Counter-Punch Time: This Is An ORCHESTRATED and CALCULATED Plan!

This Screencap Says It All! Michael Jackson Is The Ghost Over Wade Robson's Right Shoulder. But Is It A Ghost Of Pain...Or Of Guilt?
This Screencap Says It All! Michael Jackson Is The Ghost Over Wade Robson’s Right Shoulder. But Is It A Ghost Of Pain…Or Of Guilt?

Somebody’s out
Somebody’s out to get me
They really wanna fix me, hit me
But this time around I’m taking no s…
Though you really wanna get me
You really wanna get me-Michael Jackson, “This Time Around”

I’m starting to become convinced that too much public speculating on Wade Robson’s next moves may be a dangerous practice. I am sure that Robson and his attorneys are keeping a close eye on what the media is saying. I also believe they may very well be lurking on MJ blogs, forums, and social media sites in order to tailor their story and course of action. Case in point: When the repressed memory angle was so thoroughly debunked and ridiculed, the story changed. When many scoffed at the idea of filing only a creditor’s claim for sexual abuse, boom! It suddenly became a civil suit as well.  When I started drafting Part One of “Wade Robson: What the Heck Is Really Going On?” I correctly guessed that his next move would be to to go to the media…but I had no idea that the announcement of his Today Show interview would break the very day I posted it!

But nevertheless, the gambler in me can’t resist the urge to make one more speculative bet. And I’ll be willing to wager I’m not too far off. Perhaps being able to second guess Wade’s next moves might not be such a bad idea, though, as doing so can effectively arm us for the counter punch.

Shortly after his Today Show interview, Robson released this statement:

“I hope to inspire other molestation victims to come forward.”-Wade Robson

That certainly seems like a very noble sentiment. Oh, but wait…

Remember this tantalizing story from a few days ago, courtesy of The Daily Star?

TWO more alleged child abuse victims of Michael Jackson are preparing to file lawsuits against the late King of Pop’s estate, it was revealed yesterday.

A legal source close to the singer’s family confirmed: “One is in the public eye, the other is not.

“They are both telling the same story of regular and repeated molestations.”

The bombshell claims come ten days after top Hollywood choreographer Wade Robson launched his claim for compensation from Jackson’s estate.

Australian Robson, 30, alleges he was “systematically” molested for seven years during his childhood at Neverland Ranch, where he was a regular guest of the Thriller singer.

Both the other victims waiting in the wings claim they too were subjected to “years of abuse,” according to the legal source, who added: “They are waiting to see what happens in the first action.” 

Robson was a key defence witness in Jackson’s 2005 trial, at which the star was acquitted by a jury of seven counts of child molestation and two of administering “intoxicating agents” to a 13-year-old boy.

His U-turn was slammed by Howard Weitzman, a lawyer for the Jackson estate who described his lawsuit as “outrageous and pathetic”.

But Robson’s lawyer Henry Gradstein hit back: “Jackson was a monster and in their hearts every normal person knows it.

“My client has lived with the brainwashing of a sexual predator until the stress and burden of it crushed him.”

Let’s keep in mind that this is still only an unconfirmed tabloid story, and so far The Daily Star is the only source that has reported it. But it’s odd that long-time Michael Jackson detractor and backstabber Stacy Brown had wind of it even before the story broke:

stacy brown

NOW it’s all starting to come together, and it doesn’t take rocket science brain power to figure it out. I believe sincerely now that Robson is setting the stage with that statement-not so that other child abuse victims in general will come forth-but so that other Michael Jackson “victims” in particular may come forth, to help corroborate his own story (got to hand it to him, it’s a smart move to sidestep the credibility issue of his story). At first I brushed these alleged “cases in the wings” off as being solely about money, based on the comment that they were waiting “to see what happens in the first action.” Now I have a different assessment. I don’t believe they are waiting to see how the payout goes. I believe they are waiting on the cue from Robson and/or his attorneys, so that this can be set up and staged to look like those other victims now having the courage to “come forward.” Except that I’m willing to wager these “victims” were personally cherry picked by Robson or his attorneys months ago.

Who might these potential backups for Wade be? Well, none of us know for sure, but here is an excellent breakdown of the possibilities:

And if that proves to be the case, then that means this thing is a whole lot bigger than even what we’ve been led to believe so far. It will prove this to have been a very deliberate, very orchestrated, and coldly calculated plan that has been in the making for MONTHS (if not longer).

Good Thing I'm No Illuminati Conspiracy Theorist, LOL! Cause This Would Look Kinda Scary Otherwise!
Good Thing I’m No Illuminati Conspiracy Theorist, LOL! Cause This Would Look Kinda Scary Otherwise!

The big question that remains…who is really the evil mastermind behind it? Is Robson acting alone, out of his own greed and ulterior motives, or does he have a sponsor?

At this point, I don’t have those answers. But clearly, Michael’s lyrics to This Time Around continue to have relevance even in death.

And are more chilling than ever.


UPDATE: 6/11/13: No surprise here!

Michael Jackson’s Estate Asks Judge To Toss Wade Robson Lawsuit

Posted on Jun 5, 2013 @ 15:13PM | By 

Splash News/WENN

Splash News/WENN

Michael Jackson‘s estate has formally filed a legal response toWade Robson‘s claims that Jackson was a pedophile. In the documents, filed on June 4 and obtained by, the estate’s lawyers aired their objections to Robson’s late creditor’s claim, in which he is seeking restitution for being sexually molested by his former mentor.

Chief among their concerns, the estate’s lawyers claim that Robson filed his lawsuit well past the statute of limitations, or deadline, on such lawsuits. Robson, however, is claiming that he should have been served a notice of the administration of the estate when Jackson died more than four years ago. The estate’s lawyers argue that they could not have anticipated Robson’s lawsuit.

Furthermore, they explain, Michael is not here to defend himself against Robson’s claims. In sum, they ask that Robson’s petition be denied.

“Any investigation into the factual allegations of the Petition will necessarily be compromised considerably by the untimeliness of the allegations and by the unfortunate fact that Mr. Jackson is deceased and thus has noopportunity to answer these allegations,” lawyers write in the documents.

In other documents related to the case, Robson’s lawyers claim that there has been a leak of private case information to the press and that Robson only spoke out subsequently to clear his name.

Another recent update. Not sure what the justification for this would be:

Judge says he’s inclined to unseal portions of molestation claim against Michael Jackson

By Associated Press,June 06, 2013
  • This image released by NBC shows choreographer Wade Robson during an interview Thursday, May 16, 2013 on the Today show in New York. Robson, who testified that Michael Jackson never abused him as a child, filed a claim against the singers estate claiming years of abuse by the pop superstar. Robson claims he was abused by the pop superstar over a seven-year period. A Los Angeles judge said Thursday June 6, that he was inclined to unseal portions of Robsons court filings alleging molestation by Jackson, but that certain details wouldnt be made public to protect the choreographers privacy.
This image released by NBC shows choreographer Wade Robson during an interview… (NBC, Peter Kramer, file/Associated…)

LOS ANGELES — A judge said Thursday he was inclined to unseal portions of a choreographer’s court filings alleging he was abused by Michael Jackson.

However, personal details and psychiatrist reports would likely not be released.

Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff said he needed to address which records should remain sealed before he can deal with whether Wade Robson, a choreographer and television personality, can pursue his claim.

 Robson requested on May 1 that Beckloff allow him to file a late creditor’s claim against Jackson’s estate nearly eight years to the day after he testified in Jackson’s defense at the singer’s molestation trial.

Jackson was acquitted after Robson told jurors the entertainer never touched him inappropriately. Henry Gradstein, an attorney for Robson, said a breakdown last year prompted Robson to address the abuse.

Howard Weitzman, an attorney for Jackson’s estate and Thomas Messereau, the lawyer who successfully defended Jackson, have attacked Robson’s credibility and noted his repeated defense of the singer.

Weitzman has called the accusations “outrageous and pathetic.”

“We are confident that the court will see this for what it is” he said at the time the allegations were first made.

On Thursday, Beckloff presented attorneys with possible redactions of Robson’s sworn declaration and said it should serve as a roadmap for what information can be made public.

The judge believes some of the material could be made public, even though attorneys on both sides would like the case sealed in its entirety.

Some of Robson’s private and personal information, including a paragraph that detailed his allegations of abuse by Jackson, should be sealed, Beckloff said.

112 thoughts on “Counter-Punch Time: This Is An ORCHESTRATED and CALCULATED Plan!”

  1. “Shortly after his Today Show interview, Robson released this statement:

    “I hope to inspire other molestation victims to come forward.”-Wade Robson”

    I thought it was his reaction to what someone said on the View

    1. No, he released that statement to The Today Show. But obviously, a lot of what he is saying publicly are reactions to what has been said, either in the press or on other shows like The View.

  2. Raven, are you familiar with a book that came out a year or so ago, by an agaraphobic screenwriter named Darlene? (I don’t want to be more specific than that. I don’t want her to get the Google hits.) The entire book seemed to be a set up for a scene where she gets suspicious of Michael’s interaction with a little boy from Australia, which comes out of nowhere.

    I’ve been wondering about the purpose of that book – other than the usual hatchet job on Michael, it just seemed so random. Now it seems to fall into place.

    1. It was a kid from New Zealand and I agree, I hated that book. I’ve been meaning to get someone to speak to the guy who was supposed to be there, Bazan (?) if I can’t remember his name, who MJ called Buzzy, to get a more objective POV on what happened.

      People I don’t believe will change their tune:

      Emmanuel Lewis
      Brett Barnes
      Frank, Eddie, Aldo Cascio
      Corey Feldman
      Sean Lennon
      Omer Bhatti
      Anton Schleiter
      Aaron Carter recently spoke positively about MJ

      The only two we haven’t heard from in years and who seem to be very private people are Jimmy Safechuck and Jonathan Spence. They both denied it to investigators in 2005 and also gave depositions about it in 1994 and Jimmy was with MJ in 1995 and got married in Neverland, Jonathan Spence was a friend of 3T’s so maybe he’s still in touch with them.

      Those are the only kids I can think of who had such substantial contact with him besides the girls he befriended.

      1. My belief is that the Robson team are HOPING for more to bolster their claims and are trying to feed stories to the press insinuating there are more in order to elevate their case.

        I believe the stories posted are them attempting to help motivate other money grubbers to join in with him and make it feel safer for them to join.

        1. Well, let’s hope that is the case as it’s certainly the lesser evil here. But I don’t want to rule out the possibility that they may already have their “victims” lined up and ready. Everything else about this has just been too calculated to be coincidence.

          1. I think he’s desperately hoping others will come out with him.

            I wonder if perhaps he does believe MJ is a pedophile and so he’s doing some greater good with this.

            But as it stands it appears his people have leaked a story to TMZ about how they’re combing over useless Blanca Francia’s testimony to corroborate their story, which makes them sound really desperate. Even his lawyer stated you just needed to hear him speak to see how “irrefutable” the evidence he was abused was. It seems they don’t have much to go on.

      2. The other person supposedly present was Buz Kohan. She does her best to make him seem menacing (how dare Michael Jackson have another person present when she discusses the screenplay!).

        1. That was the name! I know Joe Vogel has contacts with him, I’ve been trying to get up the courage to ask Vogel if he’d mind asking him about it, just so we have a defense there already. Am a bit shy about something like that though…

      3. Could you be thinking of Buzz Kohan (you ref “Bazan”)? I think he co-wrote Gone Too Soon for Michael, and wrote a commemorative poem about Michael. I’ve never heard of the book you’ve referenced by “Darlene”, but “Buzzy” caught my eye.

    2. Simba, I had earlier replied asking if you could pm the info on that book to me. Apparently, the comment didn’t go through. I would still like to get that from you if you don’t mind. But I think after reading lacienagsmile’s reply, I do recall something about a book that supposedly mentioned a kid from New Zealand.

  3. Let’s see, there hasn’t been a claim against MJ since Arvizo in ’03. But ten years later, just as the Jacksons are about to be awarded a huge settlement from AEG and the Estate is doing better than ever, talking billions with a “b”, all the sudden loads of people become “psychologically willing and able” to “speak their truth”!!! How hilarious would that be if it weren’t so tragic? The more claims there are, the more obvious it is what is going on here. As Mesereau said before, “why work when you can sue Michael Jackson”?

    1. You know, there is an interesting pattern shaping up here. These allegations have come about exactly ten years apart in every instance-1993, 2003, and 2013.

      Someone shared an interesting timeline on my FB wall that shows how, exactly every ten years, another so-called “victim” has gained something at Michael’s expense. In ’93, Jordan becomes a multi-millionaire. 2003-Gavin is cured of cancer, courtesy of MJ. In 2013-Enter Wade Robson, who owes his entire career to Michael Jackson. The purpose here was to illustrate: Who is the real victim?

      The pattern becomes even more interesting when we consider what was going on in the life and career of Michael Jackson at each of these 10-year junctures. In ’93, Michael was at the peak of his career and financial power. This was truly the watershed year; the apex, where we see him as high as he will possibly get before the downward spiral begins. He had performed the Superbowl; had done the Oprah interview; had been honored at the Grammy’s. Dangerous was still near the top of the charts, and the Dangerous tour was a monster success. His profile was through the roof that year, and he could do no wrong. The Chandler allegations would change all of that.

      Flash forward to 2003. After several setbacks, Michael’s career is once again on a promising and high profile trajectory. He has a new team in place, new projects in the works, and a whole new PR plan to clean up his tarnished image and put him back in the spotlight again. (In fact, as we know, he is in Las Vegas, in the midst of shooting a new video, when he gets news of the raid on Neverland).

      Flash forward to 2013. Michael is gone, but his estate is raking in millions, and as you pointed out, there is the possibility of a huge payout from AEG. His public legacy and reputation, despite all of the setbacks through the years, is almost again at 1993 level.

      Is it coincidence that these things keep happening every time Michael’s name, legacy, and earnings are on the upswing again?

      1. Hi Ms. Raven,
        I do believe that there is an illuminati conspiracy against mj and he knew it and talked about it to 60 minutes Ed Bradley and in a speech in Harlem with Al Sharpton. MJ was too popular and influential with no political affiliations and all he wanted to do was Heal the World. That message and MJ’s pure spirit was threatening to them. Please research May 1st; it is an important date in the illuminati calender. I knew something evil was going to happen that day, I just did know mj would be involved. Wade filed his claim on May 1st and he looks like he has sold his soul to the Devil. Wade Robson aka Judas Iscariot. Give him time and he will hang himself.

        1. I’ve pretty much scoffed at all of the Illuminati theories. But that is interesting regarding the May 1st date.

  4. Raven, have to say that I’ve pretty much come to the same conclusion that this is a well thought out, planned attempt to bury Michael, again. I keep seeing that photo of a group of people having dinner…people including Brown and Dimond. I look at and listen to WR, then the discredited people who are vocal in the media…McManus for one and then read Branca F’s name as a witness for WR. Feels like anger and perhaps revenge for the loss in 05..the loss that cost some folks not only $ but a ton of humiliation.

    I’m not typically conspiracy minded but the way this is playing out in the media, the particular folks who are involved, what’s being alleged, the knowledge that Brown had concerning 2 more victims, the building steamroller systematically challenging Michael’s memory, all conveniently occurring while the AEG trial begins…

    My feeling is this calculated plan has only just begun, playing out in a biased media without the protection of cross examination in a courtroom.

    1. Sadly, the average viewer or reader who is getting bombarded with this crap will never take the time to connect the dots. If they did, they would quickly realize it is the same people who are talking and giving these interviews, over and over. That alone should send up red flags.

      For example, if people were smart and/or took the time to connect the dots, they would have to seriously question: Why, of all the thousands of employees who worked at Neverland over the years, it is only the same two maids, over and over again-Adrian McManus and Blanca Francia-who are giving these interviews? (Answer: Because they are both media whores who can be bought for a price; meanwhile, all the many loyal employees who worked for Michael through the years remain the silent majority, because no one is willing to pay for THEIR stories).

  5. I have been thinking the same thing about other accusers coming forward I am just waiting for it. I do not believe for one second Wade is acting alone, the second this story broke I thought someone else was guiding him in some way and he was very clear toward the end of the interview labeling Michael a P*******e to emphasize his truth, I believe he is being coached for sure his body language was to sedate for an abused victim. He even smirked a little when Matt read what Jermaine called him….I think something else is going on here to trigger this I am not saying it involves AEG but this is all to suspicious to me!!

    1. Yes, that smirk was interesting, wasn’t it?

      However, I kind of have my own take as far as how much to read into it. I think that as a close friend of Michael, he no doubt got an earful through the years about Jermaine’s character and integrity-and he would have gotten it straight from the horse’s mouth. The way I read that smirk was more like: “Yeah, and if Jermaine knew all the stuff I knew on him, I could make him think who is full of sh___!”).

      His words and actions do seem very scripted, almost as if he has gained a textbook knowledge of how sex abuse victims are supposed to look, talk, and act.

      Although I will say (and this is by no means a defense of him) it may be possible-after almost twenty years-for a victim to have some emotional disconnect with their abuse. For example, if I went on TV and discussed my abuse, I am sure I could probably discuss it as calmly and sedately as Wade did, simply because it happened so long ago and I have had many years with which to process it. Although I have to stress again, it is different for every victim, and the way a person reacts is different for every victim. But in general, a person describing an abuse that happened almost 20 years ago may, in fact, be able to discuss it without displaying much emotion. It’s different when the abuse is still a fresh memory (this is why it was much harder, for example, to buy Gavin’s calm and nonchalance). For example, if a woman whose husband was murdered 20 years ago comes on TV and is able to talk about the murder calmly, without crying or going into hysterics, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or that she didn’t grieve his death; only that she has had time to process the grief and shock, to heal, and move on.

      So I don’t think Wade’s lack of emotion is necessarily a telltale sign that he is lying. But as I stated in my analysis of his interview, there IS something about his current demeanor that is very off-putting. It’s hard to explain, but it seems almost sinister to me (provided I am not just projecting my own bias onto it, which is possible, but I don’t think I am too far off the mark).

      Have you seen this video?

      It’s not so much his calmness that bothers me; it’s his overall evasiveness and shiftiness. I don’t know how to put my finger on this. He seems almost controlled in some way. As you said, “scripted.” I also detect a twinge of genuine sadness in his body language in this video. I think, deep down, he knows he has committed betrayal. His whole demeanor seems to be saying, “It’s done now. I have done this; it’s out there now.” He doesn’t seem relieved to me. He seems very conflicted and emotional over it (but is trying hard to cover it). This could stem from simply being drained by his ordeal (that’s giving him benefit of the doubt). Or it could be guilt and shame.

      My gut instinct says it is the latter.

      1. But he’s claiming he only just had two breakdowns over this abuse, so it is something he’s claiming is “fresh” in his mind and having a devastating present effect on his life.

        It’s also the first time he’s speaking about it publicly after “accepting” it one year ago – Taj tweeting about his own abuse which must have happened over 20 years ago and he said his hands were shaking and I could feel that in his tweets.

        So though others who were abused 20 years ago could speak about it with some calmness, I’d imagine they had already shared this info with other people and it wasn’t the first time they were dealing with it, which is what Wade is claiming.

        1. I was taking note of the distance he would be experiencing too, LaCienega. Even though he now claims this is not coming through as repressed, he has only recently processed it (so he leads us to believe). I see what you see…this would be fresh. I see no incredulous “shock”; as a newly astounding revelation such as this would bring (not even a flash of it). There appears to be such a distance too. Specifically I mean when he is referring to his allegations they seem to be only that…allegations even though he is trying to brand this as “his truth”. It just does not look to me to have a human (Michael) element to it; very mechanical.

          Also, Raven I noticed in the video you linked that he was so flat in his emotionality, very blunt, no spark. If I were taking this even further in my mind, I might even describe him as finished with “his part”. I must sound crazy. If you get a chance rewatch the video of when he arrived in New York at the airport. It’s quite a contrast. He was chewing his gum like a madman; not blunt at all in his affect.

  6. Like others, I thought this “molestation” was a stunt for an upcoming book, but you have given me a lot to think about here. I was one of those tweeting articles from psychology journals debunking repressed/recovered memory syndrome and suddenly it was all irrelevant. Wade “never forgot”, he just…..perjured himself? Went along with his molester for his career? Wanted to be MJs BFF?

    I guess all we can do is arm ourselves with as much info as we can and make it clear we DO NOT and WILL NOT EVER believe Wade Robson.

    Simba’s post above gives me chills.

    1. The people who want to defend Robson are basically calling it a Stockton syndrome kind of thing. Most of the smarter MJ detractors never bought the repressed memory story, either. They believe that Wade simply lied because he was either, A: In love with MJ or simply couldn’t let himself see that there was anything wrong in their relationship, or B: He was taking full advantage of what MJ could give him, or could do for him career-wise (or possibly both A and B).

      I will be addressing all of these issues in more depth in upcoming posts, so I probably will not say too much here, now.

      But it goes back to the heart of what a lot of people are saying, even those who do not want to believe in Michael’s innocence. Either way, it makes Wade a betrayer and a liar because if he is lying now, he is committing the ultimate act of betrayal against a loyal friend who helped him start his career. And if he lied then (in 2005) it means he perjured himself and threw other abuse victims under the bus for his own selfish reasons (be they his friendship or his career). So either way, it casts a lot of doubt on his character.

      1. Raven, how about possibility C – Wade is being blackmailed. At this point, he has no career to speak of, no means to support his family. AEG can make it all better, by providing Wade and Amanda with high paying jobs for years to come. Without them, given Wade’s reputation for being a heavy drug user, he’s unemployable.

        So maybe AEG made him an offer he couldn’t refuse – tell a couple of lies about Michael Jackson, at just the right time, and you can be back on top. But if you don’t want to play ball, we can make sure that you never get another high profile job.

        Wade is desperate. He’s also angry, at Jamie King for beating him out on the Cirque shows, at the Estate, for not rewarding him after all those nice things he said about Michael, and at Michael Jackson, who died without leaving him rich.

        1. “Wade’s reputation for being a heavy drug user, he’s unemployable.” -Simba

          I would appreciate it if you could point me to the source of this information.

          1. Teva, here are a few instances where Wade Robson’s involvement with drugs is mentioned:

            Was Wade Robson Selling Chris Brown DrugsPosted February 25, 2009 by Global Grind Staff for Global Grind Staff

            Read more:

            From a Britney Spears fansite in 2009:

            Wade Robson Confirms: Not Working On “Circus” Tour
            Started by breatheheavy , Jan 08 2009 02:32 PM

            “We do know the truth, Wade is a pot head, and possibly more.”
            “Wade would have never been able to pass a drug test, bottom line.”
            “Anyone that has been a fan of Wade for a long time knows he’s a pothead, potheads can’t pass drug tests, sorry.”
            “Paid tons to keep his mouth shut? I don’t think you have to pay him to not post “I was fired from a huge project that would have paid me tons because I failed a drug test”.

            None of this is proof that Wade has or had a drug problem. It is proof that people thought that he did. A druggie reputation is enough to limit his employment opportunities.

        2. “So maybe AEG made him an offer he couldn’t refuse – tell a couple of lies about Michael Jackson, at just the right time, and you can be back on top. But if you don’t want to play ball, we can make sure that you never get another high profile job.” -Simba

          Won’t it have made more sense to target Dr. Murray. He is penniless, DR-less, and unemployable. In addition he is at the heart of this lawsuit. Pay the former doctor to say what you want him to say.

          1. @ Teva
            Both possibilities – paying WR AND CM are not mutually exclusive.

            LMP said after the marriage that the timing seemed suspect.
            It could be true, maybe in other circumstances he would not have rushed to marry yet, he didnt seem ready to settle down.
            But I can imagine that he needed someone close to share what he was going through.

        3. I have to play devil’s advocate for the ppl making a connection between the suspicious timing of Wade’s claim and the AEG trial. Well, the same could be said for Michael’s proposal to Lisa Marie Presley.

        4. I saw online comments citing the Britney Spears fans as the ones who say Robson was replaced on her Circus tour for failing a random drug test. (He was replaced by Jamie King.)

          I also believe Robson is lashing out because he didn’t get the Cirque Immortal position that went to King. According to the Pulse website that lists Robson as their creative director, Robson is “currently” the choreographer for Demi Lovato, promoted by AEG Live. All the statements regarding Robson and AEG stop short of claiming there is NO connection between the two.

          If Robson truly were “healing” and looking toward the future after his traumatic 2 1/2 year “sexual trauma” ordeal, why is he now in Hawaii instead of pursuing his career on the main land? If he really had the bright “career trajectory” Gradstein claims, why isn’t he focusing on his career now, thanks to his little son who “saved his life”?

          1. In order to refute the suggestion he was doing this because he was broke his lawyer said he had “substantial savings.” Which actually confirms that he is not willing or able to work anymore and is now forced to rely on his savings and not his own superstar career or talent for money.

  7. Oh, and btw, did you notice how quickly Robson said this wasn’t “repressed memory” in his interview? He couldn’t wait to get that one out. I think he must have figured out that he didn’t stand a chance of persevering in court, so time to come up with a new strategy. Shame on the psychologists who are encouraging the public to blindly accept all abuse claims without thinking critically about their real merit.

  8. Hi,

    I think we need to write to all the major news outlets and convince them NOT to give Wade a platform for talking trash. Also, we need the anti-defamation laws to be recognized, because they are there. The media or anyone else should be able to make damaging comments about the deceased because it hurts the family that’s left behind. This should be made public rather than this Wade story. We have to find away to do this.

    1. Taylor, that is a wonderful idea, although I will admit I have grown a little cynical with how little impact most of these well intentioned letter writing campaigns to the media actually have. In general, it seems to just give them more ammunition to label us as “rabid fans” and more ammunition for the detractors to say we are simply trying to censor “the truth” from being told (note quotation marks, lol).

      But on the other hand, articulate letters that emphasize why it is wrong-on both legal and moral grounds-to “try” a deceased person on national TV, without benefit of judge, jury, or legal counsel, certainly couldn’t hurt.

  9. The thing is he can say one thing in his court documents and another in an interview.Why would TMZ repeatedly call this repressed memory only to have him refute that and admit to perjury a week later.He was being coached by his lawyers that’s why.SO just how sincere could that interview have been?
    Another telling sign that he was studying for his interview and fully capable to do so was when he said he had TWO “nervous breakdowns”.I bet that was to cover his butt for the ever changing timeline that shows him singing Michaels praises just when he was supposed to be having a “nervous breakdown”.Watch it again and see if he doesn’t say that.
    First there is no such thing as a “nervous breakdown” that is why I keep putitng that in parentheses.It is an antiquated laymans term of saying that a person had an acute psychiatric event.That would consist of either a very serious suicide attempt or an episode of hyper mania due to bi polar or the first psychotoic break from schizophrenia.Wade never names the mental illness and I bet you anything he doesn’t even have one unless of course he has been dabbling in some of the street drugs that can cause suubstance abuse psychosis like Meth or the synthetic marijuanas.That might be my guess as to what happened to him.
    He also said that “his truth” was unfortunately all too typical of child abuse.Yes it was wasn’t it Wade almost as if it was scripted.

    1. Hi Lynette , I will repeat here what I said in the previous post, what I think about his nervous breakdown. Everyone should pay close attention to what he is saying in his march 2012 interview.

      It sounds more as if he deliberately took a break on a turning point in his life when he met his wife and got to know a different lifestyle , 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.”
      That is all plausible, everyone goes trough changes at some point in life.
      But now he makes it into not one but two breakdowns and that is a different story from what he told in the interview. I get the feeling when he did this interview he already had the so called ’ breakdown ‘or shift of perspective as he calls it . He probably made up the story afterwards. when his shift of perspective was not working well on the money and income department. That is when he shifted his target to Michael .

      1. This is why I also believe he is keeping a close eye on what the media and people like us are saying. In that way, he can shift his narrative to suit the questions that are being raised.

        1. Of course he is. If he has a brilliant legal team they will hire a firm to cruise the internet for what is being said and to gauge public sentiment. I believe Casey Anthony’s defense team did the same thing.

    2. I was doing some reading up last night on the statute of limitations for perjury. In California, it is four years. So basically, regardless of circumstance, Wade knows now that he can’t be prosecuted for committing perjury-hence, his apparent open willingness to claim now that he committed perjury in 2005. He knows that from a legal standpoint, nothing can be done. His other loophole is that he can say he was telling “his truth” in 2005, just like he claims to be telling “his truth” now.

      Actual convictions on perjury are rare simply because it is such a hard crime to define and prosecute. There are so many loopholes because it all hinges on how “willful” the perjury was-did the person know they were lying? Were they willingly or inadvertently giving false information? What was their state of mind at the time? All of these circumstances-which are individual with every case-have to be taken into consideration before a person can be charged and convicted. Wade has all of his ground covered in that department. However-and I have said this before-as a reflection upon his character, it certainly does him no favors. Any jury is going to be very divided on his credibility and will still be asking the Big Question…was he lying then, or now? Someone who is treating the legal system as lightly and mockingly as Wade is right now certainly isn’t going to win a lot of court sympathy.

      Oh yes, about the nervous breakdown thing, I am glad you brought that up. “Nervous breakdown” is an antiquated term that was once used to lump together and describe any number of mental states, from acute psychosis to severe depression. Beginning in the 50’s, and throughout the 60’s and early 70’s, my grandmother was always going up and down the road to a mental hospital ten miles away from the town where we lived. The doctors always described her condition as “nervous breakdown” but the reality (as I am aware now, looking back as an adult) is that her condition was simply severe depression. Every so often, her depression would get so debilitating that she couldn’t function. The prescribed “treatment” was electric shock therapy, which at the time was the “cure all” for everything. Of course, over time, that only exacerbated the problem. My grandmother didn’t need electro shock therapy; she just needed better medications than what were available at the time. The damage that was done to her was irreversible and it still makes me sad to think of all she endured.

      But to get back on point, “nervous breakdown” is basically a convenient, vague catchphrase that can used to describe any number of psychotic conditions.

  10. WR despertely needs another ‘victim’ to corroborate his ‘truth’ b/c otherwise he looks ridiculous and won’t win the lawsuit he has filed. Reminds me of Feldman’s desperate attempt to find another ‘victim’ in the Chandler case. and they did–Jason Francia, thanks to Blanca and Victor Gutierrez. WR is now trying to get Blanca on his side but even with her and the tickling tale, he needs someone else. This is all a money grab. If the Estate were broke, no way this would be happening. All his life people were after MJ’s $$ and now in death it continues with his Estate. Endless lawsuits.

      1. Well she was ripped to threads b/c she was a witness for the prosecution, and the alleged victim got on the witness stand and said BS to her testimony. Now, they are a team along with her son, who also said he was a victim and received a settlement. The picture can be redrawn.

        1. There are BIG problems with Blanca Francia: She was fired from her job at NL in 91 before allegations in 93 b/c she took stuff from MJ’s room, peeked into employees purses, had her wages garnished for debts. She never reported anything to the authorities until 93 re seeing anything suspicious, she sold a story re seeing images in the shower to Hard Copy, she contradicted her Hard Copy story in her deposition in December 93, she contradicted her deposition in the 05 trial, she sued MJ and won 2.4 million, she collaborated with Victor Gutierrez helping him with his book, banned in USA for being pornography. Long and short, I don’t think a jury would consider her a reliable witness.

          1. Hi IUTD, good info, thank you! Just curious though, did Blanca Francia actually win a lawsuit against MJ? Or did MJ settle the matter out of court rather than have to go through with a court proceeding?

          2. It was settled out of court.

            BTW a quote her son Jason made is quite telling:

            “In the fifth grade I told my friends I knew Michael Jackson and it was cool. They didn’t believe me but it was cool. In junior high (school) it was no longer cool to know somebody who had issues with kids.”

            Gavin Arvizo said something along these same lines (about being teased by other kids at school, etc). The reason I say this is a telling quote is because it seems a lot of these kids who once thought it was so cool to hang with Michael Jackson were willing to turn on him when the tide of public sentiment turned. Gavin was the worst kind of traitor (why should he freakin’ CARE what some snot-nosed kids at school were saying, when this was the man who SAVED HIS LIFE!). Apparently, Jason Francia was no better, but then, he didn’t owe as much to Michael as Gavin and some of the others did.

          3. None of that really matters. Will she say she saw Michael and Wade showering together. What she stole from Neverland and whose purse she peeked into is sensational, but the real reason she is on the witness stand is to talk about her eye witness account to an allege crime. That is what was missing in 2005 they stories did not back up each other.

          4. I don’t think this information is totally irrelevant, however. Establishing her ulterior motives for wanting to smear Michael’s name will be important for the defense, and you can best bet that any defense attorney will milk that information for all it’s worth.

            Interestingly enough (and this goes right with what I’ve been saying regarding the tactics of Wade and his attorneys; they are obviously feeding the tabloids) there is a trash tabloid article now claiming that Wade’s attorneys are having a vid of Michael’s 1996 deposition “studied by body language experts to see if he lied.” In this deposition, Michael was questioned about some of the allegations (I am not quite sure why, since this was irrelevant to the case at hand). The trash article completely takes his quote about being “like Jesus” out of context (he was reading a list of responses he had written against the lies being made about him in the media).

            Here is the vid in question:


            I can just guess that these so-called body language “experts” will be people that Robson’s attorneys have paid off in order for them to say what they want. And you can bet your bottom dollar that they won’t be using Craig Baxter’s analysis of this vid:


            The first time I ever watched this vid, I thought his reaction when asked these questions was a bit strange. But over time, especially as I became more familiar with the base lines of his body language, I understood, and I believe Baxter is correct. It is a reaction of genuine shock and disbelief at the line of questioning (and some anger, I think, as well).

            But regardless, if there is any truth to this, it is a completely ridiculous strategy on their part. The burden of proof in this case is NOT on Michael Jackson; it is on Wade Robson. Secondly, it would be hard to convince any jury of someone’s guilt based on such an inexact science as body language (I would dare say, as difficult as proving a case based on repressed memory). Thirdly, it reeks of desperation on their part if they are so scant for evidence that they are having to resort to such things as Michael’s body language in a 17-year-old video to determine if he “could” have molested Wade Robson.

            However, I’m sure they will use every tactic, just as the defense will use every tactic to discredit people like Blanca Francia.

          5. Ultrvioletrae, yes, MJ settled w. Blanca rather than face anotheer civil suit. But she obviously had a lawyer who negotiated the settlement and it was the same threat as Chandler used–pay up or face the civil and maybe criminal lawsuits.

            Teva, I think it does matter that in 93, the time closest to her recollection–(which as far as I know was never given a date), she said she did not see 2 people in the shower. In 05, some 12 years later, she changed her story. What is she going to say now in 2013–some 20 years away from her first testimony? That her memory of what happened 20 years ago is better now than it was in 93? Is that going to pass the smell test with a jury?

          6. @Raven,

            I don’t think people should take seriously what the Mirror says, they are worse than TMZ.

          7. I acknowledged that it could well be a bogus story-and, for sure, let’s hope that it is.

  11. I have the strong impression that Robson is heavily indoctrinated.
    He moves and speaks in his movements and appears as a character from realityshow reciting a script.
    Only it’s not even good at it. There is no psychological research to do here. He does not have nervous breakdowns, he has to make a difficult part, so he need help from chums. I fear they will come soon.

    1. I think so, too, but you know what? It’s only going to make Robson’s case look worse if that happens, because then-just as I have stated here-it is going to look entirely too orchestrated and transparent. The public isn’t that stupid. They will see this for what it is if that happens.

      1. This may sound bad, but Michael’s case is helped in that he is dead. Ppl generally are suspicious of these things when a person is not in a position to defend themselves. Except in the case of McKenzie Philips molestation claims against her father. She did the media circuit, and for the most part was well embraced.

        1. Mackenzie Phillips didn’t sue her father’s estate. And lots of people didn’t believe her, including members of her family. (She also used the curious term “my truth”.)

          1. I remembered McKenzie’s media tour and for the most part it was well received. Ppl asked her the right questions like the timing of the book and the allegations, but in all the interviews I have seen with her the host was sympathetic. No, she didn’t sue the estate, but why would she she would have been an heir.

  12. “Robson’s lawyer Henry Gradstein spoke to Australia’s Today Tonight, saying, “Whatever Michael Jackson’s apologists may say, all you have to do is listen to Wade to know that what he has to say is true and irrefutable. They may find it surprising that Wade defended Michael for all those years and never spoke about what was done to him until now, but anyone who knows anything about pedophilia and the terrible damage it does can tell you that this is almost always the case with victims of childhood sexual abuse.”

    His lawyer sounds very unprofessional IMO. Also trying hard to appeal to emotions. He already sounded like that in that first interview he gave to TMZ.

    I find their CONSTANT references to psychology odd. When I see abuse victims talk they usually reflect their emotions and pain and not say things like “look at me, I’m behaving like a typical abuse victim, you have to believe me”.

    I can see if many abuse victims keep silent about their abuse and bury it deep down, but Wade’s behavior wasn’t like that. He went out of his way to praise Michael, often voluntarily. Besides testifying for him at a criminal trial. He did not have to write things like Michael is the reason he believed in the pure goodness of human kind or that he had such an innocence about him. I don’t see how it’s typical for abuse victims. I don’t think it is at all. Nor it is typical for abuse victims that they do not understand that they had been molested until the age of 30. Especially when the accused was on trial for similar accusations and you testified for his defense. Who do they try to fool by saying this is typical for abuse victims?

    On the other hand, it’s good to see them on the defensive…

    1. If we just play devil’s advocate for a moment and assume Wade is telling the truth (now) then the most likely scenario to explain his behavior in 2005 is this (again, let me stress, this is just saying IF he was lying in 2005, which I don’t believe he was, but just saying IF:

      As a fully competent, 22-year-old adult, he knew perfectly well that what he and Michael had done was wrong, and why it was wrong. He was willing to perjure himself on the witness stand because he was willing to cover for his friend to help get him off (no pun intended). IF Michael was guilty, that makes Wade Robson an accomplice in his crime-not a victim. Let’s not confuse things, or mince words. That is no different from, say, a couple who are on trial for killing someone, and the wife comes back and says, “But I was a battered woman; my husband was abusive and made me do it; he said he would kill me if I didn’t go along with it.”

      Many women have tried to use that defense when implicated in crimes along with their husbands, but the bottom line usually comes down to: Either they helped commit the crime, or went along as a willing accomplice, or they didn’t. That simple.

      I will refrain from saying anything about Wade’s 1993 testimony, because at that time he was still a child. But by 2005, he certainly knew right from wrong, and had a choice.

      And IF he ever had sexual relations with Michael as a minor, then he willingly and knowingly covered for it and threw others like Gavin completely under the bus.

      As I have said before, either scenario does his credibility and his character no favors. If he lied in 2005, then he was an accomplice in Michael’s crime.

      If he is lying now, he is a money grubbing back stabber who has just committed one of the worst acts of betrayal a friend could possibly do to another friend.

      1. I COMPLETELY AGREE. …but worst still, yes even worst than the perjury and complicity was his media circuit blitz after Michael died. He said he remembered “everything”, then why the hell talk up Michael? If he was “unwilling and unable” to speak about the molestation then he should have shut his damn mouth until he was able to bare his soul. However, this guy tweeted, danced, wrote, and every other medium you could think of to celebrate his rapist, and he did it by choice. No psychologist could ever convince me he was under Stockholm Syndrome at that point, he did it willingly and by choice.

      2. “As a fully competent, 22-year-old adult, he knew perfectly well that what he and Michael had done was wrong, and why it was wrong.”

        But what exactly did they do? So far, Wade has been short on details. In the 2005 trial, he was embarrassed to even look at some of the materials the prosecution put in front of him. At some point, he’s going to have to get specific about any “sexual acts” he performed, or that he claims MJ performed on him, and I don’t think he’ll be able to pull it off.

        1. Again-let me stress-that is a hypothetical scenario. I was simply using it to make the example that IF Wade was lying in 2005, that as good as makes him a willing accomplice to the inappropriate behavior-provided any such inappropriate behavior occurred.

          Wade is asserting that Michael conducted inappropriate sexual behavior with him as a minor. The accusation alone is enough. The information he has given has been vague, true. But even if he was telling the truth, I wouldn’t expect him to spill it all out in detail in media interviews; that will be saved for the trial, I am sure (not that it will make any such claims necessarily credible, but that will be for a jury to decide). Wade is using this vague information like a dangling carrot, getting gullible journalists and viewers to buy his story without spelling out any actual specifics. It’s a clever tactic that assures him the attention and sensationalism he wants, without necessarily having to answer for what he says.

          1. Yes, Raven. That is along the lines of what I mentioned to you in a comment last night…that this is so detached and vague. I think I said mechanical. I don’t like the whole, Matt Lauer says, “…he performed sexual acts….bla bla bla and made you bla bla bla”, and W says, “yea that’s it…”.
            But also, I am ignorant regarding the legalities of court proceedings,can someone actually go on “trial” after they are deceased?

          2. Obviously, if a defendant is deceased, they cannot be tried in a criminal court. But this is a civil case, and yes, a plaintiff can bring a civil case against a person’s estate if the defendant is deceased. They do not even have to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (as in a criminal case). They simply have to prove their case based on a preponderance of the evidence.

            However, there ARE statutes of limitations involved, and circumventing those statutes is going to be a big hurdle for Wade, as well as the whole credibility issue he’s already facing. That they are combing through old, taped interviews of Michael to test his “body language” and courting Blanca Francia says everything about just how much “evidence” they have. If they had truly damning evidence, they certainly wouldn’t need to be relying on something as flimsy as Michael’s 1996 deposition.

  13. With all this diversion going on, is anyone considering how to bring back the focus on the witness statements of i.e Karen Faye and it’s implications for the central questions in the AEG lawsuit? The threats and bullying going since long before 2009? I am kind of underwhelmed with what I get from mrs. Jacksons team. I really hope they step up their act, like STAT!

    1. I am not sure if you are referring to the fan community in general, or this blog in particular.

      It’s true that the Robson controversy has created a huge distraction away from the trial (and, as many have said, this could well be the intent of the whole scheme).

      I have been posting regular media updates on the developments in the trial in the forum section:

      I had never intended to cover the trial blow by blow (many websites are doing that, and doing an excellent job of it; I commend them for having the energy and time to provide such a useful service to the fan community). I had only intended to analyze the most pertinent testimonies and issues raised as the trial progressed. I was working on a post on Karen Faye’s testimony (which I will get back to) but with all of the breaking news concerning the Robson story, I felt like I needed to focus on that for the time being. Obviously, this is at the forefront of our minds right now, but you are right. It should not distract from the importance of what is taking place in that courtroom right now.

      I am only one person here, however, and with so much news breaking left and right in the last few days, it is a little overwhelming trying to stay on top of everything, and to give it all equal weight and coverage. I simply can’t. But I will get my KF post up hopefully this week. In the meantime, I would like to encourage everyone to use the forum to discuss and share daily information pertaining to the trial. That’s what it is there for.

      But yes, I agree with you about being underwhelmed with KJ’s team. I fear this is the first time that Michael has not had a star team fighting in his corner, and the results of this trial may reflect that. I hope not.

      1. Hi Raven, i didn’t mean that to be taken personal. I think you and a couple of others are doing a great job trying to explore the dynamica at work. I guess I find myself wondering out loud what if anything can be done to get a more intelligent and widespread readers for this information. It like watching the white and black wolves fight for our attention.

      2. Unlike the 2005 and 2011 criminal trials this has a different dynamic. So far I think KJs lawyer is doing an excellent job and is very effective. Every witness so far has added ammunition about the relationship between AEG and Murray .
        In the process it gives us a chilling insight into the busines ethics and downright criminal conduct of the industry and AEG in particular, and what happened to Michael in his final days.
        Maybe we get numb from all the sensational information and if its not shocking enough we dont even pay attention. I think some find it too painful to hear.

        We cannot ignore Wade Robson, it is like he dug up Michaels body and stabbed him a thousand times as if dying once is not enough.
        He enjoys the attention and feels on top of the world, some call him a hero for challenging a mega hero .Its the kind of power that a psychopath enjoys as in reality he will never be half of Michael. Maybe he has been dreaming of it for a long time.
        But he is a coward and a loser and ultimately an insignificant footnote in Michaels history.
        We appreciate your work and we cannot expect you to be on top of everything.
        But I dont see AEG and WRs move as seperate acts.
        It is the liberty they take on this man and their total disrespect for who and what he was and what he stood for.Why is that?

  14. I’m sure the people that Mrs. Jackson has something to do with it. Knowing they are headed for a big lost. So they want to set it up so that when the payoff comes. The Jackson family “estate” will not profit. From any settlements they receive. He couldn’t live in peace and they (not excluding his famiy) will not let him rest in peace. As he said everyone wants a piece of him… Even now… smh

  15. I just realized something that really shook me to core.

    In the Today Show interview, Matt Lauer says “CHILD ABUSE EXPERTS SAY that Wade’s belated accusation is not uncommon and that sexually abused children often take decades to acknowledge abuse.”

    This cuts right to an interview with Joelle Casteix, who I presumed to be a CHILD ABUSE EXPERT as that is how she was introduced by Lauer. WRONG. She’s not even a psychologist! And she completely unfamiliar with Wade Robson’s claims.

    According to her website, she is: A classically trained operatic soprano, Joelle is a graduate of the University of California at Santa Barbara and completed graduate work at the University of Colorado, Denver. She is currently completing an MBA.

    Yet they use her to say “study after study after study shows…” Also on her website, she admits to being an advocate for SNAP. I’m sorry but this is beyond misleading on the part of NBC, it is deliberately lying. There are any number of real child abuse experts willing to go on camera.

    AEG is a huge entertainment corporation that HAS to have ties to the media to promote their events. The star system is how entertainment companies sell their “product”, and they are always looking for ways to try to control how the media represents them. It’s obvious they have very good connections to NBC. Mesereau (a actual expert on this case) got less airtime than Joie Casteix. This is beyond just twisting journalistic standards to create a narrative. This is lying to the public.

    Here is Casteix’s website:

    She is pushing the “angry Jackson fans” narrative, citing “an onslaught of hate mail from Michael Jackson fans worldwide…they have come after me with THOUSANDS of emails in the past”.

  16. @Ultraviolet

    Wow, that is beyond deceiving! I think any real and honest expert would refrain from making conclusions about a case simply based on what’s on TV about it, but this woman declares on her website that Robson is definitely telling the truth. When she’s not even familiar with the details of his case, Robson’s or Michael Jackson’s life! But that is not surprising when you look at other segments of her website and see she’s clearly very biased for a certain point of view. Of course, it’s good to advocate people who are real victims. But sometimes these advocates take it too far – so far that they’d take every allegation as a fact. They have no room in their way of thinking for the possibility that false allegations do exist just as much as true child abuse victims. To them evereyone who ever makes an allegation is telling the truth. She does not even make an effort to explain in rational terms why she believes Robson. Other than talking about how likable she finds him.

    And yeah, the angry Jackson fans narrative is so tired. Never mind that none of Michael’s accusers ever suffered any harm at the hands of MJ fans. They are on social media, using their real names, posting photos of themselves. Fans know about them but noone bothers them. They are not in hiding. They do not have to be. In fact, I just read today a part from Ray Chandler’s book where he writes:

    “By mid-October the Chandler’s could be reasonably assured of walking out of their front door without having a camera staring them in the face. Which meant that Jordie was able to play in the front yard or across the street at a friend’s house. To look at him, he seemed without a care, running and laughing like any other kid.”

    We are talking about October, 1993. The case was still in full gear! Yet, Jordan had no problem playing, running and laughing outside and no one ever bothered him. And even before that the problem seemed to be cameras, rather than fans.

    This woman also declares it’s not about money. But Robson filed a creditor’s claim first (under seal!) and a civil lawsuit then. How can anyone say it’s not about the money when they demand money?

    The fact Today’s Show picked someone so clearly and unashamedly biased who is not even a psychologist/psychiatrist, tells a lot about their agenda and intentions.

  17. Suzy and Ultravioletrae, this is very iunteresting. NBC has been out to get MJ for some time, going back a long way. Maureen Orth was married to a guy who was the head of NBC News, his name escapes me right now but he died not too long ago. He was also involved (very much so) in the trial of Scooter Libby and the question of who outed the CIA covert spy Valerie Plame. After the Bashir LMMJ aired (I think on ABC in USA), NBC was desperately trying to get MJ to do a rebuttal–they offered him 5 million but he turned them down and went with CBS. NBC was rated at the bottom of the 3 networks. They retaliated by doing this program Behind the Mask where they claimed MJ had over 50 surgeries on his face. It was supposed to be 1 hr but after he turned them down they extended it to 2. A few blogs have pointed this out–that NBC had it in for MJ. He rejected NBC and went with Ed Bradley 60 Minutes CBS.

    BTW, tonight CBS 60 Minutes is doing a show at 7 on MJ’s possessions–they will be walking through one of the huge storage units filled with his stuff.

    1. Yes, thanks for that reminder. I don’t know if I will get to watch it since I have business to tend to this evening, but my husband is supposed to be recording it for me (keeping fingers crossed that he doesn’t forget). It’s nice to see MJ getting some positive media coverage this week.

      I will tell you something else kind of funny, too. In the past few days, I had at least two family members to call me out of the blue to ask if I knew about the 60 Minutes program coming on this Sunday. (Of course, they should know by now that it’s pointless for them to think they can give me any scoops on Michael I am not already well aware of, lol!). There was absolutely NO mention of The Today Show or Wade Robson’s accusations. Apparently, they hadn’t heard anything about it.

      Which just goes to show, this really isn’t relevant news as far as most people are concerned.

      1. Odd that Robson’s interview seems to have been inserted into the TODAY lineup at the last minute, as the description for that day’s program did not include his interview, so I concur with another poster here that Robson solicited NBC, never Michael-friendly. And, usually, these tawdry MJ stories make the rounds on the other morning channels but not this time. Also, this evening’s 60 Minutes piece on Michael’s “stuff” isn’t included in their program description for this evening (at least in my area). IMO, so many things Michael-related with so little notice/incorrect notice of any of it.

  18. Maureen’s husband’s name–Tim Russert–he was a big, famous honcho at NBC News. And we all know where Maureen stands with her connections to Sneddon, DD, and her poison pen at Vanity Fair.

    1. That’s right, iutd, and the day after Michael died, Matt Lauer had her (Orth) on the Today show, where she again brought up Michael and the 42 sacrificial cow story. Can you believe it?!! No decency shown for his children or family not 24 hours after the man dies and she’s spouting off this filth, and Lauer allows it. She couldn’t find it in her heart to show the same respect she was shown when her husband died. And NBC also used Victor “thank you Nambla” Gutierrez as a producer for one of their Datleline hit pieces. I wasn’t surprised that Robson chose them or maybe NBC made the offer first, who knows, to once again attack Michael.

      1. Thanks, Susy–at one point I took a lot of notes on NBC’s role in bringing down MJ. I think Tim Russert and Orth had a big part to play obviously as Russert was an NBC star.

    2. To the chagrin of actual journalists, Orth and Russert’s son Luke has been given a job at MSNBC that he hasn’t earned and he doesn’t deserve. His reporting ‘style’ is best described as lazy entitled frat boy. There are loads of outraged comments on news blogs about this blatant nepotism.

    1. I have read that. Thomson, as usual when it comes to anything concerning the allegations against Michael, is spot on.

  19. I have been a staunch defender of Michael Jackson for years. I have a web presence on Disqus and have weighed in and commented on media websites in his defense–judiciously, I like to think.

    The insults that get traded– ‘fans’ against ‘haters’ have frustrated me, and made me more than a little sad. Each side accuses the other of ignorance. As an academician, I have been impressed with the staggering amount of dedicated, thorough research supporters of Michael have undertaken. Many of us have studied him as intently as a defense attorney would study a suspected client–minutely, shifting over every piece of evidence available. How many of us have studied the evidence unflinchingly? Many, it seems to me. Though many ‘haters’ think of Michael’s fans as a pack of deluded sheep unwilling to “see the truth about him” I think the opposite is true.

    I fell in love with Michael the moment I first ‘saw’ him, and despite anything that is (or will be) revealed I doubt that will ever change. That would be my private love, though. For whatever spiritual reason, my love for Michael feels forever and unconditional.

    But I am also willing to stop defending him to others (and even to myself) if in fact he is guilty of what Robson has suspiciously accused him of. In the past few days I have gone over and over the 2005 trial transcripts and evidence presented by Tom Sneddon et al ; FBI files ; Robson’s prior praises of Michael, and very thorough and public legal analysts analysis of the 2005 trial. I have watched Craig Baxter’s body-language analysis of Robson’s Today Show interview, and agree with another poster here that it is somewhat over-reaching. I believe totally in Craig’s integrity—he honestly evinced some puzzlement and/or uncertainty regarding his interpretation of Robson’s body-language. But I also share his consternation regarding Robson’s strangely unemotional demeanor in the Today Show interview. Most importantly to me, I compared it with Michael’s publicly broadcast statement he made from Neverland in 1993, regarding initial accusations. I’ve watched it before—Michael raw and breathless, with outrage, hurt, and sorrow. Michael is genuine.

    Robson seems un-genuine and coldly cocky to me.

    In 2005 during his testimony in Michael’s trial Robson was adamant—unshakeable in the face of relentless drilling by prosecuting attorneys hell-bent on murdering Michael: “Nothing happened. I’m telling you, nothing happened.” He’d been close friends with Michael for almost fifteen years. Under repeated questioning he was calm and unshakeable. He was an adult who knew the stakes. He was twenty-two.

    I was abused also. At twenty-two I was suicidal. I would get physically sick when in the same room or even in the vicinity as my abuser. The abuse was continuous—from early childhood to adult. If someone had asked me to defend my abuser under oath in a court of law I would have thrown up.

    It happens all the time, Michael’s detractors say: people are shocked to find out the neighbor they thought was “a great guy” turned out to be a pedophile. And it is true: unaware adults can be fooled, but not the kids who are the victims of the abuser. At twenty-two Wade Robson was point-blank adamant that Michael had never done anything inappropriate to him. Under intense examination and cross-examination he was credible and absolutely believable.

    There is not a single part of me that believes Robson is telling the truth now when he says he was abused by Michael. My mind does not believe him. My heart does not believe him. My gut does not believe him. At twenty-two, if he’d been scared and shaken and repulsed when accusing Michael, then I would have believed him. Adult children who have been abused are—at the very least—subconsciously revulsed by their abuser. Just as Michael would get sick, feel faint and terrified in the presence of his father.

    In addition to the above, Michael was the subject of once of the most relentless witch hunts ever conducted. His home was raided and torn apart without forewarning several times by hundreds of prejudiced detectives. They ripped apart mattresses and paintings, broke open safes, had forensic detectives scrutinize the hard drives of every one of his computers. They issued a public invitation via international media for any victims of Michael to come forward.

    None did.

    He was pilloried in the press. The whole world was clamoring for his conviction. And despite all of this he was acquitted. Because not even Tom Sneddon, with his slavering wolf pack—nor the FBI–could produce any credible evidence.

    I don’t believe Robson at all. I’m surprised any analytical person would.
    “Feel the Fear & Do It Anyway.” That’s the title of a book, and that’s the philosophy I’ve adopted with regarding finding out who Michael really is. What I’ve learned through these years of trials and research is that he was an extraordinarily complex person of astounding beauty. It astonishes me that I used to think he was sweetly simple.

    There are two trials simultaneously going on right now: the public trial that Robson has put Michael on, and the trial of AEG versus Jacksons. Listen to the testimony of people who were close to Michael. They were heartbroken by the fragility of him at the end. They cry when testifying. He was beloved by an extraordinary number of them.

    Joni Mitchell sings in “A Case of You”: “stay with him if you can, but be prepared to bleed.” Unfortunately, people who stand by Michael will bleed. People who love Michael must be prepared to bleed.

    “You are in my blood like holy wine,” Mitchell sings. ”You taste so bitter and so sweet. But I could drink a case of you and still be on my feet.”

    Inexplicable though it is (even to me) that’s how I feel for Michael Jackson. And I’ve looked in all the dark places people have pointed to so far—fearfully yes, but with unblinking eyes and a powerful flashlight.

    Call me a fool if you want, but I trust my instincts regarding Michael. I believe beyond all shadow of a doubt that he was a good man—and even perhaps, a holy person. I even suspect he was “an angel walking the earth” as Kenny Ortega said of him at the end of This Is It.

    1. Holy crap I’m crying. Wonderful comment… Especially considering the unfortunate division within the fan base at the moment.

      I thought I was the only one who truly considered the concept of Michael Jackson being a child molester. Every time it would cross my mind I’d read the evidence and transcripts and would be repulsed at myself for even considering such a thing. Anyone who unquestionably believes Wade has some personal vendetta against Michael and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

      The Joni Mitchell lyric is astonishingly accurate. Michael was perfectly imperfect to me and very complex. I think it’s beautiful that so many fans are being levelheaded and factual as of recent. We’ve gotten articles published, letters sent, transcripts filed, topics trending, YouTube videos saved. The media has been looking foolish with their one sided coverage, especially in regards to the community’s favorite person ever Blanca Francia. Michael Jackson fans have to be part time lawyers. Lol

    2. Slightly off-topic but still relevant I think…

      I was reading Karen Faye’ testimony in the AEG trial, where she was explaining that she went to Neverland each day of Michael’s 2005 trial to help him get ready.

      She said that Michael would never eat anything before he went to Court, because he was frightened he would literally throw up in the Courtroom when he had to listen to people he loved saying such disgusting things about him .(And it sort of broke my heart all over again)

      I think he would be violently sick if he knew what people he loved were saying about him now!!

      Fortunately I have never been the victim of child abuse.

      I have worked with several victims in the past and been a (professional)witness in child abuse cases in court. I admire without reservation the bravery of genuine victims and their struggle to deal with the consequences.

      Sadly I have also witnessed the devastation that false allegations can cause.

      I believe in Michael’s absolute innocence after 3+ years of virtually non-stop research. Ara and Suzy, my approach is so similar to yours,so thankyou for your comments and explaining yourselves so well .

      I will keep an open mind, the subject is too serious not to.

      However that wicked part of me that tends towards sarcasm has to say that I often wonder why Michael Jackson never got an Oscar . He certainly put on some wonderful “acting” performances throughout his life didn’t he !!!.

    3. I don’t think it is being foolish at all. I understand exactly where you’re coming from. But there ARE fans who try too hard to defend Michael based on fallacies-he was a good person; he was an angel; he would never do such things, etc.

      Faith is a beautiful thing, but it’s a hard sell to anyone truly convinced of his guilt, just as it would be a hard sell in a courtroom. But I do believe it is something we have to look at holistically, from the entire perspective-his character and his beliefs shaped who he was, and the choices he made. It helps us to better understand where he was coming from. Mesereau understood this all too well, and it’s something I will be looking at in Part 2.

  20. “I thought I was the only one who truly considered the concept of Michael Jackson being a child molester.”

    It’s not directed towards you, Yasmin, just generally I’ve always found the suggestion offensive that we, fans, just “blindly” defend Michael and also that we would be willing to turn a blind eye on child molestation simply based on the emotions we have for Michael.

    I’m a fan and I think (I’m actually convinced) that he’s innocent of these allegations. But I do NOT think that BECAUSE I’m a fan, but because I did my research. Unlike many who call us fans “delusional” I did my research because I wanted to know. Exactly because I’m someone who could not blindly defend someone. If evidence led to him being guilty I simply would not defend him, as simple as that. I have my moral standards.

    Yes, there are fans who try to defend him on an emotional, fangirl/fanboy basis (and that will never be convincing to outsiders), but I find that many, many fans invested a lot in researching this stuff and they base their conclusion on that. Much of the media and critics who declare Michael guilty are a lot less knowledgeable about these cases than fans! They are the ones who base their judgements on either emotions (in their case negative feelings and prejudice about Michael) or hasty generalizations (the “no smoke without fire” narrative is a typical example of that), on lies and half-truths or on certain out-of-context soundbites and headlines they have heard about from the media (“Jesus Juice”, “he shared his bed…” etc.). (And the media often even deliberately pay people to lie, no less! )

    So who is judging “blindly”?

    To me as a fan but also as a lover of THE truth (not “my truth”, “your truth”, “his truth”, but THE truth) it is important to see clearly, so I do the research. But someone like Joelle Casteix (with an obvious initial bias) can go on a TV show, be presented as an “expert” – without actually knowing more about this case than what she saw on Today’s Show – and declare Michael’s guilt. And she’s the rational one and the “expert” and we, fans are the delusional ones? How come?

  21. Raven, in his laste post Charles Thomson wrote:
    “Indeed, the allegations broke as make-up artist Karen Faye testified that she and others had raised repeated concerns about Jackson’s health but had received callous responses from those in charge. Robson’s televised interview days later ensured little media attention was paid to testimony from an AEG employee that financial papers proved Murray was the company’s employee, not Michael Jackson’s. Wade Robson has repeatedly worked for AEG and apparently already has future work lined up with the corporation, but his lawyer has denied any connection between the court cases.”

    You know, I’m very rational about issues of conspiracy and varied, but you do not seem to you that these words hint at possible scenarios really so disturbing?

    1. I continue to state that the timing of all of this looks very suspicious indeed. Not to sound like a broken record, but it really does come down to only two possibilities: Either AEG is behind this, or else Wade has purposely timed this to coincide with the AEG case.

      1. Of course AEG is behind this. They weren’t even subtle about it. First they set the public up by declaring that “ugly things” about Michael were going to come out at trial, even though it’s not relevant to whether or not they hired Murray. Then they tease it out, with media plants about ‘shocking’ revelations in Michael’s medical records, that would “shake even his most loyal fans to the core!” What a load of BS – the medical examiner’s report has been available for years. There is nothing new about Michael’s medical history to reveal.

        It was all to prepare the way for Wade.

  22. Is it just me or has it suddenly gotten a bit more quiet around Robson in the press? I follow the news and see more info regarding the hearings in the trial, and wonder who or what AEG got waiting behind the curtains. Somehow it wouldn’t surprise me if Robson got dropped like a fly if he outlived his usefulness, that is of courae assuming he’s a pawn in their game.

    1. Well, it would certainly be nice to think Wade has just disappeared and dropped off the face of the earth, but that would probably be wishful thinking, lol.

      However, this momentary quietness could just be the calm before the storm, or maybe his attorneys have advised him to lay low. Or perhaps the media offers weren’t quite as numerous or as profitable as he’d hoped. Or perhaps they are working to quietly set the stage now for these “other victims” to come forward.

      I wouldn’t get too complacent just yet; this thing is a long way from over.

      However, something in my gut keeps telling me that Wade is going to be exposed. Call it intuition or whatever. I’ve just had that feeling from Day One. I am not sure if, when, or how far down the road, but it is what I feel very strongly. I hope my instincts will prove me right.

      1. No, i don’t think complacency is in order. I feel that in a way Robson already exposed himself. Sure he got his 5 minutes of fame but the public finally seems to get sick of the disrespect shown, even if the tabloids were having a field day and no doubt are going to have more before the trial is over. I think the respons is not as good as he or they thought.

        1. Never underestimate the enemy. They will need to stay relevant.
          The good thing is that hypes die down quickly and most people sadly see it as the next episode in the afterlife of Michael Jackson.
          Wades claim is a mockery of the justice system, it’s an insult to Tmes, a stab in the back to Michael but also a humiliation of the DAs office that Sneddon and co and a whole army of detectives were not competent enough to get a 22 year old to crack.
          If it wasn’t that serious, it would be quite amusing to see how quick his claim will be thrown out to save them the embarrassment.
          Everyone involved has something to lose .Wade already lost his credibility. Saying now that he lied then, does not automatically mean that he will be believed now. That will be even more reason to scrutinize him.
          He and the other witnesses were not only questioned as pro defense witnesses, but also as potential victims.
          What I hate most about the situation is that in the near future no childrens charity or organization will want their name linked to Michael .
          Back to quare one since the unveiling of his name on Gardner auditorium.

  23. Hi Raven and all..I just wanted to say I hope I haven’t offended anyone here by my use of the word “victim” in my post of 20th May.

    “Survivor” is just a much more relevant word in every respect.

    (It’s just one of those examples where our two nationalities use different words to express the same thing, and we automatically use what is familiar to us)

    1. “Survivor” is commonly used here, as well, especially when referring to adults who were abused as children. I prefer it to “victim,” as it gives back the sense of empowerment that the victimization takes away.

        1. Thanks, shelley. This also ties in with something that I am going to be discussing in Part 2 of the Wade Robson piece. Some of my theories may be a bit controversial, but I think they go far in explaining in a credible way why Michael wasn’t a criminal.

      1. Obviously Joe hit a nervie, must be some truth to AEG paying Wade Robson to lie, or the lawyers wouldn’t be getting so jittery over it. Hope the Jacksons sue the pants off Wade Robson.

    1. Thank you. I will be adding some of these updates to the post, hopefully over the weekend. Obviously, the Paris story has taken front and center right now, but I will still be continuing my series on Wade, as well.

  24. OK I finally watched a video of jerry sandusky’s reaction to the claims and having seen each one of Mike’s response to the abuse claims I can say that Mike is genuine in his responses

Leave a Reply