully to keep quiet and below the radar for many years. My friend and I were on a quest to find him a couple of years ago and were only mildly successful — having missed him by a few months only. Whatever his reasons, nothing has induced him to speak this far. With Wade Robson ‘coming out’ so to speak, the press may again be on his tail.

          1. Jordan more than likely would not turn up, but I am sure they will contact him. However, the prosecution listed 8 allege victims,so who knows what will happen.

            As for me I will never ever say ever again that any of the friends of Michael will not say he molested them. If Wade could turn any of them could. Wade was the most passionate of Michael’s defenders.

        2. Jones & Brown’s book said it was Barnes, but I have a friend that found evidence that it was Wade, but I will have to double check with her.

          “They’ll be left with the same crazy third party witnesses they had last time.” – lacienegasmiles

          Sure they will be the same witnesses, and chief will be Wade Robson. Wade made all the others that testified they saw impropriety between him and Michael look like crazy liars in 2005. Now they will testify again, and they just have to repeat what they said before about Michael and Wade, and suddenly you have less crazy corroborating witnesses. I wonder if Jason will testify again.

          1. Their testimony had problems without Wade – sort of like how Star and Janet and Davellin were terrible witnesses for Gavin. So even with Wade now stating what they say happened, they had huge holes in their testimonies, and will suffer once again very badly on the stand. Adrian McManus recently lying again and selling tabloid stories will only serve to further hurt her even more, as her stories become more and more fantastical with each retelling.

            Jordan will not testify for the prosecution. Nor will any of his family, and that includes June. Jordan currently isn’t in the US.

      2. They won’t get Jordan Chandler testify on their side. If he wasn’t willing to testify in 2005 for the prosecution (and had so strong feelings about it that he even threatened them with legal action if they tried to force him) he won’t testify now for Wade. And if he’d ever got on a stand I’m not sure he would say what Wade wants to hear.

    2. I think his resentment has a lot to do with failed business opportunities. And who knows what has been going on behind the scenes since he tried to get on board the immortal show. By the time the Chandlers went public, the extortion had been well on the way.
      In the 3/12 interview where he kind of blame Michael for never having a formal dance education. Michael had told him to stay as he was and not let an education get in the way. He says he now he wished he had had this education. So the blame game was already starting.

      Its clear that he did have therapy(coaching or rather coaxing)) because he copied a lot of their jargon. The My truth is also something used in therapy, but it does not necessarily mean it is THE TRUTH or that a therapist believes it. As long as it helps the patient/client. But to base a case on that is a route many therapists will be very reluctant to do. Especially since the evidence is mostly circumstantial.

      He already said that he knew exactly what was going on, so he can never again claim false memory. But he had to blame it on something, hence the therapy.

      All the other accusers were proven unreliable in court, so they cannot support Wades case anymore.
      Anyone else (McCulkin, Barnes, Cascio, nieces and nephews)testified or publically spoke pro Michael.
      So if anyone of them ever joins Wades case, they run the risk to be accused of perjury, conspiracy to hide a crime and obstruction of justice. Thats why they did not come forward- yet. Too risky.

      I really hope this will not be settled. It should be a precedent and a deterrent for other would be accusers.
      As publically as he accused Michael, as publically his accusations should be scrutinized and debunked.

      1. @Sina

        “In the 3/12 interview where he kind of blame Michael for never having a formal dance education. Michael had told him to stay as he was and not let an education get in the way. He says he now he wished he had had this education. So the blame game was already starting.”

        Interesting observation! It seems like his professional career stalled, but maybe he’s the type of person who won’t take personal responsibility for that, who needs to blame someone else. So maybe he started to blame his career decline on Michael’s advise, he started to be angry with him for that and now takes out his “revenge” on him? It would seem like an overreaction to any normal person, but is Wade a normal person? He does have some kind of mental instability after all (breakdowns, psychological illness).

        1. Suzy , the interview is a must watch for what he has to say about Michael and his ‘shift of perspective’ which could very well be what he now claims to be a nervous breakdown.

          Q: So after the show (on stage with MJ 7 yrs old) he told your mom, made her promise not to let you take formal training right;do you think it had an effect on you?…………
          A: “yeah for sure I mean yeah of course Im sure my movement would be very different(joking) Id maybe be a WR prima ballerina you know. Its interesting, probably for me personally maybe some of the good sides to not having so much formal training was, I was particularly forced to find my own movement, you know and my own style, but at the same time, like there is times when I wish I would have done more formal training. Im not the kind of, Im sort of like you know, do as I say, not as I do . I tell everyone to kind of get all the training they can”

          He sounds as if it was his own choice to take a break, not that he had a nervous break down. He said he came at a turning point in his life when he met his wife and got to know, surfing, soccer, family, nature,a lifestyle completely different from the entertainment world he grew up in. He says he “stepped back on the work realm and ever since trying to find a balance “.After the “perspective shifting he felt reinvigorated to come back to the work with a different kind of perspective.”
          As for how fame affected his life. He says that “as much as he once idolized Michaels life, for all the amazing things and work that he did, he saw how that tormented him as well and he didn’t want that particular version of life for himself”.

          There is no doubt that he did have a turning point in his life, 30 is an age of reflection and getting married definitely is. He was also a child star and that might have taken a toll on him the same way Michael felt about his lost childhood. Though he was quite lucky compared to Michael for the incredible jumpstart Michael gave him that a 14 y o could only dream of. .
          But I don’t believe for a minute that it all happened the way he told.
          I get the feeling when he did this interview he had already had the breakdown or shift of perspective as he calls it ,And he probably made up the story afterwards.
          I don’t know much about his career after MTV or what he s been doing lately, but if indeed it declined it happened after he had or TOOK the break. The dance world had probably changed so much ,by the time he was trying to come back , maybe he could not get to the level he had before. Then the blame game started.

    3. Judith ,your observation about child stars is spot on .
      Seeing his son, he probably realizes his heydays are over at 30, he has no formal education so his prospect is not great, he lost his childhood and for what? so why not blame it on Michael Jackson.

      He looked quite confident and cocky when he was filmed arriving at LAX airport to cash in his 15 minutes of fame. He just puts up the right demeanor to fit with the occasion. A classic sociopath. They can imitate any given emotion and are very convincing.

  31. As early as 2008, Britney Spears websites had posts from fans about Wade Robson being fired because of his drug use. If he does any more interviews, I wonder if anyone will ask about those allegations? (All Matt Lauer did was give Robson a platform to spout his claim.)

    Robson fumbled a series of opportunities, starting soon after MJ’s death. He “pulled out” of directing a dance movie that went on to gross $140,000,000. The excuse was that his son was sick, but that could have been a cover story. In 2011 he gave an interview where he talked about what a tremendous responsibility choreographing the Cirque show was, but he didn’t have the job. Maybe he was led to believe he was in contention, and the Cirque organization, which drug tests its employees, declined to hire him.

    Robson’s entire professional identity revolves around his connection to Michael Jackson. He exploited the connection for years. Like the Chandlers, the Arvizos, and so many others, he may feel entitled to remain part of MJ’s circle forever, and to benefit from it financially, by whatever means necessary.

  32. Retrospective sexual abuse claims seem to be the order of the day , and in the UK where I live ” witch-hunt” is an understatement, with no-win no -fee lawyers plying their trade, and cases being brought to court solely on the word of the victim, and no corroboration.(I’m not just talking about high pro-file celebrities here )

    I think Mr Meserau has a lot to answer for !!. He somehow had an incredible talent for exposing the lies of the prosecution witnesses, yet he couldn’t identify people who were telling lies in his own camp !!!
    (I am being sarcastic here just in case anyone is wondering).

    This is the problem for me.. not only are Wade’s revelations damaging to himself and obviously Michael, but by default they cast doubt on everyone else who “defended” Michael too.

    And you know what Wade, you’re casting doubt on the integrity of all of us who have made an effort to research sufficiently to believe in Michael’s absolute innocence.(Yes all of us who would never ever condone any sort of sexual abuse).

    You were part of Michael’s inner circle , and only you (and Michael)know the truth of your relationship. How can we possibly know ?

    So was the 2005 trial the biggest cover up ever.. or has somebody (other than Michael Jackson) messed with your head?

    1. “This is the problem for me.. not only are Wade’s revelations damaging to himself and obviously Michael, but by default they cast doubt on everyone else who “defended” Michael too.”

      Exactly, Mag. It will be nearly impossible now to give serious credence to the words of people like Culkin, Barnes, etc.,which is sad because it simply casts a cloud of doubt and suspicion now on everyone. The whole idea of what is lies vs. what is truth has just become murkier, and I’m sure has made us all just a little more jaded.

      Even now, if some of these young man came forth and thoroughly discredited Wade, I would still have to wonder if, say, five years from now, or ten years from now…who’s to say they won’t do the same thing?

      1. Raven,

        You echo my sentiments exactly. I would go further as to say it would cast doubt on the verdict of 2005!

  33. It is tragic and dangerous that a serious crime like child abuse — with its inherent complexities of belief, evidence and prosecution — is pounced on by con artists and used as a tool for extortion and character assassination. Such devilry is more chilling in the ease with which it is accomplished — generating doubt and rash judgments that play on our fear, hysteria, and protective instincts. ‘Where there’s smoke, there’s fire’ — which literally has not been true since the invention of the smoke bomb.

    In reaction, we develop a self-protective, fearful mindset. We modify our behavior and curb natural expressions of friendliness and affection for fear of being misunderstood. Caregivers and counselors employ safety precautions (open doors, glass offices, video cameras, or staff member nearby to confirm that nothing inappropriate occurred during sessions.

    Maybe all these things are now essential and emblematic of the litigious, bitter, acrimonious atmosphere in which we live. Perhaps, they are all justified if even one person is spared being wrongly accused.

    We hear it said (even among some staunch supporters) that Michael Jackson might have spared himself terrible pain and controversy and greatly reduced his ‘target-ability’ had he employed these precautions. Yes, he could have kept children safely at arms length; allowed them on Neverland grounds but NEVER in his house; no stay-overs under any circumstances; no contact with children at all unless protected by video, surveillance equipment and other adult human backup close by. Yes, this sounds very sensible, practical and safe — and quite sterile.

    Yet, Michael chose to be open, affectionate and unapologetic in his relationships with children. It was the center of his humanity, creative expression and view of the world as it could and should be – but not as it is. Safety versus vulnerability. Michael chanced vulnerability and felt he was safe. We know what it cost him.

    A rhetorical question: If Michael (as he was) could live again, would he live differently?

  34. Since I think Wade Robson is not telling the truth now either, I would not think Mr. Mesereau has something to explain. What if Wade indeed told the truth in 2005 ? There was no reason for him to lie, although he says he was manipulated. But what if somewhere in the future he realizes that he has now been manipulated by someone in his inner circle or counselor ? Will he then again change his mind ?

    1. Perhaps. But by that point, his credibility is going to be so shot that no one is ever going to take him seriously again-no matter WHAT he says, or claims in the future.

      But I would not rule this out. Look how adamant and convincing LaToya was in ’93, only to recant her story years later and say that Jack Gordon was behind it. But to this day her actions and her words have damaged her credibility. There are many fans who still doubt her sincerity now (understandably so) and many haters who want to continue to believe she was telling the truth THEN (because that’s what they need to believe).

      The same thing will happen if Wade ever changes his story (again). Fans will still doubt him and question his loyalty, no matter WHAT excuse he gives. He will never be fully accepted back into the fold, so to speak. He will always be viewed as a betrayor and a backstabber.

      And the haters will continue to cling to his present story, falling back on it at every available opportunity as “proof” that Michael had other accusers besides Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo. They will believe any change of story is either due to pressure from MJ fans or the industry, or that he has simply back pedaled to being “MJ’s boy” again. And, of course, they will resent him, too.

      Either way, Wade is pretty much damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t now.

    1. I saw that earlier today. Great post! Thanks for sharing.

      Although realistically, we know the reason Wade will never sue Joy. She doesn’t have as much money as the MJ estate!

  35. He says that he was told by Michael that there careers will be over if he discloses the alleged acts,
    i wonder why would an 11 year old care for such a thing,I mean at eleven we all have dreams but how career minded one child can be when from the very beginning we are taught that the police are the good people and catch the bad guys

    1. Basically, it is one’s “version” of the truth-which leaves the entire phrase wide open to interpretation.

  36. Now, he is claiming he never came out earlier because he was too ashamed of it according to someone in his family.

  37. Why would Wade’s Mother ask if he had been sexually abused if she didn’t have concerms?
    Wade’s accusations brought back my own memories of repressed memory
    My memory of abuse did not come out until forty years later, my abuser was not someone I hated, he was fun to be around clever and well thought of in the community and I forgave him, knowing that he was not brought up properly having Aspergers too which didn’t help, but I am not excusing his behaviour because it is a criminal offence. Sadly he could have got help but the family’s denial prevented him.
    I believe that Mr Jackson wanted company sharing his bed was totally unwise and only God knows who is telling the truth.
    Personally I don’t believe Mr Jackson is the monster Wade is making out but he certainly needed TLC and support for his mental state. Wade would feel terrible if he was telling the truth and no one believed him, but equally so would Mr Jackson.
    If Wade was more emotional in his speech I would be inclined to believe him, as I felt so much rage when my memory surfaced, because I didn’t want to believe it.
    I trust and hope the Jackson family can grieve properly without all this stuff.

  38. Fair point.
    It’s all so sad.
    Still poor Mr Jackson isn’t here to defend himself, I think he would be
    devistated to think that Wade was doing this.
    Wade spoke of the truth being ‘My Truth’, I don’t know why he is saying and doing these things.
    Did he want some money from the the Jackson estate??
    I pray that the Mr Jackson’s children don’t have to suffer anymore it must be truly terrible for them.
    If I were there mother I would be shielding them from all this, putting them through the trial was terrible, to have to re-live it, no wonder poor Paris is ill, my heart goes out to them.
    I waffle, but my prayers are with them.

  39. The insidious nature of the accusation is that it elicits immediate sympathy for the accuser and suspicion of the accused. Perhaps it is human nature, I don’t know. Initially, everything sounds plausible:
    ‘I suppressed it for years, but then something triggered a flashback’
    ‘I didn’t know it was wrong. He was my friend and we had lots of fun’
    ‘I was ashamed and scared something bad would happen’

    It sounds plausible, especially to everyday folks who don’t know how easily a hideous crime can be twisted by con artists to extort money, or used by disgruntled, disaffected people whose lives are out of control, or who are angry or have failed. It is the only crime of which the accusation ALONE exacts instant social death on the accused — even if the charges are later proved to be unfounded or the accused is found not guilty in LAW. We know this to be true in the case of Michael Jackson.

    There are good people who admire and respect Jackson, but who retain that prickly vestige of doubt — a stumbling block over which they can’t leap. That leap requires one essential element — in addition to facts of file trial transcripts, earnest and strong testimonials and supportive statements. It requires faith and confidence in the character and human heart of Michael Jackson, human being — itself a form of evidence we’ve seen with our own eyes over many years.

    I walked through that tunnel of doubt as a vindicator because I felt I owed it to Michael Jackson and to myself. It was a lonely journey of ‘what if, maybe and possibly’ but I emerged at the other end — evidence and faith together having far outweighed doubt.

    Each must come to that realization alone.

  40. Judith.. thankyou for expressing this so clearly. I too have felt that responsibility to myself to be absolutely sure .. as you said “evidence and faith together having far outweighed the doubt ”

    I can speak Michael’s name with confidence, without fearing any possible adverse re-action. If others ask why I feel the way I do ( and some have expressed surprise)I will explain if they want me to.. I never preach , but hope that their respect for me will make them just a bit more inquisitive.

    1. ‘… but hope that their respect for me will make them just a bit more inquisitive.’

      Yes, Yes and double Yes, MagUK.

  41. this is sad. this is very sad. I had a thought though- LaToya in 93 remember, also spoke up about Michael supposedly “molesting children” and if you read her book Startin’ Over she talks about how Jack Gordan forced her by threat of violence to say those things. Also in her book at the same time the allegations hit, Jack Gordon was on the phone with who knows who saying “You guys did it, I can’t believe you guys actually did it!” who are these people who supposedly “did it” and perhaps somehow Wade is now being threatened by them into saying things the way Jack Gordon thretened LaToya

    1. That’s a good point, but as with so many things, unfortunately, we just don’t know. It’s easy to villify someone; to say they have no integrity, etc but in some cases, we may not know the full extent of the duress these people may be under. As I’ve said many times before, the entertainment industry is a very corrupt and dirty industry, where many mob figures have a lot more power and influence than people know. That being said, I never entirely bought that LaToya was “forced” to speak out against Michael. However, Jack Gordon WAS abusive to her (we’ve all seen the photos of the bruises he gave her). The entertainment industry IS a business where it is very possible for people to be threatened and coerced, even at risk of their lives or their families’ lives. We have no way to know who may actually be pulling the strings behind Wade Robson. Of course, we can only go on the facts that we actually know, and those are based on his own words and actions. If there is more to the story, we may never know, or at least not for many years.

  42. Raven,
    This morning, I found a large number of All For Love Blog emails — all in FRENCH (which I don’t read). I never receive postings in French. The site looks just like this one. I am so puzzled and don’t know how to stop the emails.

    1. The site was hacked by a spammer. We believe they got in via an old administrative account that was created several years ago for David Edwards. This was during the time that I was having a lot of personal issues, and David and I had discussed the possibility of him being a co-contributor here. But that never happened, and as you know, he went on to write for Vindicating Michael. However, that account, though never used, was still in existence. I do not for a minute believe it was David. However, it seems a spammer was able to gain back door entry into the site via that account and password that was created for him.

      Now that the account has been deleted, that should at least stop you from getting anymore emails. In the meantime, just ignore and delete any emails sent from Allforloveblog that do not appear legit.

Leave a Reply