The Current Conspiracy and…The Australian Connection?-Pt 1

safechuck4 (2)Well, it looks like I’ll have to put my planned series on Michael and race on hold just a little longer in order to address what is truly the burning issue of the fan community at the moment-these latest allegations coming from Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck. This topic is going to take several days to address in full, so I think what I will do is to write as much as I can today, and will post subsequent installments as time permits throughout the week (so please plan on checking back often this week as I update).

Not that any of this is exactly news, or should be. We’ve known for over a year that a hearing would be scheduled to determine whether Robson can proceed with his civil case against the Michael Jackson estate, MJJ Productions, and MJJ Ventures. And while things had been relatively quiet on that front for some time, I knew this would change as the actual hearing date drew nearer. To be sure, Wade and his attorney have a very strategic strategy in place, and he has a few team players who are helping him with that goal (I will get to those in due course). I predicted how a lot of this would go down over a year ago. At that time, it was also hinted that other potential accusers were waiting “in the wings”-no doubt, to see how things played out with Wade’s case.  In steps Jimmy Safechuck. Well, we’ve also known since at least May-when our good “friend” Diane Dimond first broke the news (on the eve of Xscape’s U.S. release, no less) that Jimmy Safechuck was joining forces with Wade.  So in other words, we’ve known this shit was gonna hit for some time. It was just a matter of when. We had to know-even through all the hype over Xscape and holograms, etc-that he was only waiting, silent as a viper, in the wings. Waiting to strike again.

There is still a very good chance (in fact, a highly probable chance) that these cases will be completely thrown out. But it was inevitable that they would engage in some form of media blitz, via their willing mouthpieces, as the time approached. I don’t think anyone is particularly shocked about that. Or shouldn’t be. But what is disturbing for many, I believe, is the especially heinous nature of these very open allegations that are being made, and how/why Wade and Jimmy are being given this platform (a platform that, frankly, even Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo did not have). Due process of law would seem to guarantee that these details be kept under seal until the actual hearings. Additionally, the staggeringly and ridiculously inflated sum of money that Robson is now seeing (1.6 BILLION) is, if nothing else, bound to generate media interest in this case. One might think, whoa, this certainly LOOKS big and scary, with the bully bantam rooster flexing his wings and threatening to break the entire Michael Jackson empire. But here is the stone cold reality: Even IF he gets a trial, and even IF (god forbid) he’s awarded money, he’s not going to get anywhere near 1.6 billion. It is a strategy, just like Katherine’s civil case against AEG, to throw out the highest imaginable figure in hopes that some lower figure-any figure at all-will stick. In other words, it’s a huge bluff to see if the estate will flinch-and bite. On the other hand, Robson and Safechuck might do well to take a hint from DA Walgreen that the more reasonable you keep your charges and expectations, the more likely you are apt to come out with a favorable verdict. However, it is a more common practice in civil cases to ask for as much as possible even if the the far more likely possibility is that the plaintiff will actually receive far less. And that, of course, is in the event that the case is even decided in their favor. Criminal cases depend too much on the ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases are not nearly as stringent. In a civil case, the plaintiff need only convince the judge or jury via a reasonable “preponderance of the evidence.”

But all of this combined-from the ridiculously over-the-top accusations, to the inflated figure, to the very specific media outlets that are giving Wade and Jimmy this platform-make for an interesting conspiracy that smells too rotten to be ignored. Could it be possible that there IS truly something rotten…Down Under? Well, I will ponder that idea in more depth in the next few days. For the moment, since these allegations have forced us once again to consider the nature of Michael’s relationships with children, that is where I would like to start. Firstly, for anyone interested in the history of how Michael got to know Wade Robson, you can check out my earlier posts in the series on him:

I have not written much, if anything, on Jimmy Safechuck, though now that he has joined the ranks of accusers, I may get more into his history in time. For now, I am just focusing on keeping this very generalized as it pertains to all of the kids who were frequently seen in Michael’s company. I have written on this topic before, but there were still some things at the time that I was not able to delve as deeply into as I would have liked. The big question that so many have, especially those who are new to discovering MJ or have had only a casual interest and knowledge, is: What the heck WAS up with all of those kids, if it was indeed innocent in nature?

Well, for  those of us who are fans and have studied not only Michael Jackson’s life and art but also his philanthropic, spiritual, and religious beliefs, none of it is a mystery. But I do think it goes beyond such simplistic explanations as “He didn’t have a childhood” or “He was just a big kid himself.” For the record (and I have said this before) I have never bought completely into the “lost childhood” myth, and certainly not as a way of excusing all of Michael’s behavior. Let me clarify. When I say it does not excuse “all” of his behavior, is this intended to imply guilt of criminal behavior?  Absolutely not. In fact, I KNOW that Michael Jackson was a human being who strove to maintain the best ideals he had for himself, and for all humanity-including children. This was a man who DID save hundreds of children’s lives (both directly as a result of his actions, and indirectly as a result of the many millions of dollars he contributed to organizations and charities). This was a man who DID cry for all the pain and suffering that children of the world endured (and continue to endure as we speak). And, yes, he DID bear a lot of scars from his traumatic childhood. If anyone has doubts , they should go back and listen to Conrad Murray’s recording, where a very drugged Michael, with his guard completely down, says in no uncertain terms, “I didn’t have a childhood…I hurt.”


That recording, controversial as it was due to the circumstances under which it was recorded, tells us quite clearly-if anyone ever had an ounce of doubt- that, for Michael, this was no act he put on for the media. It was a constant pain inside of him, so deep that I don’t think any of us can ever completely fathom its depths, or the extent to which it impacted every aspect of his adult life. I have heard some say-even Lisa Marie Presley, his own wife-“Lots of people have a bad childhood. Get over it already.” Here is the problem, though, and it goes back to one of the first and primary rules of psychiatry. It is not up to us-any of us-to invalidate someone else’s pain or emotions. Every individual’s experience, and how they cope/react to it, is unique to that individual, and has validity. Anything less is the crudest form of insensitivity, on a par with telling a person who is grieving when it’s time to “snap out of it.” In other words, it is not up to us to judge whether Michael Jackson reacted appropriately or inappropriately, or whether he coped appropriately or inappropriately, to the traumas of his childhood. Those experiences; those emotions; those traumas (whatever they consisted of) were uniquely his own. And  yes, while there is such a thing as “wallowing in victimhood” (and we are perfectly free whether we wish to indulge it or not) we absolutely must consider how Michael was being judged on a magnitude beyond anything that the average person has to endure.

But that doesn’t mean that there was no calculation whatsoever behind these relationships.  Michael was, simply put, creating a myth for himself. I have heard people question what was up with all of those little boys wearing his outfits, and being made up to look just like him? This is an important point to address, since this has surfaced among the many more sinister allegations that Jimmy Safechuck has leveled. And while there are certainly more serious charges to address, it is a good starting point because “appearances” -i.e., what the public saw and certain patterns of behavior that were starting to be picked up by the media-is at the root of all of this, at least in the sense of placing in the public imagination the idea that “something odd” was going on.

kids3Well, the truth was obvious and two fold. On the one hand, those kids idolized Michael Jackson, and in the 80’s and early 90’s nothing was more cool than to be able to dress “just like Michael.” Michael Jackson had a unique style, and as so ironically happens, the more unique the style, the more it attracts its throngs of imitators. Those kids idolized him and wanted to be just like him, his mirror image, in every respect. On Michael’s end, he encouraged this behavior probably for many reasons. For starters, I’m sure it stoked his ego, and I think he purposely courted a kind of myth for himself as a Pied Piper (or Peter Pan, if you will) whom kids would naturally flock to, and emulate. Let’s face it, he loved the idea of having all those little “mini me’s” surrounding him. It made for good copy, and the P.T. Barnum aspect of Michael could never resist good copy.   Part of the problem, however, was that this seemingly rather eccentric behavior-as the public saw an increasing entourage of little “mini Mikes” accompanying him on tours and other public appearances-also came on the heels of fake but “bizarre” stories of sleeping in hyperbaric chambers and purchasing Elephant Man bones. In other words, the perfect groundwork was being laid for the idea in the public consciousness of Michael Jackson as someone who was, at best, weird and strange. It would not take much push beyond that to also view him as capable of sinister deeds. Of course,  allegations of sexual misconduct against children are sinister, and it’s perfectly fair to say that it was the first, actual accusations made against him by Jordan Chandler which officially rendered everything that had heretefore seemed merely eccentric or “just Michael being Michael” into something sinister. For the most part. However, as I have discussed in depth on this blog before (and as many other MJ writers have also concluded) it was in the seeds of those very “harmless eccentricities” that a lot of the fire was fueled that sped a gullible public’s willingness to swallow those accusations without question. It all goes back to the adage of, “Who is really the one most apt to be a child molestor? The weird old guy down the street, or the upstanding businessman next door? Or dear, sweet Uncle Bob? It should be no big shocker that either the upstanding businessman OR dear, sweet Uncle Bob are far more likely candidates. But many in their naivety of actual child predators or how they operate will quickly and instinctively point fingers to the weird guy down the street.

Michael Was Creating A Myth
Michael Was Creating A Myth

But it is also too easy to brush it off as merely ego, or the idea of Michael creating a larger-than-life Peter Pan myth. Indeed, it goes much deeper. In her excellent essay “Black and White and Proud” Barbara Kaufmann describes it as Michael’s belief in “Kid Power” and the “Kid Power” cultural message, citing the “silent and untapped” ability within children to “change the world”-something that Michael was keenly and intuitively aware of.

However idealistic or even naive his intentions, Michael did genuinely feel himself to be on a crusade. Through years of stardom and money and all of the superficial values that fame and riches represent, he agonized over what his true life’s mission must be. There clearly had to be more:

“A faint suspicion came to me, one that had never dawned so clearly before. What if that one in the mirror isn’t me? He feels separate. He sees problems “out there” to be solved. Maybe they will be, maybe they won’t. He’ll get along. But I don’t feel that way-those problems aren’t “out there,” not really. I feel them inside me…”-Michael Jackson, excerpted from “That One In The Mirror,” Dancing The Dream.

An excellent point was raised by someone on my Twitter timeline, and I think this is a good place to address it because part of the answer to this question ties in exactly to this idea and the whole  “Kid Power” myth that Michael began to perpetuate more and more as the 80’s decade faded into the 90’s-the decade that would really see most of his problems begin. The question (sarcasm fully intended, of course) was: Did Michael suddenly become a pedophile in the 90’s? He became an adult in 1976. How come there were no accusations in the 70’s and 80’s? That is an excellent question. From a fan and “defender” perspective, it makes perfect sense. However, I can also say that I know exactly how the haters would come back and respond to that one. So let’s address it from both angles (it is important, after all, to understand their perspective in order to refute it). The obvious answer, of course, would be that, since Michael was NOT a pedophile, the reason no accusations surfaced in the 70’s and 80’s would be because there were no such accusations to report, and never were. But that’s not an answer that will satisfy skeptics, so let’s move on. The more likely reason is that, obviously, he was simply not worth going after as a target until all of the conditions and circumstances that culminated by the early 1990’s made it feasible. The simple truth is that no one cared enough to go after him as a target until, obviously, he was the richest and most powerful man in the business, and that makes perfect sense. The higher and mightier, the harder the fall-and all the more perks that can be gleaned from that fall. In the late 70’s his star was actually on the decline until the release of The Wiz and Off The Wall put him on the map again. There simply wasn’t as much incentive to go after him, nor was there really any viable reason why such a charge might stick or be remotely believable. He was still, in the public mind, “Little Michael” from The Jackson 5, whose reputation was about as pure as driven snow gets.

The Bad Era Truly Represented Michael "Coming Into His Own" As An Adult, One Who Now Fully Independent And In Total Control Of His Life. Unfortunately, It May Also Have Marked The Beginning Of The End.
The Bad Era Truly Represented Michael “Coming Into His Own” As An Adult, One Who Was Now Fully Independent And In Total Control Of His Life. Unfortunately, It May Also Have Marked The Beginning Of The End.

Enter the 1980’s. Thriller becomes the biggest selling album of all time, and Michael’s star-as well as his net worth-shoots into the stratosphere. But despite this, he is still-at least for a couple of years post-Thriller, a “puppet” of the industry. While this may have had its drawbacks in terms of holding him down, it means there is still a hard shell of protection around him that is mostly implacable to the corruptive forces and vultures who will soon come sweeping down. He is a superstar, but still not completely his own entity. He still tours as a member of The Jacksons. He continues to live at home with his parents (which is maybe not a bad thing, seeing as how it restricts the people he can actually allow into his life). Michael had his share of legal woes and bubbling-just-under-the-radar scandals even then, but they were usually of the same ilk as most popular young male entertainers, paternity suits and things of that order. His acquisition of the ATV catalog, at mid decade, is what seriously starts to change the rules of the game. By the time of the Bad album, he is solidified not only as a solo act but as a “brand.” He is also (understandably) just a little drunk with some of his newfound wealth and freedom.  He can call his own shots. He has severed ties with his mother’s religion. He has his own digs-nearly three thousand acres’ worth. By 1990, he has signed the most lucrative recording contract in history. In many crucial ways, I think that what we start to witness of Michael during this phase is akin to a kind of late blooming of adolescence. His behavior during this period was on a par with what we usually see in much younger performers who have suddenly acquired wealth, fame, and power. (Think Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus, maybe right before their behavior became so scandalous, or the excesses of most rock stars who usually acquire their fame in their early to mid twenties). Michael was nearly thirty by this point, and although he was certainly not new to wealth or fame, his life as a child star and as a member of a successful family group meant that until that point, he had known little in the way of actual independence.  The song that baby sister Janet sang-“Control”-could have just as easily been Michael’s new theme song as well.  This created a heady brew, and I think it would be naive to assume that this had no impact or bearing on him at all. Indeed, it must have felt quite exhilarating to finally have arrived at this pinnacle. In Michael’s case, the excesses did not so much manifest themselves in the usual pop star ways-lavish spending, parties, drugs and sex-but with the newfound freedom he had to fully explore his artistic vision and the kind of myths which he wished to create. Thus, I think it is why we finally see, during this phase, the full coming to fruition of what Barbara Kaufmann so aptly described as his belief in “Kid Power” and its ability to bring about world change. From that point forward, freed from the last vestiges of his Jackson family fame, he sought to “make himself over” in his new image. From this point forward, everything would be larger-than-life, bigger, better, and bolder. So one can imagine that if part of his modus operandi was to bring to light the idea of “Kid Power” and its possibilities, he was going to make it the loudest and boldest statement possible. We certainly can’t say Michael ever did anything halfway.

I stated that I know exactly how the haters and objective critics will spin this, as they have already done, over and over. They like to portray a much more sinister and Machiavellian view of Michael during this late 80’s/early 90’s phase, as someone who was simply growing bolder and bolder in “flaunting” his “perversions” to the world. And in some ways, the very scenario I have depicted-of Michael as a young, newly emancipated and powerful man who was finally free to indulge his every whim, both personally, professionally and creatively-is one that would certainly not appear, on the surface, at least, to completely contradict that view. But in  the end, a lot of it simply comes down to whether one wants to look at it from a pure minded view, or a jaded and cynical one.  I am convinced that the only thing Michael was guilty of “flaunting” was, perhaps, a very big ego coupled with a naive belief that he could actually “dare to be different” and go against the norm of societal expectations without expecting that there were bound to be some consequence; some form of backlash.

This Pepsi ad from 1988 featuring Jimmy Safechuck (which ironically at the time was my favorite of all Michael’s Pepsi commercials) played on the idea of Michael as a hero that every kid in the 80’s wanted to emulate:


Michael was genuinely beloved by kids everywhere (and still is today!). One only has to look at all the thousands of kids who are still constantly imitating his moves and dressing like him; or the joy on their faces when they hear his music or watch Thriller. Michael capitalized on that love in a way that was, by turns, both calculated and genuine, as a means of fulfilling his “Kid Power” vision. But also, I think kids sensed in him that he was not phony; that he genuinely loved THEM as much as they loved him. Or as Michael himself would say, “I love you more.” It was always (and still is) a reciprocal relationship that children all over the world connected and responded to.

Kids Adored Him Then. They Still Do Today!
Kids Adored Him Then. They Still Do Today!

Unfortunately, we live in a jaded world where, too often, we have seen many of our most beloved children’s heroes and mentors  tainted by scandal, from “Pee Wee Herman” getting caught masturbating in an adult theater to the more recent posthumous allegations against Jimmy Saville. In the aftermath of so many actual cases where popular children’s idols have proven to be pedophiles or perverted in other ways (since I used the Pee Wee Herman example) , the cynicism and skepticism becomes easier to understand. Additionally, we have to understand that many know only the broadest and most distorted view of how Michael’s relationships with children have been portrayed. This most recent media smear campaign, unfortunately, will do little to alleviate this misunderstanding, and is only serving to further muddy the waters-quite literally, I might add. However, if it’s any comfort, I do believe that a lot of fans are needlessly over reacting to it. Not surprisingly, we pay more attention to this stuff than the average person because, for obvious reasons, it matters more to us.  And, weirdly enough,  there is another group at the opposite end of the spectrum whom it matters to as well- the haters.  But beyond the tabloids and Hollywood gossip sites, I haven’t seen that much interest generated by these latest allegations. It’s not on the front page of CNN news; it’s not trending on Twitter; Nancy Grace isn’t shouting about it. Granted, that may change IF Robson and Safechuck are allowed to move forward with a trial, but right now, this is just a lot of hot air hooey and a lot of chest puffing designed to bluff the estate and make them sweat a bit before the hearings-and perhaps, as a bit of a macabre side note, to make the fan base squirm as well. But keep in mind no amount of publicity and no amount of campaigning their case to the media will have any bearing on the due process of law. The court, ultimately, will be the one that determines if they actually have enough grounds to proceed. But as I’ve said before, the stakes of this trial are going to have relatively little interest for the media aside from whatever salacious details can be gleaned from it. Civil trials, in general, are less interesting than criminal ones, and in this case the accused is already dead, so it’s not like there is going to be the guaranteed ratings bonanza of a possible conviction (this, more than anything, was what generated so much interest in the 2005 trial). Both the AEG trial and even the Conrad Murray death trial barely registered with the public, although both were reported. However, I guarantee that you will be hard pressed to find anyone other than the hardcore fans who could actually tell you anything that came out of either trial. I still find people every day who never even realized that Murray was convicted! Those trials, too, promised lots of salacious details about Michael’s personal life (though, granted, I think any accusation of child sex abuse concerning him will always generate more media coverage than the tragic details of his demise). All the same, however, the stakes simply aren’t as high. Michael Jackson is dead, so he can’t be criminally charged or convicted. Wade and Jimmy are grown-ass men, not little boys, and while there may be some professed sympathy from the pseudo “victim support” faction (most of which I suspect are phony in their case, anyway) it’s simply not the same as when the case involves someone who is still a child, and thus still vulnerable.

Moreover, not only are Wade and Jimmy grown-ass men, but it is well known that they are grown-ass men who gave sworn testimony that they were never abused, and did so freely of their own accord AS adults. And please, spare me all the arguments of Stockholm syndrome, etc. I am very well versed in the psychology of child abuse victims. I am very well aware that the Stockholm syndrome exists (although in this case I call bullshit on it) but all of that is beside the point. I am talking about how it looks from a legal standpoint, as well as how it has deflected much of the public sympathy that these two might have had. From what I can see, none of this (at least so far) has made any dent on the Michael Jackson brand, which is a far cry from how the public reacted in 2005. Xscape is still selling as well as ever; the Immortal shows are still packing them in every night, and just this week, So You Think You Can Dance? (a show that Wade Robson has strong affiliations with) announced a Michael Jackson themed show that will serve as the official launching premier of the new single A Place With No Name. As some have already been quick to point out, if this isn’t a snub directly in Wade’s face, I don’t know what is.

Even though it is the haters’ greatest wish, and the goal of this current conspiracy, all attempts to turn Michael Jackson into the “next Jimmy Saville” or the “next Jerry Sandusky” or to even remotely paint him into that corner have so far proven futile. He remains a beloved performer whose fan base and legacy continues to grow rather than diminish, and for whom the loyalty and resolve of those who love him only seems to strengthen with every adversity. Overall, there seems to be a general consensus among the public that Michael Jackson the man is gone, and that his life (however he lived it) and his legacy (however he made it) has been done. Most are content at this point to enjoy what he left us, and to leave whatever sins he may have committed on this earth to God’s judgement. What I have seen overall is a general jadedness and even disgust with what Wade and Jimmy are trying to do-from average citizens to celebrities, most are saying, “Enough already.”

The General Consensus Of The Public, Now That He Is Gone, Seems To Be: Let's Just Be Content To Enjoy What He Left Us.
The General Consensus Of The Public, Now That He Is Gone, Seems To Be: Let’s Just Be Content To Enjoy What He Left Us. Anything Beyond That Is In God’s Hands Now.

But to get back to the question of why no allegations before 1993, it’s more a case of the fact that there was no high profile interest in such incidents prior to the 1990’s. Diane Dimond and others have hinted at vague and unproven pre-1990 incidents, such as the one Dimond recounts in her 2005 book Be Careful Who You Love of a Mexican gardener for the Jacksons who allegedly had two sons and to whom Michael allegedly wrote a substantial check (which Diane claims enabled the family to move back to Mexico). All of this information came from a typically unnamed source-“The Mormon”-who had supposedly gone to the FBI with the information. The FBI followed through, but there was simply nothing to go on, and the investigation was closed. Also, Victor Guiterrez was already on his one-man mission to “out” Michael Jackson as a pedophile long before 1993-and long before Evan Chandler came into the picture. You can read more about Guiterrez and his “mission” in the links I posted to my previous series, especially Parts 4 and 5. You may also be interested to check out some of the reader comments below this post, where some of my fellow astute MJ researchers have pointed out the connection to “The Mormon” and Victor Guiterrez.

We also have to keep in mind that it was during the early 1990’s when the “witch hunt hysteria” against suspected child molestors reached its peak with the McMartin Preschool trial and other day-care cases, which even Wikipedia refers to as a “moral panic.” In this atmosphere, no one was truly safe from false accusation. No one was immune. I think what we can safely surmise from this is that a combination of unique factors-as well as a very interesting cast of characters-were already laying the groundwork that would ultimately culminate in making Michael a very vulnerable target by the time of the Chandler extortion. But it was the resultant publicity and settlement of that case which really opened the floodgates.  Since that time, there have been a number of fake cases and “phantom victims” that have been concocted against Michael Jackson, either for attention or with the hope of some kind of pay out. Here are just a few of the more well known “scams” and scammers who tried to concoct phony child abuse sex cases against Michael.


Why have so many tried this? You would think they would know full well that they needed real evidence to make a case stick. But I think the answer is in the unique reality of the Michael Jackson cases. Partly because of Michael’s reputation, and the all too eager participation of the media in helping to create that reputation-it became easy to make a gullible public believe most anything about Michael Jackson. You can see for yourself how in the case of the Canadian ring (the first video) that Diane Dimond is only too ready to go the Canadian police with the bogus story, and it is only after the teenager confesses it’s a hoax that she back pedals on this plan.

Any story about him was at least guaranteed to give the perpetrator a  windfall from going to the tabloids. I think most knew full well that their concocted stories would never hold up under the scrutiny of a court, but there was always the hope that if they created enough stir in the media that they might exert some sort of pressure for a settlement offer. And even if not, they could still line their pockets quite handsomely just from the tabloids and TV appearances alone. In other words, it didn’t take long for a kind of black market to spring up around the idea of accusing Michael Jackson-of anything. The tragedy is that death hasn’t stopped it. In fact, due to the lack of protection against defamation for the dead, it has actually increased. After all, Michael Jackson cannot answer any charges made against him now. He cannot defend himself.

Just Ask Kenya How Much Michael Jackson Loved Having Poop On His Floor!
Just Ask Kenya How Much Michael Jackson Loved Having Poop On His Floor!

Case in point: Just this week, claims surfaced from three conveniently unnamed maids who supposedly worked at Neverland in the 90’s, There was no point whatsoever to the article except to claim that Michael’s house was filthy, and to add the obligatory bizarre streak, often smeared with feces (?) and that he, apparently, pissed whereever the urge hit. Granted, NONE of this had anything whatsoever to do with the allegations of Wade and Jimmy, yet it doesn’t take much brain wattage to conclude that it’s all either a very calculated part of the plan or, at least, a case of shit feeding off of shit (pun fully intended). These smear campaigns tend to snowball and take on a life of their own once they get started. And even when you have stories like this which have nothing to do with the allegations, they are nevertheless obviously intended to paint a picture of the individual-in this case, reinforcing the idea of abnormality and “freakishness”. In turn, such stories create a perception of the person in the public consciousness. “Gee, this guy was so weird I wouldn’t put anything past him.”

Anyway, why I bring this up now is because not only has at least one Neverland maid stepped forward to refute this ridiculous story, but also has confirmed (again!) a fact that I have heard over and over from Michael’s friends and those who knew him, that all at various times have been offered large sums of money to dish dirt.

The fact is, even if Michael was a slob (and yes, I have seen the pics of the Carolwood bathroom as well as the piles of junk he hoarded at Neverland), my reaction has always been, So what? I mean, what are we supposed to take from that? Last time I checked, it wasn’t a crime. (And besides, if these women were hired as maids, wasn’t it supposed to be their damned job to clean up the mess? I mean, seriously, how could Neverland be so filthy if the maids were doing their job? Michael must have had a knack for hiring some of the laziest employees in the business!). These stories, obviously, are not meant to serve any purpose except as a kind of embarrassment to the subject. As we have discussed previously in comments exchanged on this blog, the titillation is in the thrill of “outting” someone’s “secrets.” That is what the celebrity gossip industry thrives on.

Adding in the needlessly scatalogical elements and the idea of someone urinating openly in their own home was purely for shock value, to put him on a par with a wild animal or something sub human. What person in their right mind is going to urinate in the very space that they live and breathe in? Not to mention, the “poop” stories are absolutely absurd and we have proof of that in the bodyguards’ book Remember The Time. Memory jog: When did Whitfield and Beard say was the only time they ever really saw Michael furious with Prince? Hmmm? Yep, that’s right-when he stepped in the “gift” left by Kenya (the children’s Lab) on the garage floor. Prince not only received a very severe verbal dressing down, but was ordered to clean up the mess and thereafter, was a lot more vigilant about his responsibilities. This certainly doesn’t sound like the reaction of someone who “loved” poop so much that he kept his own house smeared with it.

Anyway, enough of that bs and I would not even find such a story worth mentioning except for the fact that it highlights exactly what I’m talking about here. Like I said, such stories may not be as bad as tales of anal rape, but they all to some degree serve their collective purpose, if enough of them keep piling on.

Fans have no legal recourse, and it is left mostly to his estate and family to pick up the slack-and, quite frankly, I don’t think either have done a stellar job on that front. (Just keeping it real here). To his credit, Taj Jackson has recently launched a Twitter attack against the tabloids, but it would be nice if more of them would speak up-that is, to speak up and truly defend, not just to give the same weak responses they always do. But what are some other factors that have made Michael Jackson, in particular, so vulnerable to these accusations?

There has grown up around Michael a myth of someone who was, at the very least, a “boy lover” (a term often reserved for homosexual men with a predilection for very young boys, which may or may not necessarily be sexual in nature, but does usually denote a connotation of desired intimacy). On the surface, it is certainly easy to understand how and why this myth has taken hold. Michael certainly always “seemed” to have the company of a lot of young male friends around-and all of the accusers have been male. But I’m going to propose something here quite shocking. Michael had no sexual interest in boys. Period. In fact, that was the very reason he made sure-especially in public settings-that it was boys he was seen with, and not girls (though media manipulation has had a lot to do with this perception through the years as well-just look at how many photos you see where the boys’ sisters and mothers, etc., have been cropped out of the pics so as to make it look as though it is only Michael and the boy!).

A great and well known example of a photo that has often been manipulated by the media. The full shot shows Michael carrying Lily Chandler in his arms, with Jordan walking beside them. But media outlets almost always chop the pic so that it looks as if it is only of him and Jordan!


JORDAN CHANDLER and MICHAEL JACKSON@ WORLD MUSIC AWARDS, MONACO - MAY 1993JORDYIf anything, Michael used the boys as a smokescreen. Why? Because he preferred the myth he was creating as the innocent and magical Pied Piper to the typical, pop star “horn dog” image, and because-in what has to be one of the great ironies of history-he felt safer and less apt to be judged in their company. As I have said before, Michael was from the old school era which had taught him that an adult male’s place-if he was going to be in the company of kids-was with kids of the same gender. He would have considered it far more improper to have girls sleeping in his room, or traveling with him-even though they often did in the company of their brothers and parents. However, we have to remember that Michael was raised in an era long before the current politically correct standard, in which same sex adults sharing a room with a child could still be viewed as inappropriate. Case in point: When I was a little girl, I thought nothing of being in the bathroom with my mother or grandmother as they bathed, or in the bedroom with them as they dressed. That was normal and natural. But it would have certainly felt very abnormal and weird to be in the bathroom with my father or grandfather, or to be in the bedroom with them when they dressed. Wade’s sister Chantal Robinson said-in her own words, coming from her own mouth-that she felt “uncomfortable” sharing a bed with Michael and that was why she discontinued staying in his room. She was never at any time asked or ordered to leave, but the general consensus from all parties seemed to be that it was not the proper place for a female child.

The truth is that the displays of affection that Michael lavished on these boys-and which even now, questionable “witnesses” are attempting to use against him-was the kind of affection that he lavished equally on children of both sexes. Here is an obvious example, with this video footage that recently surfaced of Michael and Sage Romero: I have seen video footage where it may appear, on first glance, that Michael’s displays of affection  may seem a bit “excessive” by most peoples’ standards-he definitely believed in giving hugs and kisses!-but Michael also said that he would never deny any child what he himself had been so denied growing up. Physical but innocent affection-hugs and kisses-were what he most longed for from his own father. Yet I think these displays of affection are what many sick minds have tried to twist into something more-if the price or incentive was right. It doesn’t take much connecting of the dots to figure, for example, how people like the Quindoys- upon perhaps witnessing an innocent hug given by Michael to Macaulay Culkin-managed to transform that hug into a “groping” outside the pants and then-as the dollar price for their story increased-quickly became a case of groping “inside” the pants. And I’ve always suspected that the alleged nonsense over his “head licking” of Gavin Arvizo probably stemmed from some stupid jerk who witnessed nothing more than an affectionate kiss on the head (a gesture Michael was prone to do, including with his own kids).


Michael essentially had two distinctly different modes when he was around kids, depending on their age. Unfortunately, both have been used against him for the wrong reasons, without any serious attempt to put either in their proper context, and often in the process creating contradictions that even the accusers and haters trip all over themselves trying to keep straight. I mean, really, was he encouraging young boys to hate girls, or actively encouraging them to get turned on by watching them perform explicit sexual acts? It can’t work both ways, although I think I can shed some light on how/why some of these myths have taken hold. One myth that has grown up around Michael is the idea that he despised girls and encouraged small boys to feel likewise. Yet this is not borne out by any actual footage or evidence that we see of Michael interacting with kids at Neverland (granted, what we see is usually what Michael wanted us to see-I will go ahead and beat the haters to that punch!-but there are also far more logical reasons to debunk this nonsense). Where a lot of this myth originated-and has continued to be perpetuated over and over as part of the haters’ propaganda-is from an alleged list of “six wishes” that Michael reportedly told Jordan Chandler to repeat every day. Well, this “list” originated from Victor Guiterrez’s fantasy novel “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” (so that fact alone should tell you of its credibility) I have yet to actually see a produced copy of this “list”; however, I tend to believe the mantra probably did exist, as its wording and phrasing is very similar to words and phrases Michael tended to use-but obviously, in Guiterrez’s hands, they became twisted completely out of context:

“NO wenches, bitches, heifers or hoes (whores). NEVER give up your “bliss” (sex acts). LIVE with me in Neverland forever. NO conditioning. NEVER grow up. BE better than best friends forever (lovers)”-Excerpted from Michael Jackson Was My Lover by Victor Guiterrez. 

I left the above passage completely unaltered from Guiterrez’s version for a reason, so that you can see just how he manipulated the meaning and intent of the tenets within the context of a dirty, perverted mind. Everything in parenthesis from that passage are HIS words and additions (not Michael’s).

First of all, Michael most emphatically did NOT use the word “bliss” as a code word for something sexual. He meant it exactly in the same context that he wrote in his poem “Are You Listening?” from Dancing The Dream:

Are You Listening ?


Who am I?
Who are you?
Where did we come from?
Where are we going?
Whats it all about?


Do you have the answers?
Immortalitys my game
From Bliss I came
In Bliss I am sustained
To Bliss I return
If you dont know it now
Its a shame
Are you listening?


This body of mine
Is a flux of energy
In the river of time
Eons pass, ages come and go
I appear and disappear
Playing hide-and-seek
In the twinkling of an eye


I am the particle
I am the wave
Whirling at lightning speed
I am the fluctuation
That takes the lead
I am the Prince
I am the Knave
I am the doing
That is the deed
I am the galaxy, the void of space
In the Milky Way
I am the craze


I am the thinker, the thinking, the thought
I am the seeker, the seeking, the sought
I am the dewdrop, the sunshine, the storm
I am the phenomenon, the field, the form
I am the desert, the ocean, the sky
I am the Primeval Self
In you and I


Pure unbounded consciousness
Truth, existence, Bliss am I
In infinite expressions I come and go
Playing hide-and-seek
In the twinkling of an eye
But immortalitys my game


Eons pass
Deep inside
I remain
Ever the same
From Bliss I came
In Bliss I am sustained


Join me in my dance
Please join me now
If you forget yourself
Youll never know how
This game is played


In the ocean bed of Eternity
Stop this agony of wishing
Play it out
Dont think, dont hesitate
Curving back within yourself
Just create just create


Immortality’s my game
From Bliss I came
In Bliss Im sustained
To Bliss I return
If you dont know it now
Its a shame
Are you listening?
This reference to bliss is clearly in the theological sense of the word, as a biblical “place” or state of being (usually defined as “Heaven” and associated with the joys of the biblical Heaven) but, as has been well documented on this site and from many other great sources on Michael-both scholarly and popular-Michael redefined his personal definition of “Bliss” after his break from the strict doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witness faith to a more immanent view that included the (for him) revelatory belief that “Bliss: could exist on earth, in the here and now. It did not have to be some abstract concept, dependent upon some idea of an abstract place and an abstract God. This could be interpreted a number of ways in the tenet, but its most likely definition-given that Michael was addressing it to a child-was to not give up on what makes you happy. Keep to your dreams.
To even attempt to twist such an idea into something sexual is in itself the height of perversity. Additionally, there is no proof that the tenet “Be better than best friends forever” is meant to be construed as “being lovers.” Really, it carries no deeper meaning than two boys cutting their palms so that they can become “blood brothers.”
But what I really want to focus on-because it has been so conveniently used by haters to “prove” their agenda of Michael as a boy lover who hated girls-is the first tenet.
As I’ve said, Michael was able to compartmentalize his child empathy to fit the mental and physical ages of the children he was around. When he was around a group of kids aged 7-12 or so, he could easily be one of the “Lost Boys.” What are boys of that age group, before the hormones of puberty hit, largely interested in? Well, they are interested in sports and video games, “snails and puppy dog tails,” etc as the old saying goes but the one thing they most definitely are NOT interested in is girls. This is the height of the “girls have cooties” stage, and it is simply one of the rites of passage of boyhood. Does anyone remember Dennis The Menace, and how he hated Margaret (for no good reason except she was a “creepy girl” and “icky?”). This was an idea that was epitomized by Our Gang (The Little Rascals) in the film, “The He-Man Woman Haters’ Club” in which Spanky and Alfalfa form a club where no girls are allowed. Of course, the plot hinged on the fact that Alfalfa would be tempted by the “seductress” Darla Hood into betraying his fellow club members. To her credit, even our nemesis Desiree from the “Desiree Speaks” blog recognized and had to concede this connection.
I don’t necessarily condone referring to women as “wenches, bitches, heifers and hos” but if one looks at the tenet in context, it is really nothing more than a variant on the idea of the “He-Man Woman Haters’ Club” and a reference to this very innocent phase of boyhood, something that Michael would have understood implicitly. It could also be a kind of way of advising, “Don’t let any girl bring you down” because, usually, the most crushing thing any adolescent boy can endure is that first heartbreak inflicted by a girl.
My bottom line: This is NOT some  proof that Michael had an agenda to turn boys against girls. If anything, it only shows that he understood how little boys think. It’s an age of innocence that passes all too quickly, never to return again. Michael understood that.
YET here is where it gets complicated. Often, the very same accusers (and haters) who try to claim that Michael’s modus operandi was to turn them against girls are, ironically, the same ones who will claim that Michael used straight pornography to entice them. There are stories after stories of him making crude jokes about girls in front of the boys and things of that nature. But we can see already how this paints a very contradictory picture. Did he want them to hate girls, or did he want them to be turned on by women so that he could get some perverse, vicarious pleasure from it? They seem to want it both ways, but it doesn’t work that way.
I have said that Michael was able to compartmentalize his relationships with children. Michael had many very young friends, but his method of conduct around them was very different from the way he interacted with older, adolescent boys (aged 13 and up). What I am about to say may be controversial, and it may offend some. For that, I will apologize in advance. But I have never held to the belief that Michael was some kind of saint, or anything more or less than a flawed human being, even if albeit a very talented human being with many wonderful qualities. But bear in mind, that doesn’t make him a saint. And I have said before that part of exonerating Michael as a criminal may mean accepting certain human flaws that,  while they may paint his character in a less than pristine light, may be necessary in order to understand why he was NOT a criminal. If that makes sense. Bear with me.
It’s no secret that Michael kept a lot of pornography. A lot. The trial pretty much made that fact open record, so there is no point in being shy about it. Don’t get me wrong, I feel genuinely embarrassed for Michael that this stuff was ever made public record, and yes, I feel a sense of shame that I know far more about this very private aspect of Michael’s life than I should. But the pornography that was found-while excessive- was all heterosexual and legal adult pornography. I don’t judge Michael for having these items. He was an adult, after all. Nor do I buy the favorite hater line that this porn collection somehow perverted the idea of Neverland as a “kid friendly place.” Yes, it was, and Michael clearly kept those boundaries. But it was also his private home. Just because he loved the magic of childhood innocence-and wanted to give children a place where they could experience that-didn’t mean that he didn’t have adult drives that he was perfectly free to entertain in the privacy of his own quarters.
Since at least three accusers have now tried to claim that Michael showed them pornography as part of the “grooming process” this bears looking into. Among Gavin Arvizo’s claims was that Michael showed him a magazine (although when questioned under oath, he identified it as a magazine that had not even been published when the alleged incident took place!) and that Michael made a crude sexual joke with a mannequin (basically, emulating the sex act by humping it).
I will set something straight for the record. I don’t believe that Michael ever showed pornography to the younger kids, but what about the teenagers? Those who were already well past adolescence?  Could it be that Michael’s desire to be “one of the boys” caused some exercises in poor judgment? Even if he never showed it to them but bragged about having it (as in keeping with the adolescent mindset) this could have led curious youngsters to snoop into his room and private stash, as happened with Gavin and Star Arvizo when they were caught by Michael’s nephew Rijo masturbating to porn in Michael’s bedroom (for the record, Michael himself was not present when this incident occurred).
But one thing we have to understand is that Michael (and this is something I have reasonably gleamed from many private conversations with those who knew him, as well as many publicly available accounts) had a sometimes bizarre-and quite frankly adolescent-sense of humor. So, just as with any normal teenage boy, there’s a good chance that a lot of braggadocio-jokes about girls’ anatomy and references to the sexual act, etc- could have occurred. It’s the sort of thing that adolescent boys do for shits and giggles. Michael wasn’t an adolescent, of course, but it’s very likely that in his mind, he saw such behavior as just another manifestation of reliving his adolescent childhood. That Michael did joke around about girls in a sexual manner with his adolescent friends has been pretty much confirmed by Frank Cascio and others. This is what Frank wrote in his book “My Friend Michael”:
“We always tried to embarrass each other in front of women. I was shy—in many ways I still am—and knowing this, Michael would put me on the spot with women, saying, “Frank thinks you’re beautiful. He wants to kiss you.” Or we’d be standing in the back of an elevator car behind an attractive hotel maid, and I’d feel Michael subtly nudging my hand toward the girl’s butt. I’d shake him off before the girl noticed. It was juvenile—maintaining this private exchange that kept the girls at a distance. “-Frank Cascio, Excerpted From “My Friend Michael.”
Now THIS is the sort of thing I’m talking about, and it seems harmless enough. Just a couple of guys goofing off and acting silly. But my point is: Imagine Michael did this sort of thing often enough with some of his young friends (and he did). So then, let’s say down the road that this kid (now an adult) decides he wants to bring an accusation in hopes of getting some money. It doesn’t take much to construe an incident like the above into something much more graphic and sinister.
In other words, what we are really talking here has more to do with questionable AGE APPROPRIATE behavior than criminal behavior per se. But it becomes easy to see how such behavior might have made him vulnerable and eventually set him up down the road, as these young men could now twist these scenarios to use for their own advantage. If he so much as bragged about his “stash” (again, very typical adolescent boy behavior); if he revealed too much about what he liked or “how he liked it”; any of that could then be twisted out of context and used against him. I have a strong suspicion that what may be happening in the case of Wade and Jimmy (unless one subscribes to the theory that they are just out and out lying and concocting all of this from scratch) is that between their shared attorney and shared psychiatrist, they are now being convinced that any action Michael did; any joke that ever passed between them; any gesture; any words of affection constituted “abuse.” We have already seen at least one allegation where Safechuck has tried to make something perverted out of simply holding Michael’s hand!
I feel this is important to state even if some may take issue with any idea of wrongdoing or age inappropriate behavior on Michael’s part. But this is very consistent with the kind of behavior and sense of humor that many of his closest friends have ascribed. “Jesus Juice,” for example, is another case where Michael’s sometimes off the wall humor and creative wordplay became, ultimately, the source for misunderstanding-or deliberate misrepresentation. Michael would drink wine out of coke cans to keep children (his own as well as others) from knowing he was drinking alcohol. If they asked, he would jokingly say he was drinking “Jesus Juice” and it was not for them. We all know how that seemingly innocent line later became twisted in the media reports of the trial! Suddenly, it was no longer a secret code that Michael used to keep kids from knowing he was drinking wine; it was a sinister phrase he used to entice kids to drink it with him!
In other words, I believe that when Michael was among a bunch of adolescent boys, he tended to “think” and act like an adolescent. This may or may not excuse some of his more juvenile behavior and antics, but what we seriously have to question is: Does age inappropriate behavior necessarily equate to criminal behavior? I am talking here, of course, the distinction between telling a few off color jokes or bragging about his porn stash as opposed to actually committing a brutal sex act upon a minor-that is still a vastly huge difference.
So what exactly is the truth behind these graphic allegations, and what is the strategic purpose behind them? More importantly, who is behind them, and why?
I will try to address all of these questions-as well as getting to the heart of the “Australian Conspiracy”-later this week.

116 thoughts on “The Current Conspiracy and…The Australian Connection?-Pt 1”

  1. Raven,
    I am an mature, academic researcher completing a doctorate at Ball State U in Muncie IN. I have a master’s in public relations and journalism. I also lecture on aspects of Michael Jackson’s life and work and I have been following your well-researched blog. I say all this to introduce this article to you that I am posting here. It is about “newsjacking”–which is exactly what the tabloids do to sell papers when they aren’t just making up lies. This is why we see all the tabloid stories. They are parasites and leeches.

    May 7, 2014
    The Power of Newsjacking: Knowing How and When To Do It Can Generate Cost-Free Exposure for Your Client or Company

    By Gary Frisch, President, Swordfish Communications

    When the May issue of Rolling Stone magazine debuted, featuring a cover shot of Julia Louis-Dreyfus with a “tattoo” of the U.S. Constitution on her back, an uproar went out. Not because the photo was particularly risqué or blasphemous, but because underneath the text is the large, unmistakable signature of John Hancock. The problem is, Hancock’s John Hancock is on the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
    The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia took some delight in pointing out the error on its Twitter feed, tweeting “George Washington to @RollingStone – Thanks for the shout out but no Hancock here,” along with a photo of the statues in its Signers Hall. The nonprofit center was mentioned in dozens if not hundreds of major media news stories about the goof.

    This is an example of “newsjacking”—and knowing what it is, how to do it, and most importantly when to do it can be a powerful, cost-free way of generating exposure for your business or organization.

    Quite simply, newsjacking means hijacking something the news media is already talking about, and finding a way to relate it to your business. Often, the organizations that do this look for something that is tongue-in-cheek, but will capture people’s attention. It doesn’t necessarily have to be humorous like the above example, though. Anything that’s on the mind of reporters—and their readers or viewers—is ripe for newsjacking, within limits.

    Imagine that you run a bakery that specializes in cupcakes, and a national or local wedding planners group comes out with its updated cost for throwing a wedding in your region. You notice the cost of the traditional wedding cake has skyrocketed, and now accounts for 5% of the overall expenses. Now might be a great time to pitch a food or style writer on the unique appeal of substituting decorative cupcakes for a multi-tier wedding cake.

    Or, if you run a food pantry, put out a press release based on the same news noting how many families could eat a healthy meal if the bride and groom scale back the cost of the cake by a fraction and donated that money to a non-profit that assists those in need.

    That’s newsjacking.

    Pop cultural phenomena, like the Rolling Stone error, seem particularly ripe for newsjacking. In 2010, after Paris Hilton’s arrest for drug possession in Las Vegas was widely reported, Wynn Resorts promptly issued a statement banning the heiress from its properties. Maybe it was a slow news day, or the significance of the nation’s number one party girl being barred from the city’s glitziest hotel-casino, but Wynn’s press was picked up by just about every newspaper and syndicated entertainment column in the country, not to mention all the national broadcast news outlets.

    In February, while the “gay discrimination bill”—the one that would’ve protected store owners who choose to deny service to homosexuals because of their own religious beliefs—wended its way through the Arizona state legislature, a Tucson pizzeria jumped into the fray. It posted a sign in its window saying “We reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona state legislators.” It was meant as a heartfelt protest to the proposed law, but a photo tweeted by the shop (or a passerby) quickly went viral and, like Wynn’s announcement, turned up just about everywhere. I don’t remember the name of that pizzeria, but I bet most Tucson residents do.

    Things get dicier with stories of a serious nature, particularly those involving tragedy. Opportunities might exist, but as “Breaking Bad’s” meth kingpin Walter White would say, the best course would be to tread lightly. If you’re a personal safety expert, for example, you don’t want to put out a press release with tips on surviving an airplane water landing while authorities are searching for Malaysian Flight 370.

    An egregious example of poor newsjacking came in the days following the September 11th terrorist attacks. The makers of the iconic Kit-Cat Clock, the one with the googly eyes, sent a pitch to the New York Times and other media outlets noting, “Through America’s toughest times, the Kit-Cat Klock has brightened our days for 70 years, through the Great Depression, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, Desert Storm and several recessions. We thought you might be interested in a historical profile of the clock in light of current events.”

    The publicist who hatched this idea was fired. I still cringe when I think about this epic PR fail.

    When done properly, though, newsjacking doesn’t have to be a job-endangering minefield. In 2009, with the Philadelphia Phillies competing for their second straight World Series Championship, the media in the City of Brotherly Love was focused almost exclusively on the Fightin’ Phils. I suggested that my client, a make-your-own winery in nearby South Jersey, serve up a New Jersey merlot re-branded as “Phillie’s Phinest,” at a viewing party in their facility to show how wine lovers can root on the local team just as well as the boisterous beer-drinking crowd. I invited the media, and earned coverage on the local ABC station as well as a live interview with the winery’s proprietors on a Philadelphia morning television show.

    Here are some tips for effective newsjacking:
    Strike while the iron is hot. In today’s speed-of-Web environment, the best results come when you can get in front of the media fast. The next couple of hours is ideal; tomorrow or the day after is too late. Generally, small businesses have the benefit of being more agile than large corporations with their layers of bureaucracy. However, savvy corporations and familiar brands are empowering their PR and social media folks to respond quickly, like Arby’s did when it likened its logo to Pharrell Williams’ signature hat on Twitter during the Golden Globe Awards (then bought the hat in a charitable auction on eBay).

    Exploit both traditional and new PR tools. A press release or media alert faxed or emailed to reporters can be effective, as long as it is sent fast. But social media, with strategic hashtags (e.g., #GoldenGlobes, #RollingStoneFail) is ideal for newsjacking because it is immediate, requires no media “gatekeeper” and can get the attention of both journalists and customers, especially if it’s shared/retweeted.

    Think outside the box. All of the examples above involved creative or eyebrow-raising ways to inject the company’s name or service into the conversations. The most important rule is that there is some logical connection, even if it’s not initially obvious. Even the Kit-Cat Clock pitch was out-of-the-box, though woefully misguided. Which brings us to…

    Always be tactful. Think about your pitch or tweet like an outsider, not a brand representative. If it’s related to bad news or poorly timed, it could be perceived as exploitative or in bad taste. That doesn’t mean every major story with negative connotations is completely off-limits, but you’d better be darn sure that what you’re offering is vital and relevant.

    The best rule is, “When in doubt, don’t send it out.” An experienced public relations consultant can help you determine what, if anything, to disseminate.

    Newsjacking occurs almost every day. Once you know what to look for, it’s fairly easy to spot in the media you consume regularly. By keeping this tactic in mind, you’ll look at the news differently, and be more likely to jump on an opportunity when it presents itself.

    Gary Frisch is founder and president of Swordfish Communications, a full-service public relations agency in Laurel Springs, N.J. Visit Swordfish online at

    1. Thanks for this insightful piece, Sherry. It does explain how a lot of the journalism we see operates. There is also. of course, another wisdom of thinking on this, which goes back hundreds of years in the business world (and now includes journalism as well): Strike while the iron is hot. The media’s basic function is to keep the public informed, but that has been gradually molded over time to both, “Giving the public what they want to hear” and even, in many cases, controlling what we think.

      We are all familiar with what we call “cut and paste” journalism, where one news source breaks a story and then countless others simply pick it up verbatim-usually without even fact checking the original article. This is also a variant of the same principle as “hijacking” news although I know it’s a different concept. But there is still a definite relation.

      So “hijacking news” would seem to apply to cases where one news story continues to breed off shoot stories; stories designed to take advantage of the topic while that iron is hot.

      We are seeing this already, as the death of Robin Williams yesterday has already spawned dozens of articles on suicide and depression. Again, the topic is hot right now exactly BECAUSE of this tragedy.

      Of course there is no crime in taking advantage of a timely topic, especially in cases where it may help to raise awareness of other issues. And no one who contributes to the media (including us bloggers) is totally immune. For example, I am addressing this topic of Wade and Jimmy right now because I know, judging from the comments and emails I have received, as well as keeping abreast of what fans are saying on social media and MJ forums, that it is what is on most fans’ minds right now and what they want to discuss. Although I don’t foresee this story becoming some huge media event, we will most certainly be seeing a lot more of these gossip stories as the hearing dates draw nearer. They are understandably upsetting to many, and need to be addressed. So again, we see the impact of the media at work, as we write articles for the express purpose of rebutting other articles, and so on and so forth.

      It certainly can cross the line into bad taste. I suppose it depends on the context. For example, I don’t think that springboarding off the death of Robin Williams to write about the impact of depression is necessarily exploitative, as it is raising awareness of an important issue while interest in the topic is high. However, using it to try to hawk an article the latest anti-depressant drug would be exploitation.

      What Gary Frisch describes is also exactly what is happening now, with all of these media stories like the TMZ one that are obviously piggybacking off the Robson and Safechuck stories. What we have to keep in mind when these MJ mud slinging campaigns start up is that there are usually two factors involved-the ones who are directly part of the conspiracy, and then the vultures who are merely swooping in to pick at the crumbs. They can get more money for their stories while interest in Michael Jackson “dirt” is at a peak. When that peak ebbs (because there is no one, single big story that is driving it) it is not as profitable, and therefore the number of such stories declines substantially. This latest story about the maids is a great example of what would normally just be another “bottom feeder” type story that would quickly sink, as no one really takes these types of stories seriously-not even the people who read them. But the timing of it, coming as it did on top of all the other crap, is what is upsetting. It’s like pouring salt in a wound. Oh, let’s just add a little more insult to injury here.

      But knowing that is how the media operates, we have to expect that it won’t end here. As long as negative news about Michael is generating interest, it will be an incentive to continue feeding it. As long as these hearings are dangling like the sword of Damocles, we will continue to see such examples of “hijacked” stories that are piggybacking off it.

  2. Raven, no way do I believe that Michael ever referred to a woman as a “wench”. That sounds like a word Shakespeare’s rude mechanicals would use, not a black guy from the Midwest. In fact that whole thing feels concocted to me. As for his supposed untidy ways, that’s straight out of the Gutierrez playbook – he’s a very sick pervert who receives erotic gratification from such references.

    I’m looking forward to the next chapters on Wade and Jimmy. But isn’t it past time that we come down on the Robsons hard? A quick Google search pulls up a mountain of dirt on Wade, going back years before 2009. Joy Robson was apparently – to use the word of the day! – the stage mother from hell. As for Jimmy, his own cousin tweeted that Michael was a “great guy”, and there was “no payoff”, before Jimmy came out with his charges.

    So when do we get to dish them and feed those search engine spiders? I want to lay it on thick now, but perhaps you have a different strategy in mind.

    1. I wasn’t referring so much to “wench” but the use of the specific word “bliss” in the context that it is used. Of course, we should also keep in mind that anyone who is a perceptive writer and is familiar with Michael’s own writing could also imitate his style enough to fool people. But even handwriting is not 100% evidence (unless authenticated) because handwriting can be copied, too-and Michael had a handwriting that is fairly easy to copy with just a little practice. Too many examples of his handwriting, via lyrics and notes, are readily available. But since no such “documentation” of these tenets exist, there is no way to know if there is any validity to them. Michael’s characteristic tendency to use codes and to give tenets of wisdom is well known, and subsequently-just as we are seeing with some of these current allegations-is being used against him in a way that is purposely annoying and meant to throw people off, because on the one hand we can say, well, yes, we know Michael used code words and so forth, so this “sounds” plausibly like something he would do…but then again, because these things are such common knowledge now-what with the wealth of published books about him and people speaking out who knew him-it’s difficult to prove that they aren’t just using those well-known facts to now construct stories that they think will sound plausible, based on patterns of Michael’s behavior that have already been established.

      Michael was known to use the word “heifer” on some occasions. I don’t know so much about “wench” although he was certainly well read and had a good vocabulary. The juxtaposition of “wenches” with “hos,” however, is interesting. In Shakespeare’s time it wasn’t necessarily a derogatory word, but could be used to describe any female in general.

  3. Hi Raven thanks for this article, which at first I have to admit I just wasn’t going to read, being heartily sick of the whole ridiculous topic!!. But you are right, we as fans should be fully informed so that we can then support and cherish Michael’s memory as it should be supported and cherished.

    Oh dear, I am just sooo sorry that this ‘bullshit’ as you some rightly term it is still going on. It certainly is enough already, and I am glad to read that for the most part these idiots are not getting much publicity!! any publicity is too much for this trash!!! Keep up the good work, and I will keep reading, and will keep defending Michael up to the hilt and beyond. I wonder just what part of the word ‘INNOCENT’ people don’t understand.

    1. Something that also needs to be addressed is “why” there are certain people so obsessed with bringing down MJ. I mean, MJ in particular.

  4. As an Australian myself I shudder to think what the ‘Australian conspiracy’ might be!!!

    Thanks for a brilliant article, Raven. You covered so many points comprehensively and intelligently.

    I ache for Michael, his children and all of his fans (myself included) who have to suffer the endless efforts to scuttle his legacy by the less talented and greedy individuals who would use any connection to Michael, or their place in the media, to tell outrageous tales about him.

    They make me sick at heart. I pray some day soon that the world will wake up to the way they are being manipulated by these people.

    1. Don’t worry, lol! Australia is a big continent, and I know there are many great MJ fans from Down Under. I am only referring to one particular, very nasty little bunch, and I will hopefully get more into that within the next two installments.

  5. Yet another brilliant, incisive piece. I love the way you cover ‘all bases’ in your analysis. The facts or even just barefaced lies taken out of context is always the way the media covers anything to do with Michael Jackson. It had been that way before 1993 and Chandler/Rothman gave the ammunition to turn the artist’s name to mud. However, I really enjoy the way you contextualised this new case. In particular that cropped picture. That cropped picture is a perfect visual example of ‘newsjacking’. Also, excitedly waiting for the continuation of your Langston Hughes series.

    1. Thank you, Eliza. I do feel that it’s very important to put all of these things into their proper context. I see so many things written about Michael every day that are just horribly twisted. I saw a piece just the other day that tried to act as some kind of expose on the “filthy” conditions that the animals lived in at Neverland. It was not recent; this was from right around the time of his death. Many such “hit pieces” surfaced in the weeks afterward, almost as a direct reaction to the outpouring of love and genuine grief. The writer’s agenda was quite obvious, as they purposely showed only small cages that had obviously been abandoned since 2006 or longer. The truth, as anyone who ever visited Neverland can attest, is that many of these animals roamed freely most of the time. You could be sitting in the den and suddenly see a giraffe stroll by, or a llama might stick his head in the window. I have seen many photos that show the animals grazing in beautiful pastures, but none of that was shown-only a few, abandoned cages from the petting zoo that naturally would look less than pristine after standing abandoned for over three years. Those photos were taken at a time when the entire property was going to seed. (Although I will concede it does seem sad that Michael never really followed up on what happened to these animals once they were dispersed to wildlife preserves, etc but I think that what we have to understand by that point in his life was just how overwhelmed he was with everything that had happened. Let’s not forget there were days when he couldn’t even drag himself out of bed after everything he went through with the trial, and all of the other mounting issues, and people want to villify him because he couldn’t stay on top of where all his animals had gone. They forget that just coping with life and the demands of day-to-day living had become a major issue for him by that point).

      What we have seen in the case of Michael, in particular, is an ongoing conspiracy to attack on all fronts, and they seem to enjoy going for the very things he loved most, such as children and animals, as a way of tearing him down to the public (primarily BECAUSE these were the things he loved, and more tellingly, because children and animals represent the embodiment of that innocence that he was so vitally connected to. No matter how some might feel about Michael, it’s impossible to not have a soft spot for someone who loves children and animals. So these people very craftily know how to go straight for the kill, in attacking the very foundation of the things that made Michael so genuinely lovable. Obviously, they do it so that any image of a sweet, innocent, benevolent soul is replaced by the image of a deceitful and manipulative monster who was filthy and cruel and not deserving of sympathy. Aside from his great music and talent, most people who love Michael Jackson do so because they genuinely believe he was a good and caring person, and a great humanitarian. Thus, these people work coverty in a never ending attempt to “expose” any acts of hypocrisy; to “out” any dirt, to do whatever it takes to dehumanize him. What I am really interested in is WHY some are so invested in this goal. I mean, what is the ultimate purpose? Really? What psychological issues could possibly lead to so much invested hate in one individual who certainly never did anything that was proven wrong, and who brought the world so much joy with his music?


      Unfortunately it’s a question that has filled volumes of books and spawned hundreds of articles, and yet there is still no single, definitive answer. I would imagine some people may genuinely feel they are on a crusade for justice of his perceived “victims” but that is still only a small minority and the ones who are most vocal now are not advocates of child abuse victims-they are haters of Michael Jackson. And this is part of what I will be addressing in subsequent posts. I don’t like giving these people attention. I think attention is exactly what they want. But…since they are so determined to expose MJ for the hypocrite they think he is, then let’s expose where the hypocrisy truly lies.

      1. My question is why haven’t the executors moved to shut down a lot of the nonsense about Michael? It’s as if they don’t care. For those who think it can’t be done, I’ll give an example: a few days ago, a story broke about two high-profile young women “moving in together”, one a fashion model, the other a very famous singer-songwriter. The articles coyly suggested that the two were lovers. All of the usual suspects got in the act, including the Daily Mail. Today, while Google brings up the subject, the stories have magically disappeared. One of Michael’s friends, a huge star, is being sued by his long time lover, a pre-op transgender. This is the kind of story you’d expect to see splashed all over the tabloids, but so far, not a peep. In due time, even the search engines will push these stories down.

        Why aren’t the executors handling Michael’s business? They’re allowing two-bit hacks like Stacy Brown to attack him without rebuttal. I sincerely hope that, with the Neverland mess, Prince Jackson moves to have them replaced. His eighteenth birthday can’t come too soon.

        1. The only time I have seen this happen with an MJ-related story was when the phony story about the Blanket video was taken down. Within a couple of days of being exposed as a bs story, it disappeared from most websites. However, I’m sure that was none of the estate’s doing. Those sites simply knew they had been exposed, and took the story down out of sheer embarrassment. However, they never officially retracted the story or publicly apologized.

          I am not sure much power the executors of an estate actually have in these matters. Even when celebrities are alive, there is little recourse they have against the tabloids except to sue for libel, and to be able to do so, they have to be able to prove the story is false. This can involve a lot of expensive litigation, not to mention the time it consumes. I once read that the reason more celebrities do not take legal action against the tabloids is because if you sue one outlet that carries the story, you are legally bound to sue every outlet that prints it. Otherwise, the charge is invalid and can legally be thrown out. I don’t know if that’s true, but basically the article was stating that the system is set up in such a way that it actually protects the media more than the celebrity (and along with it, there is the generally accepted wisdom that celebrities are public figures, which is the excuse used over and over). So it’s not that they can’t sue over a false story, but the system is set up to make it so difficult for them that, in the end, most won’t bother unless it is something EXTREMELY defamatory.However, I would say being accused of a very serious crime is indeed within that realm.

          As we know, there is currently no legal redress for defamation against the deceased. Legally, a dead celebrity has even less rights than a live one, which is a reason why I 100% support the Cadeflaw initiative.

          But something I do intend to address is why these details-none of which are proven, and are merely accusations-are being given their current platform. This isn’t just a case of a couple of renegades running to the tabloids and getting paid to dish some dirt. This is confidential information from court documents that is openly being submitted by Wade and Jimmy’s attorney to the one media outlet that they know will willingly publish them (Radar Online) and, of course, once the story is in print there, other sources will naturally pick it up. It would seem to me that, as defendants in the case, the estate attorney would have the right to request a gag order.

          Part of the duty of an estate should be to protect the reputation and legacy of the individual they are representing. I do sometimes feel very discouraged when it seems that all this means for them in the case of Michael is being sure that his “brand” is protected. They will sure enough go after anyone who uses his likeness without permission; they will go after anyone who uses his music without permission. But when it comes to some of the most horribly defaming articles written, they only offer weak responses and assurances that they do not approve of it but can do nothing legally to stop it. In some instances, maybe that is true (I would also agree that running down and trying to bring a legal complaint against the perpetrator of every single negative MJ story would be a futile waste of effort and resources). However, it IS very frustrating to see articles with these very heinous allegations and graphic details being circulated, and nothing from a legal standpoint apparently being done (I say “apparently” because I can’t account for what may be happening behind the scenes; I can only say, along with everyone else, how it APPEARS).

          I have said before, there are things I commend the estate on. They have done an excellent job of keeping Michael’s legacy alive on the COMMERCIAL end of things. But I would like to see more done to stand up for his legacy and character, as well.

          1. Hi Raven;

            I realize the Estate is very busy and most of the time will not bother with the disgusting filth these tabloids print as they probably believe that most people with a functioning brain know it is b.s. But, would it be possible, I wonder, to have some form of an “advocate” for Michael, on the Estate’s payroll if need be, who could address some of these issues when they get a lot of negative media, if they won’t do it themselves. Tom Mesereau seems to be the only one we ever see publicly defending Michael and I think he does that because he knows what a terrific and honourable man Michael was. I know that Maureen Orth has always used the fact that Michael “didn’t sue” her as proof that she was printing the truth about him – you know the crazy voodoo story, cow blood baths, etc. When she says that, people think – “Yeah, right, – he’s rich, if she’s lying, he would have sued”. When any other celebrity gets trashed in the media, someone, be it a lawyer or a friend or family member will appear to defend them. Even George Zimmerman had people defending him every time he was the subject of discussion. If the Estate does not care enough to defend Michael or his “brand”, his name gets repeatedly tarnished and it could be that at some point that will effect their bottom line. Will that make them care? I do believe that the majority of people know Michael was innocent and that these stories are fiction, but it is still hard to have to put up with 5 years after he has passed. As you said, Why? What is really going on not to let him rest in peace. Is it really just about money to be made by selling filth to whomever will read it? It almost feels like it is something more sinister – trying to destroy all he stood for, destroying his legacy. Just one more thing Raven, regarding the passing of Robin Williams, I can’t help but feel frustrated seeing how media and his fellow comedians and actors are falling all over themselves to praise him, when Michael was actually trashed within 24 hours of his death. Maureen Orth went on the Today Show June 26, to vilify him and was allowed to do so. Joan Rivers made her sick pedophile jokes about him. The hypocrisy is sickening. Who cared more and did more than Michael Jackson about helping children, animals, the homeless – and who did it with no fanfare. I am sorry about Robin Williams – don’t get me wrong – but I cannot help but compare the way Michael was treated and still is treated to the way Heath Ledger, Corey Monteith, P.S. Hoffman and now Robin Williams are/were treated. As much as I liked Robin Williams work and I appreciate he also has done much to help people, he also was one who ridiculed and mocked Michael, and by doing so, no doubt added to Michael’s pain. I don’t recall seeing too many people addressing Michael’s pain at being falsely accused, and tortured by professional bullies (comedians) on a nightly basis.

            Looking forward to the rest of your series. Thank you, Raven

          2. Susan, I will try to respond to the rest of your comment when I get more time today, but I actually did just make a tweet commenting on Robin Williams and those jokes he made about Michael. Here is the link to it:


            Some may disagree with me on this, but sometimes I just have to write what my heart tells me, and something in my heart told me this needed to be said.

            I am working now on putting together my syllabi for fall classes, so I’m kind of multi tasking a lot of things at the moment, but I’ll get back as soon as I can on the rest of your comment.

          3. I think that as long as the celebrity gossip industry continues to thrive, there will always be a market-and an audience-for these kinds of stories. Every now and again something will happen to shake things up a bit, and to remind us of our misplaced priorities, like the death of Princess Diana (who died as a direct result of being chased by paparazzi unless one buys into the conspiracy theories). But always, the media will back off for a bit, and people will feel bad for a little while, and then it’s right back to business as usual. I get so angry every time I see those damned rags at the check out, and they don’t have to be about Michael to make me see red. I just despise the whole industry. Back in the days of Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons, there was at least some class to it. But as people always say, it’s a beast that is fed-and people continue to feed it.

            Speaking of Robin Williams, I have also seen a major shift in the coverage of his death since Monday. At first, it was mostly tributes and the usual eulogy statements, but as soon as the initial shock wore off, the coverage began to focus on the grisly details and the sensational angle of it. You may have heard already heard that Robin’s daughter Zelda was bullied off of Twitter by people who were sending her photoshopped pics of her dad’s body, etc. Of, course here goes the double standard again. Paris was CONSTANTLY harassed and bullied on Twitter, to the point of attempting suicide, and nothing was done. Robin William’s daughter is similarly harassed and all of a sudden, the Vice President of Twitter, Del Harvey, is evaluating Twitter policy.

            And yes, the coverage did take a turn for the tasteless, but there were also many headlines denouncing the tastelessness-again, unlike Michael, for whom it appeared to be open season with no public outcry except that which came from the fans.

          4. Raven, there are systems of protection in place for the rich and famous that have nothing to do with the fine points of the law. Branca and Weitzman weren’t born yesterday. They could kill those stories in the major media if they wanted to.

          5. I agree, Susan, that the double standard is incredible, as you note how the media treated the deaths of Philip S. Hoffman, who died of a heroin and benzo combination, and Robin Williams, who deliberately killed himself due to depression, etc. The amt of full flowing adulation, sympathy, and eulogy for these stars who died versus the attacks on MJ just stand out so much, and to me it shows that the hatred the media has for MJ is something we have never ever seen in our lifetimes before–it is unprecedented– and I hope we never see anything like it again. The fact that these ‘maids’ have popped up once again and the words that are used in the headlines–filth and perversion, etc–the media has no sense of fair play or objectivity. If these discredited maids are to be believed, then any employee can smear the most propminent person and it is headline news, but somehow that only happens to MJ. There is no reason except hared to give credibility to fired maids who sell stories to tabloids. The media is one sick entity if this is what they feed.

  6. Thanks very much for this insightful and much-appreciated post, Raven. I agree that MJ’s desire on a humanitarian scale to promote Kids’ Power meant that being with children in a prominent way–on stage, in videos, etc–was important to drive the message home–that kids can heal the world if they are nurtured and loved. As he said on the illegally tape played at the trial: “That’s the next generation that’s gonna save our planet.” He was well aware that Kid’s Power had great potential and that kids could do what adults have not. The heal the world, heal the kids projects–these were 2 primary objectives and the names of the humanitarian foundations he developed. Immediately after he announced his Heal the World Foundation, the 93 allegations struck; then with Heal the Kids announced in 2001, the second set of allegations broke. He was stymied.

    It makes sense that he would be around kids, and male kids, as you point out, especially, with the general desire to promote children’s concerns and issues–the plight of abandoned and neglected children world-wide–and also genuinely enjoying their company.

    Also there is the Biblical exhortation to become as a little child, to humble oneself like a little child:

    Matthew 18
    New International Version (NIV)
    The Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven
    18 ” At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
    2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position [humbles himself] of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

    6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble [sin], it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

    10 “See that you do not despise [look down on] one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.”

    I think MJ took these Biblical teachings to heart and put them into practice. All these important parts of his message are being smeared and belittled but I hope people will see through it and not forget his larger message of compassion for the disadvantaged, especially children and animals.

    1. It’s true that EVERY TIME he got on his feet again, something knocked him down. Every time. They are still doing it even now; operating on the same strategy. Haters think that fans are just being paranoid when they point out that these accusations and mud slinging campaigns always accompany major events such as a new album or single release, but look at the timing of everything that has coincided over the past couple of years. It can’t all be brushed off as coincidence.

  7. But to get back to the question of why no allegations before 1993, it’s more a case of the fact that there was no high profile interest in such incidents prior to the 1990′s. Diane Dimond and others have hinted at vague and unproven pre-1990 incidents, such as the one Dimond recounts in her 2005 book Be Careful Who You Love of a Mexican gardener for the Jacksons who allegedly had two sons and to whom Michael allegedly wrote a substantial check (which Diane claims enabled the family to move back to Mexico). All of this information came from a typically unnamed source-”The Mormon”-who had supposedly gone to the FBI with the information. The FBI followed through, but there was simply nothing to go on, and the investigation was closed

    This “Mormom” and this accusation is from Victor Gutierrez. It didn’t come from before 1993, he called the FBI in December of 1993 telling them they had investigated MJ for sexually abusing 2 Mexican children in 1986 or 1985 when MJ was being awarded by President Reagan, which was actually in 1984. That was Victor Gutierrez. Just a week or so earlier he’d created stories in South America that MJ had actually abused two Chilean children. Suddenly a week or so later and he’s telling the FBI it’s 2 Mexican kids.

    Gutierrez claims to have been a Mormon for a time, though I believe he only ever claimed that as a way to cover up his own interest in men and young boys.

    1. I will set something straight for the record. I don’t believe that Michael ever showed pornography to the younger kids, but what about the teenagers? Those who were already well past adolescence? Could it be that Michael’s desire to be “one of the boys” caused some exercises in poor judgment? Even if he never showed it to them but bragged about having it (as in keeping with the adolescent mindset) this could have led curious youngsters to snoop into his room and private stash, as happened with Gavin and Star Arvizo when they were caught by one of Michael’s cousins masturbating to porn in Michael’s bedroom (for the record, Michael himself was not present when this incident occurred).

      Why does this even need to be speculated about? Michael would never show kids porn. When buying comic books with Jordan in 1993, the guy working there told Jordan he shouldn’t be in a section and MJ asked why, and he said because it was for mature readers, so jokingly, Jordan then turned to go and flick through them, and the guy said MJ told him off and said if he would do that, he wouldn’t get him anything. Mark Ronson said he and Sean Lennon were flicking through channels and ended up on porn when MJ was in the room and MJ complained and told them to turn it off.

      And the thing with Gavin/Star – MJ claimed he’d caught them going through his things and told them off. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that the Arvizo’s themselves told the police the briefcase was not MJ’s, but Frank Cascio’s. Why would they think that? Most likely reason? Because when MJ caught them he claimed it belonged to Frank in order not to look bad in front of them.

      It wasn’t a maid who caught them masturbating to porn either, it was MJ’s nephew Rijo, who walked in on them in their guest house (when MJ was nowhere near) masturbating to porn. An event Gavin didn’t even try denying, and just claimed he wasn’t sure happened.

      1. First things first: RE the incident with Gavin and Star, I didn’t say it was a maid (although I did erroneously identify the nephew as a cousin, which I will correct)and I did clarify that MJ was not present when it happened.

        The discussion of the incident was not to suggest that Michael SHOWED them where the porn was, but obviously they knew to look for it and where to look for it. I do believe absolutely that those kids were given WAY TOO much free run of the house, a situation they took full advantage of whether Michael was “in” or “out”-but especially when out.

        The incidents you point out with Jordan and Sean Lennon are good examples that do add plausible deniability. However, I am making a very clear distinction here between SHOWING and WATCHING porn WITH them as opposed to bragging about it or “You wouldn’t believe what I saw this one chick do” which is the far more likely scenario, and again, many of his friends have confirmed that this and I tend to believe it as it is in keeping with his personality and sense of humor. As I said, there is a clear distinction between criminal behavior and age inappropriate behavior, and I am interested in looking at the gray areas where I believe at least “some” of the seeds of these accusations may have had their beginnings-from all angles, which includes not “just” the behaviors of the accusers but taking a hard look at Michael’s own behaviors as well. I think we risk simply coming across as very naive to skeptics when we simply take the approach of, “Saint Michael never did anything wrong and these people are just evil liars and money grubbers.” I think they are that, but I tend to believe that their lies weren’t concocted from scratch. They had a foundation somewhere, and getting to the heart of that foundation is what I am interested in. I knew there would be people who would take offense the minute I even dared bring this issue up, but I think it is an important issue to address even if, in the end, it is totally debunked. I am convinced that someone or something is working to convince these men that every memory they have of Michael can now be construed as “abusive” behavior. I honestly believe that is how they are rationalizing a lot of this in their minds (although as I have said before, something about Wade these days just comes across as very vile and sinister to me. He just looks like someone with a huge ass chip on his shoulder that is aimed at the world).

        I don’t think there is anything to fear from hitting the situation head on and examining it from all angles. It is the only way in my estimation that Michael can be fully exonerated if the goal is not to convince fans, but skeptics and those who are on the fence.

        1. “The discussion of the incident was not to suggest that Michael SHOWED them where the porn was, but obviously they knew to look for it and where to look for it. I do believe absolutely that those kids were given WAY TOO much free run of the house, a situation they took full advantage of whether Michael was “in” or “out”-but especially when out.”

          Gavin and Star were experienced burglars. They got into the wine cellar, too, and had key codes to secure areas of the house. There’s no indication that they were “given” free access to the house. They just took it.

          One of Gavin’s complaints was that Michael was avoiding him. I think it’s highly unlikely that he would discuss porn with him. Not impossible, but unlikely. Despite the popular image of Michael as “pre-adolescent”, he was parental toward the kids who hung around. He did not relate to them as equals.

          1. “Despite the popular image of Michael as “pre-adolescent”, he was parental toward the kids who hung around. He did not relate to them as equals.”

            Quoted for emphasis!!!

          2. As for this stuff coming up NOW with Wade saying MJ had shown him porn, I dont believe it for one minute.
            I think these people are picking out parts of Gavins testimony , which is the first and only time anyone ever brought up porn being shown.
            By the way , Wade was specifically asked if MJ ever showed him porn , he said no.
            There were no magazines like that found in 93, just a couple of art books the police wanted to hang a case on
            Jordan never mentioned any in his statements.
            Jason Francia never mentioned anything about porn, just Gavin and Starr, and we know that they were rummaging through MJ bedroom , alone, by their own statements,and came upon it , in a closet .
            MJ walked in , got angry and took it AWAY from them ,locked it in a briefcase saying “Franks stinking ass”
            Imo , it is obvious he wasnt showing any one porn
            Maybe it was Franks stuff, there werent many fingerprints of MJ on the stuff , as I recall, which could indicate his prints got on them , when he took them away

            He DIDNT want these kids anywhere near that kind of stuff.
            Gavin also says he slept in MJ bed every night MJ was there but later says, the only time he slept in his room was one night in the bed with Paris and Prince while MJ and Frank had the floor, the rest of the time they were in bungalows or the train station.

            He was desperate to avoid these kids , it would seem.
            The only other time Gavin Mentions seeing porn he starts saying “Me and my, then saysI mean , me and Michael (he does this a lot , starts to say me and my brother , and then substitutes me and Michael), but if you read it , the first time MJ was angry and took it away , and the second time Gavin said he cant remember if Mj showed it to him , or they found it , and there was only two instances supposedly .This would mean that Mj waited about 2 yrs to start grooming Gavin and Michael was furious that they had found these magazines, according to their own testimony , he wouldnt be trying to show it to them at a later time either .., MJ had been avoiding him , changing his numbers etc. , he wasnt grooming anyone , he was ducking them .

            If you read Gavins testimony , he also mentions that they got the codes from following Prince and Paris around , so that is how they got all around the house.
            I just think Wade is picking out parts of the Chandler stuff and parts of the Arvizo stuff( which was completely debunked in court .so that wont bode well with his accusations either)
            At any rate Wade has the hindsight to go to Smoking Gun , and all this stuff that has been out there for years.
            Even Roger Friedman can see they are taking this stuff from VG book regarding the house being a pig sty etc.
            And he says it is all lies, regarding maids telling stories etc.
            As far as the lurid accusations put out there for effect, …Stacy brown put the story out about maids saying things are filthy , which nobody is going to sue for that , it is absurd.
            The accusations that are being put out via court documents are not something you can sue a tabloid for quoting , because it is said in court documents .
            Reminds me of the recent Will and Jada Smith thing , where Radar reported DSS had received a complaint on them and they were being investigated.
            All they are reporting is the facts that someone complained , and it becomes an official investigation , yet it is an anonymous source .
            Well I think it was Radar onlone that initiated the complaint so they would have a new story .and you cant prove they were behind it .
            That is why , and this is something I remember Harvey Levin saying one time, so i could be wrong, but people put all kinds of crap in legal papers, because they can not be sued , if it is in a court document .Both the people making the accusation are protected from lawsuits, because they have done it through legal channels and the tabloids are protected because the are quoting court documents.
            All this crap has been thought out very carefully.
            As far as Wade of Safechuck having false memories , or someone twisting their minds, I just think their lives didnt turn out quite like they wanted and they are tired of working.
            I think it is interesting that they are scrounging for “victims”
            Why pester safechuck to join this thing to give Wade some kind of credence and not go to Chandler..
            Chandler had no problem talking to the police, it was only when the FBI showed up and wanted him to go to court , and face cross examination , he adamantly refused..To me , it is because they all know he was lying , he already got his money , same as Francia, and they aren’t going to face cross examination , so Wade and Jimmy can get money , because they all know , there are no real victims.

          3. Yes, they are only reporting what is in the court docs but the real question is two fold: WHY are these reports based on the court docs originating from one source ONLY, and what is their motivation for putting them out?

        2. I fully agree with lacienegasmiles that I do not understand why this needs to be speculated about this way implying that Michael might have shown kids pornography. There is absolutely no proof he ever did and just because he made a comment about a pretty girl in front of children or anything like that it does not follow that he showed kids pornography or even bragged to them about his stash or anything like that. Those are two perfectly different situations. In fact, like lacienega showed there is evidence he cringed when he realized kids watching porn (eg. the Sean Lennon situation) and told them to stop watching it.

          “They had a foundation somewhere”

          The foundation that you are looking for is simply that the Arvizo kids went to Michael’s room and rummaged through his stuff. Why do we need to place Michael there as deliberately showing them the material? In fact, when you read Gavin’s own testimony he gives a very strange account of the situation that does not make sense. He says Michael showed them the porn and told them it was Frank’s and then made fun of “Frank’s stinky ass”. I think it sounds so odd because what really happened was what the Defense claimed, ie. that Michael caught them rummaging through his stuff and he probably became defensive about it and tried to distance himself from it claiming it was Frank’s. That behaviour only makes sense in the Defense’s version of the story but not in Gavin’s.

          1. “Why do we need to place Michael there as deliberately showing them the material?”

            And again, I am not sure why you think I did say that. In the post I very emphatically state that it is known that Michael was not there with them when that incident occurred.

            I don’t mind when readers are critical, but I do take issue when I feel I am being misquoted or my intentions misplaced. I am simply raising some of these questions so that I can better address what I feel to be the answers, once all the evidence has been weighed.

  8. I believe V.G. used the name “Mormon” in the same manner and for the same reason false victims of crimes will identity the assailant as a “black man”. Each come with its own stigma and is an acceptable even expected explanation for alleged deeds.

  9. Raven, I usually like your posts but I have to say I do not like a lot of it now.

    I don’t like the entertaining of the idea that that VG quote about “wenches, bitches, heifers and hos” really might come from Michael. C’mon, this is VG we are talking about! I think it’s a bit counter-productive that you seem to give that quote some kind of credit here. Why? What makes you think that among the see of lies in that book this one somehow is true or partly true? The use of words like “bliss” do not prove that Michael ever wrote that. Everyone knew about certain words he liked to use, of course if you are making up a fiction, you are going to mix it with some things which make it sound “real”. But that does not make them any more real. VG had photos about a lot of documents in his book that the Chandlers showed him (or he stole from them or whatever happened between them), but he never produced a copy of this supposed note. That should tell us something about it. I know that you warned about VG’s credibility, yet then you became so defensive about this “wenches, bitches, heifers and hos” quote that to me suggests that you entertain the idea that it might be true. I do not think Michael needs defending against it because I don’t think he ever wrote it and I don’t think you should suggest he did.

    Nor do I like that you suggest that Michael showing porn to kids might be true. Again, I’m not sure why you think so. I mean out of all the lies the Arvizos told why do you pick and choose to entertain some? I do not understand this and sorry but I feel this post is very, very counter-productive, and someone who is not knowledgable about the allegations might come away from it thinking that these things may be true. Wade and James obviously claims the porn thing because they saw it in the Arvizo allegations and try to create a pattern. Wade was even shown those mags on the stand. And it was established during the trial that the Arvizo kids went to Michael’s room when he wasn’t there. That’s how they found the porn. Really I do not like that you suggest it is true in any form or capacity when there has never been proof it is.

    The 1.6 billion sum was put out there by the Daily Mail, which is not exactly a credible paper, so I would not consider this a fact. But we do know from Wade’s lawsuit that he wants a lot of money, even if he did not name the sum, because he wants the Estate to compensate him for his failure to become an international superstar etc. The way it’s worded it’s clear they want a lot of money, but they do not name a sum.

    1. There is a huge difference between saying he did it, and raising the question (especially if the purpose of raising the question is to debunk it). With so many accounts of Michael joking around with his younger friends (people like the Cascios, etc) about girls, I fail to see why it is such a sore point of contention to address the topic openly and honestly. I am not-again-trying to say he DID show it to them. I am establishing a pattern of behavior that I think MAY have played a crucial role in making him vulnerable to at least some of these accusations. Part of my modus operandi here is looking at those aspects of Michael’s behavior and relationships with children that the haters love to take out of context. This is an attempt to put them BACK in context but in a way that allows us to understand them.

      I said there is no proof of that quote. The use of the word “bliss” does sound very strange, but like I said, VG could well have been aware that this was a word Michael used. MJWML was published after Dancing The Dream. He might have even read the poem “Are You Listening?”. However, haters do like to use it as some sort of “proof” that Michael didn’t like girls and encouraged boys to feel likewise. Thus, all the more reason why I wished to provide some context. That is all.

      Posts like this are never pleasant to do and I don’t enjoy doing them. I certainly much prefer to be discussing his music or some topic of academic or cultural interest about him. My purpose here, as you know, is never to tear Michael down, but rather, to try to understand where he was coming from. Sometimes that may involve the hard questions, but it is always with the ultimate purpose of understanding him and clarifying some of these myths that have muddied the waters. If we can accept the fact that sometimes, yes, he screwed up and made questionable choices, we can better understand how to proceed forward from there, and forward is where I am going. The real blame lies, ultimately, with those who took advantage of his kindness, his generosity, and his giving spirit to do him harm.

      I understand the concerns; that even raising the question can have the effect of planting doubt in some minds, but I think that once you see where I am fully going with this, you will better understand. It’s all a part of putting a much larger picture together, and right now these are just pieces to the puzzle.

      1. But if you establish a pattern then consider the fact that in terms of pornography there is no pattern of MJ showing it to children or even bragging about it to children. Instead there is a pattern of him NOT approving children looking at porn or children even knowing he owned it. This is the story LaCienega mentioned about Sean Lennon and Mark Ronson:

        Monday 23 June 2008
        Mark Ronson: I made Michael Jackson watch porn
        But star producer says the singer didn’t approve

        Mark Ronson has revealed that he used to watch porn when he stayed at Michael Jackson’s home as a kid.

        The music producer met the Thriller star through his then neighbour Sean Lennon, son of The Beatles legend John Lennon.

        ‘We were just hanging out. We used to watch the porn channel because we were 10 and like: “Oh my God, tits!”‘ Mark said on Channel 4’s Sunday Night Project.

        ‘Me and Sean said: “Michael, do you want to see something cool?” We turned the dial to the porn channel and there were strippers. We were like: “Michael, Michael, how cool is this?”

        ‘We turned around and he was cringing, saying: “Ooh stop it, stop it, it’s so silly.”

        ‘I think he had really strong feminist views on porn and the use of it.’

        Mark, 32, is currently dating model Daisy Lowe, 19.


        And this is the part from Gavin’s testimony that I mentioned:

        9 Q. Now, when you first saw the suitcase, where
        10 was it in that room.
        11 A. It was next to — it was to the left of that
        12 couch thing.
        13 Q. And did you ever see Mr. Jackson pick up the
        14 Exhibit 470.
        15 A. Yeah, like I was hanging out with him in
        16 there, and he was like putting on his makeup or
        17 something, I don’t know. And then he — he grabbed
        18 the — grabbed the suitcase, and then he told me —
        19 he told me it was Frank’s. And he showed me, he was
        20 like, “This is” —
        21 Q. Okay. Well, what did he show you.
        22 A. He was, like, “Look at the” — “Look at this
        23 stuff. Frank’s stinking a-s-s.” Frank’s
        24 stinking — it was S- — Frank’s stinking ass.
        25 Q. All right. What was inside the suitcase.
        26 A. Adult materials.

        Like I said the story is very odd this way. Why would MJ just take this briefcase of porn just to say it’s not his (it actually was his) and then mock Frank over it? It does not make sense as an act of grooming. It only makes sense if he, like the Defense said, caught them looking at it and got defensive, trying to distance himself from it. Just like he was distancing himself from the porn with Ronson and Lennon, which even made Ronson think “he had a very feminist view on porn”, which we know is not quite so – but in front of kids he did distance himself from it. And that goes against the idea of him bragging to kids about his porn stash, let alone showing it to them. Also the Jordan story Lacienega mentioned.

        “The use of the word “bliss” does sound very strange, but like I said, VG could well have been aware that this was a word Michael used. MJWML was published after Dancing The Dream.”

        VG was also in contact with the Chandlers. In fact, it seems to me initially they might have worked on the Chandlers’ book together, then fell out and they both wrote their own version of it. Since MJ stayed with the Chandlers I’m sure they picked up on some of his favourite words he liked to use and they incorporated it into their stories.

        1. I agree the Defense version definitely makes more sense.

          Like I said (and I fully agree) stories like the above are important in establishing a counter view. What is really most disturbing out of these latest allegations is JS’s mention of child porn. That is absolute rubbish. No child porn was ever found in ANY of the residences that were searched; nothing found on his computers, nada zilch. Had any such tape as the one JS described been found, Michael would have gone straight to prison.

          1. Safechuck’s mention of child porn is clearly from the LeMarque story that was reprinted again in Sunday People, at the urging of Wade’s people, after Wade’s story came out. Safechuck clearly took that from there.

            I would assume he believed these types of stories are “legit” because they had a named witness stating them, so he believed he could add them to his “proof” of what he’d said being true.

            It’s like him claiming the wine thing. He took that from the Arvizo’s.

            And the use of “code words”, the two of which he took from Ray Chandler’s book, which the haters have on their site, again, which Wade and Safechuck have 100% definitely read and reread regularly.

            His story doesn’t even make sense in that vein – he claims all this stuff, but Jordan never claimed MJ gave him alcohol, Jordan never claimed to watch child porn, or even knowing MJ had any hetero porn – because at the time MJ’s image was such that nobody knew about it, clearly MJ had never bragged to Jordan about it. Not even Wade claimed child porn, or being abused in this “secret room” thing, again, which he took from haters and media sites.

            They’re basing their stories on what they’ve seen others claimed – except in Safechuck’s case, he claimed so many different ones, it really makes his case kind of shockingly obvious.

            Also, if he’s claiming MJ had child porn – where did MJ get it from? MJ would’ve had to have known pedophiles in Hollywood, how else would he be able to get child porn? So that instantly sets the situation up where dozens of people are now involved in this, something nobody’s ever claimed before. Just ridiculous.

          2. Raven I read your article twice to understand it well and I see where you are coming from. Because so called haters will run with it doesnt mean you should not ask these questions and look at different scenario;s.
            Michael always said that children were small people and he never talked babytalk tot hem. He was very strict, but he also gave his kids a lot of responsibility and talked to them about serious matters, taking Prince to businessmeetings and having them interview new staff. I admire him for it, my children were a lot less independent at their age . But the flip side is that maybe gave kids too much freedom which could mean giving in to behaviour that their own parents would not condone.
            I didnt know Ronsons story and we dont know if it is true but if it is true it proves exactly what you were saying . Michael didnt always have control over these children. if a 10 year old had access to a porn channel watch it on a regular basis without Michael noticing And to assume that Michael might find it cool speaks of a peer kind of relationship not a parental one.

            “We were just hanging out. We used to watch the porn channel because we were 10 and like: “Oh my God, tits!”‘ Mark said on Channel 4′s Sunday Night Project.
            ‘Me and Sean said: “Michael, do you want to see something cool?” We turned the dial to the porn channel and there were strippers. We were like: “Michael, Michael, how cool is this?”
            Michael was human and far more complex than some want to paint him. To quote Leonard Cohen : “there is a crack in everything, that is where the light comes in”

            That doesnot take away that I believe in his total innocense. Not because he said so or because of the money grab , because one doesnt exclude the other , but because of the inconsistencies or something as basic as a timeline not adding up. That leaves the question who or what is behind this. Greed can make people lose their dignity and humanity , but so evil and so many? These allegations are so bizar and transparent, up to copy pasting Chandlers and child porn. If even the tabloids are not buying it , a judge who allows this to proceed will have a lot to explain.
            That is why I think this is not neccesarily about winning the case. I think there is more to it . I wonder what happened between WR and te executors since they decided to give him a prominent place in Michaels opus and maybe promised him a job on cirque. Why these privileges , what was their relationship and why did it sour? What is the real reason he turned against Michael and Michaels company. Greed alone does not explain this madness. Why did the accusations came out exactly when the AEG case started. A case that the executors publically distanced themselves from, letting KJ hang to dry, providing ammuntion to AEG. Sometimes I wonder by what twist of fate Weizman ,after exactly 20 years is again in charge of the defense of Michael Jackson . Knowing how his strategy in 1993 panned out and how it affected the rest of Michaels life. I hope he gives the case to a more capable lawyer. I cringed with his public statements about the allegations, only legal talk and very mechanical( about the statute of limitation or that the alledged abuse happened too long ago) instead of talking about the man Michael Jackson and that he is innocent as Tom Mesereau does. TM is steadfast in defending Michael the man, the father, son and friend and at the same time eloquently points out the legal implications. Weizman only defends Michael the business entity. I still cant get over the fact that all the people who Michael once dismissed were all back on board -like a dejavu- and then Michael dies.

          3. Thank you for understanding where I’m trying to come from with this. I believe that Michael’s relationships with these kids tended to vacillate between him being the parental/authority figure on the one hand, and a peer on the other. But all of the things that Michael loved to do with kids-having water balloon fights, food fights, playing pranks like dumping water off hotel balconies, etc, are all examples of an adult behaving more like a peer. Yet I have heard many, many stories where people who knew him, and who witnessed his interactions with these kids first hand, have said that, yes, contrary to the popular image, he was quite authoritative with the kids. There are some rare adults like that, who can sort of wear both hats and slip interchangeably between both roles. Usually, most adults have to settle for being one or the other. As they say, you can’t be your kids’ best friend and a parent as well. But somehow, Michael seemed able for the most part to balance that tightrope. He was, as we know, actually quite strict with his own kids. But I also believe that by the time he had his own kids, he was also a lot more mature in many ways. I think they helped finally fill the void that he was seeking with all of those other friendships.

            Weitzman irritates me to no end with his one-note lame statement every time these allegations are mentioned.

            But…who knows. Maybe there is method to his strategy in not overstating the case. But it is frustrating because it always the leaves the impression that they are not disputing the validity of the claims, only the length of time they took to bring them about.

          4. “I didnt know Ronsons story and we dont know if it is true but if it is true it proves exactly what you were saying .”

            Well, Raven suggested Michael might have bragged to kids about his pornography. It’s clearly NOT what is happening in Ronson’s story, but the opposite.

  10. “a judge who allows this to proceed will have a lot to explain.”

    Fom what I am reading, it’s the crazy CA laws that have created this mess. The laws have over time come to give more and more advantage to the accusers and less and less protections to the accused in cases of alleged sexual molestation of children. In fact, there was even a case that went to the Supreme Court and the CA law was ruled unconstitutional b/c it tried to make the law retroactive to a time when the law was not in existence–this was in a case of a man who was accused of child molestation going back to the 1950’s. The CA law right now gives someone 3 years from the time of becoming “aware” of the abuse to file, meaning, if they become aware of it 20 years later, no problem legally, as long as it isn’t retroactive to before the law was enacted.

    So now we have the absurd case of a lawsuit against a deceased person. I think maybe some of the zeal to give legal assistance to accusers wanting to file belatedly came from the Catholic Church and the cases of pedophilia there, but since there is no penalty for a false accusation, no perjury in the case of false accusations, and an entire governmental agencies (prosecutors and social services) ready to investigate a claim, we have an appartatus that once set in motion takes on a life of its own, and the accused has little recourse except to fight and even if cleared the stain will destroy their reputations.

    IMO the JS and WR position that they did not know at the time that they were being abused and only realized it in the last year or so, is insane. JS is claiming 100 instances of abuse–and yet he didn’t realize it was abuse? The fact that they are using the same lawyer and the same shrink also stinks to high heaven–shades of Arvizos who used the same lawyer and shrink as Chandlers.

    1. From what I understood reading the court documents in this case:

      There are several statues of limitations at play here. One, they filed a creditor’s claim. There is a window of time you can file a creditor’s claim against the Estate of a deceased person, which has long passed when Wade or James filed their claims. But the law allows the filing of a late claim in case of

      a) you have only recently learned about the facts your claim is based on; or
      b) you have only recently learned about the administration of the Estate.

      But even here there is a time limit. You must file within 60 days of learning either of the above facts. Now, Wade even missed that 60 days in case of a), since he claims he went to therapy in May 2012 and that’s when he first realized he’s been allegedly abused and his psychological injury is linked to his alleged abuse and he filed in May 2013. So his case really clings on b) which is that he claims he has not learned about the administration of the Estate until March 4, 2013 when his lawyers Gradstein and Marzano enlightened him about it. So with that his filing on May 1, 2013 would be within the 60 days. Well, if the Judge buys he really did not know about the Estate, which is hard to buy based on evidence.

      Two, he filed a civil lawsuit as well. In that he named Michael as a natural person and his two companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures as Defendants. The 3 years that you mentioned would be at play here, but only if Michael was still alive. However, you cannot sue a dead natural person. Even Wade’s lawyers admitted it basically in an exchange of e-mails with Estate lawyers recently, but they were still reluctant to voluntarily drop Michael as a natural person from the lawsuit, so the Estate asked the Judge to do that in the form of a demurrer. The decision will be on October 1.

      That leaves the two companies. There the 3 years thing does not apply only the rule that he should have filed until the age of 26. Also, companies cannot be accused of child molestation, because companies are naturally not able to commit the act of child molestation. They can be sued for

      (2) An action for liability against any person or entity who owed
      a duty of care to the plaintiff, where a wrongful or negligent act by
      that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual
      abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.
      (3) An action for liability against any person or entity where an
      intentional act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the
      childhood sexual abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.


      2) This subdivision does not apply if the person or entity knew
      or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful
      sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,
      and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable
      safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by
      that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding
      placement of that person in a function or environment in which
      contact with children is an inherent part of that function or
      environment. For purposes of this subdivision, providing or requiring
      counseling is not sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute a
      reasonable step or reasonable safeguard.

      However, the Estate argues, that Robson could not even make a viable claim about how MJ’s companies were wrongful or negligent in this case or how they knew or had reason to know about his alleged abuse. He only made the claim they brought him to the US and thus are responsible for his alleged abuse, which is ridiculous. Also Michael is the owner of these companies, not “employee, volunteer, representative, or agent” – ie. he had control over the companies, not the other way around. The law is designed for cases when a company knows about a person who’s under its control that he abuses children but does nothing to prevent it. This is not the case here.

      So based on this there is another demurrer pending to dismiss the companies from the lawsuit as well (also will be decided on October 1). If that happens then that would leave only the Estate and/or the Executors of the Estate for Robson to sue, which depends on the February, 2015 decision about whether the creditor’s claim can go ahead, which seems to depend on whether the Judge buys he did not know about the administration of the Estate before March 2013.

      1. Oh, and they also try to apply equitable estoppel to their case. The doctrine of equitable estoppel says that no one can take advantage of his own wrong. For example, if an alleged victim missed time limits to file because the abuser threatened him and the effects of the threat prevented him from filing within statues then the alleged victim is entitled to an extension of the statues by one year after the effects of the act (eg. a threat) ceased. In this case, Robson claims Michael brainwashed him and threatened him that they would both go to to jail if people found out. He claims this had such a profound effect on him that he could not realize he was abused until May 8, 2012. So if equitable estoppel would be applied to his case then he would be allowed to file on May 1, 2013, like he did.

        But it’s grasping at straws. First this story about why equitable estoppel should be applied to a case has to be reasonable. His is not and hopefully the Judge will see that so as well. I mean, how can you claim with a straight face that you did not know until you were 30 that alleged victims of child abuse do not go to jail? And didn’t he realize Jordan or Gavin did not go to jail? He cites precedents and I read them and to me they only highlight how ridiculous his case is in comparation. He cites cases where kids did not tell for a couple of months (not 20 years!) because they were threatened by the abuser. But those threats were more realistic. Eg. in one case the kid was abused by his teacher and the teacher threatened him to give him bad grades if he tells. It’s obviously more realistic that a kid would believe this (as indeed a teacher has authority to give him bad grades) than to think that until the age of 30 Wade did not know that he would not go to jail if he reported the alleged abuse. Even so the kid in the precedent DID TELL, only about 10 months after the abuse. The other case features an 11-year-old kid who was abused by his teacher and who felt physically threatened by the teacher. Even so the kid DID TELL only 6 months after his abuse, when law enforcement questioned him because there was another kid filing a complaint against the same teacher. So even his precedent cases actually go against Wade and they show how unrealistic his claims are.

        1. Thanks for the headache-inducing legal info, Suzy! I was looking at this law–which goes on and on, so I will just quote the first part and then give you the link.

          340.1. (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:

          Seems pretty clear that the sexual nature of the allegations is being played for all its worth, in increasingly sordid detail, and so this is what I think WR and JS hope will help them in court. Ironically, there was no awareness of sexual abuse, and now it’s every little detail going on for 100’s of incidents! BTW, Where are you getting the 26 years from that you refer to?

          1. “BTW, Where are you getting the 26 years from that you refer to?”

            The law that you quoted says that:

            “the time for commencement of the
            action shall be within eight years of the date the plaintiff attains
            the age of majority or…”

            That’s 18 (age of majority)+8=26 years.

            It then adds that 3 years limit from the time of discovery of abuse too, but if you read the law further, it names 3 possible scenarios:

            (1) An action against any person for committing an act of
            childhood sexual abuse.
            (2) An action for liability against any person or entity who owed
            a duty of care to the plaintiff, where a wrongful or negligent act by
            that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual
            abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.
            (3) An action for liability against any person or entity where an
            intentional act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the
            childhood sexual abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.

            (1) can only be against natural persons – but a natural person must be alive to be sued, so that is why it cannot be applied to Michael.
            (2) and (3) are which could be applied to Michael’s companies but in that regard the law even further says:

            (b) (1) No action described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision
            (a) may be commenced on or after the plaintiff’s 26th birthday.

            So there the part about “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” does not apply only the 26 years of age limit.

            These are the things the Estate bases its demurrers on.

          2. Thanks–I see re the 26 years but it is not a final cutoff b/c it says OR 3 years from time of ‘awareness.” whichever comes later.

            The part you quote re ‘no action can be taken after 26th birthday” is followed by this:

            “(2) This subdivision does not apply if the person or entity knew
            or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful
            sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,
            and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable
            safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by
            that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding
            placement of that person in a function or environment in which
            contact with children is an inherent part of that function or
            environment. For purposes of this subdivision, providing or requiring
            counseling is not sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute a
            reasonable step or reasonable safeguard.”

            I am not a lawyer that has to go over this stuff but I must say it is a very complicated law (it goes on for 9 frigging pages!) and seems to be all over the place. Thanks, CA legislature–great job! Yes, they are not suing MJ per se but his Estate and other business connections.

          3. @iutd

            “Thanks–I see re the 26 years but it is not a final cutoff b/c it says OR 3 years from time of ‘awareness.” whichever comes later.”

            Yes, and I tried to explain why that 3 years part does not apply here in the rest of my post.

            And that (2) part that you quoted does not seem to apply here either. Well, according to the Estate’s arguments but to me they sound to be correct and legally sound arguments.

            This part that you quoted says that an entity had to know or had to have reason to know any unlawful sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent and failed to take reasonable steps etc.

            Now the Estate argues:

            1) Michael was not an “employee, volunteer, representative, or agent” of his companies but their owner. Thus the companies did not have control over him, he had control over them. This passage of the law is applied to cases, like when churches, schools, boy scouts etc. know about an employee that he abuses children but fail to make steps to prevent it. In other words it’s about situations where an entity has control over someone but does not stop him from molesting children. MJ’s companies did not have control over him, since he was their owner.

            2) Robson could not even make a viable claim about how MJ’s companies would have known or had reasons to know about his alleged abuse. His only claim is that they brought him to the US but he never says what’s his basis of the claim that they knew about his alleged abuse.

            3) Companies cannot be sued for the supposed wrongdoings of their owner in his private life.

            I suggest you read the Demurrers by the Estate, maybe that will explain it better than I can.

            – This one is about the companies:

            – This one is about Michael as a natural person:


            And BTW, the fact he targets Michael’s companies is yet another very telling thing. He is desperate to make the claim that Michael’s companies are somehow responsible for his alleged abuse, even if he cannot even really make up a scenario how. At the same time he’s all cool with his own mother. If he really wanted to blame anyone for “turning a blind eye” shouldn’t he start with his mother? The mother who knew about and allowed the sleepovers. The mother who (if we go by Wade’s story) did not realize 7 years of sexual abuse of her son, which included anal rape… So he mother gets a pass for not noticing anything, his mother gets a pass for allowing the sleepovers, but Michael’s companies are somehow responsible. Yeah, right…

          4. Key word here is ‘alledged’ abuse.
            Before anything Wade has to prove the probability of his claim. With the catholic priests and the other cases mentioned, there was physical evidence(reports and maybe injuries from the abuse), there were witnesses and/or the accused (the natural person)was alive and could be subpoenad.
            With Michael there is none of that and I hope that will raise the standard of evidence.
            Using previous allegations is a strategy that will work against them. In the only previous(criminal) case that went to trial Michael was found not guilty on all 14 counts. The Chandler(civil)case was settled on negligence. Ergo previous allegations of sexual abuse never resulted in a guilty verdict, so no pattern can be established. Its not the number of allegations that count but what was proven.
            Even Michael Jackson is presumed innocent untill proven guilty.

            The reliability of the witnesses WR wants to call is so questionable the defendants can easily have them dismissed. Giving paid interviews to the tabloids about a pending case is an attempt to influence the public and a potential jury.
            What about his mother, will she be called? The first responsible for a childs safety are the parents, not a business entity.

            WRs claim that he didnt know about the estate is easy to debunk. Unless he believes it was Michaels ghost who honoured him with his ‘tribute” in the opus. Or was in talks with him for the cirque job. These lies speak for his ( lack of) credibility and character which is what this case will be all about.

          5. Lol , as for previous allegations maybe DDs documentary of her Rodney Allens Canadian accuser can be used by the defendants as an example of very well organised false allegations against Michael. The research done in advance, interviewing of Neverland staff, the maps of Michaels home, coaching of streetkids/ accusers etc. That will be a day when Dimonds own fabrication will come to bite her in the tail.

          6. See, this is what I don’t get – Tom Mesereau no less has stated that the attorney representing Wade is outstanding. Absolutely top notch. So, presumably he has researched the cases that Weitzman and company cite in the demurrers. On the face of it, Wade cannot prevail. So why is he bringing an action that can’t win? Even if Beckloff goes completely nuts and allows the case to go forward, it seems he would be reversed on appeal, and judges don’t like that. Is it the lure of even the remote possibility of collecting a humongous judgment that keeps him in the game? Because otherwise this is crazy.

          7. He obviously wants/is hoping for a settlement. This is all settlement terrorism. The hopes that silencing Wade long term is better for them than letting him run his mouth for the rest of his life. That’s what Wade’s threat is about, and why he did this. The bigger money is the estate. Selling books, etc about his supposed story won’t get him half as much as a settlement with the estate would.

          8. Thanks for the links to the Estate’s response, Suzy. My main point is the inadequacy of the CA law and how it is too vague/broad/ill-defined/and generally a big mess! For example, look at this section: “(2) This subdivision does not apply if the person or entity knew
            or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent, and failed to take reasonable steps.” The issue here is that Wade can and is using this section to evade the statute of limitations that would otherwise mean that he cannot file later than age 26. The phrase ” had reason to know or was otherwise on notice” means that he is bringing in the 93 civil suit and criminal investigation–even though MJ was never prosecuted in either a criminal or civil suit, the civil suit WAS filed and the criminal investigation was begun and abandoned and left open for a decade , so he can try to use this as the ‘should have known’ part. The law is soo vague and broad and he is taking advantage of this.

  11. Raven, After reading all the above, I just thank God Michael is not alive to experience all this. I shouldn’t think a judge will allow a prosecution after someone accused has been dead five years, surely, especially as this is all a ridiculous set-up? I am firmly of the belief that the government/the powers-that-be were/are behind the biased media against Michael, his legacy, what he stands for, as so powerful, too powerful; even now. ‘The bigger the target……’ They are still afraid of that. After all his estate owns half of Sony ATV – worth $1 billion! I also agree that AEG were/are most likely behind Wade Robson’s claims to discredit KJ’s case and/or possible future appeal, probably blackmailing him as he was employed by them, the manipulated verdict and even the judge. Perhaps AEG want that $1 billion? Who is behind AEG? It is all so obvious. It seems hopeless and sad, crazy and unbelievable. I wonder what really did happen on June 25th, 2009(the wiped CCTV tapes and the unidentified unknown person’s fingerprints)? Why is Neverland being sold before Michael’s son can take over? So many questions. Just sickening and frightening. On a different topic, if I remember right, I read that the same psychiatrist that dealt with Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo, committed suicide.

    1. Nina, it was Dr. Richard Gardener, and expert on distinguishing between true and false accusations of child sex abuse, who interviewed Jordan in NYC. Yes, he committed suicide and after that, Ray Chandler published an abridged version of the conversation between Jordan and Gardener re the alleged abuse his book. After receiving Gardener’s full account, Feldman sent Jordan to another shrink in L.A. Dr. Katz and this is the same dr. who later interviewed Garvin (after he, Janet, Star went to Feldman). That Feldman sent Jordan to Katz, along with the fact that the full report by Gardener, meaning his conclusions, were never revealed, leads one to think Gardener concluded Jordan’s account was not a true accusation, according to his criteria. Gardener wrote a book called True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse.

  12. I sooooo agree with iutd. Much as one can sympathise with someone like Robin Williams in deep depression who is addicted to cocaine and alcohol and ultimately takes their life, the press are treating him well, as opposed to Michael who never took hard drugs or alcohol in excess and certainly didn’t take his own life, though he had much more reason to in my opinion than Robin!!!!! This media persecution of Michael is highlighted as being so out of proportion once again, and on it goes even 5 years after his murder!!! something rotten in the state of Denmark – all due respect to Danes!! certainly something rotten in the state of media.

  13. WARNING – this might be too graphic for some.

    There is a brilliant film playing now called Calvary, a philosophical thriller, set in a picturesque village on the Irish coast. SPOILER alert, but not really – in the very first scene, the hero, a rugged priest, is hearing the confession of an unseen figure, a man who vows to kill him as revenge, even though he’s innocent, because he was molested by a priest for years, starting when he was seven years old.

    As the man describes the pain he endured, he tells the priest “I bled and bled.” Well of course – the tissues of the anus are delicate, designed for pushing out, not taking in. A small child anally penetrated by an adult male is going to bleed and probably be in excruciating pain.

    Wade claims to have been anally raped. Wouldn’t his pajamas have been soaked with blood? Or the bed sheets? As every grown woman knows, blood doesn’t rinse out easily. Wade’s mother, his sister, some maid would have seen blood. A poster on another site said that Wade’s story is so nonsensical, there are only two possible explanations: he’s lying, or he was molested before by someone else. Maybe Wade was molested by his father, his brother, or some other relative, and he’s projecting that experience onto Michael.

    No one has asked Wade, did it hurt when you were raped? Did you bleed? Is he willing to undergo a rectal exam, complete with photographs, to determine if there’s any scar tissue? Has he been involved in homosexual activity as an adult? You can’t just make serious charges against a dead man with no evidence or proof. Wade needs to prove he was anally penetrated. Put up or shut up.

    1. I agree that there is no way a 7-14 child can be anally raped repeatedly without any physical and psychological effect. (And I’m not talking about the psychological effect that he claims set in 20 years later, but immediate ones.) And there is also no way a 7-14 year-old child will mistake that for “love”. Maybe he will able to get his mother say now that she realized things at the time, but then why didn’t she tell it to investigators all these years? Why didn’t she tell it on the stand in 2005? Was she too brainwashed? And he can get a pass to his mother for not realizing and despite of it letting the sleepovers continue, how can he sue Michael’s companies for “turning a blind eye”?

      But I don’t think a rectal examination could determine anything now, 20 years later. He could have been involved in anal sex as an adult and an examination will not tell you WHEN in the last 20 years he got an injury in that area if he has one. And if he doesn’t have any injuries there he could tell it completely healed in the past 20 years.

      That’s why he claims it and that’s why the Chandlers and Arvizos did not claim it. You can check that out immediately while the alleged victim is still a child, but there is no probative value in such an examination now, 20 years later.

    2. I have heard, however, some arguments to the effect that anal penetration doesn’t always leave physical signs that are easily detectable, nor does a person always bleed in every case. It depends on how “gentle” and “gradual” the assault is. Sorry to have to be graphic, but there is no way to delicately discuss such a topic. However, anal penetration IS very painful-no matter how gently it is done-and for a child would be one of the most painfully traumatic experiences imaginable. I cannot, and will not ever believe that Michael would be someone capable of inflicting that kind of pain and trauma on a child. Nor would these boys have been capable of hiding such a trauma, much less going forth and pretending nothing ever happened and refusing to recognize it as abuse.

      You probably are well aware that there have been stories circulating in Hollywood for years that Michael Jackson was sexually abused as a child as he was “passed around.” One of the alleged perpetrators even confessed publicly, though as with anything that is alleged, it is what it is and there is no way to verify it. Michael himself never made any such claims of being raped as a child, but males are often much more reluctant to discuss sexual abuse than females, for many varied reasons. I don’t much believe the stories but have always kept an open mind to the possibility that they “could” be true only because I know how rampant pedophilia is in the show business world. This is why I questioned in my review of Xscape (when I was discussing DYKWYCA) whether when Michael always spoke of “the painful childhood” he’d had if he wasn’t referring to much more than just being beaten or being made to work. “He cried every time,” so bragged this monster when he described what he allegedly did to Michael. (But another reason this story in particular doesn’t ring true for me is because Michael had a reputation as a feisty child who could definitely fight his way out of any situation-and if he couldn’t fight, he could sure outrun you!).

      Again, the story may be pure garbage but it does beg the question of just how much pain and trauma Michael may have endured growing up as a child in show business, for we know he had to have been surrounded by monsters like this every day. Not only was Michael well aware of how the business uses children, he tried to bring awareness to it in songs like DYKWYCA and Hollywood Tonight. Obviously, he had seen it; he knew it went on constantly.

      For me, it makes the argument even stronger that he most certainly would NOT have wanted to perpetuate that trauma or inflict that pain onto other children. Remember, Corey Feldman stated that Michael was the ONE person in Hollywood who actually gave him some sense of security and normalcy as a child.

      The anal rape stories are being circulated for their shock value, to make Michael “look” as heinous as possible in the media eye. They are a far cry from the claims of Jordan Chandler or Gavin Arvzio, who never claimed anything beyond masturbation and fellatio-all acts which, conveniently, could not be proven by medical examination (although, again, medical examination may or may not be able to definitively prove that penetration occurred, but for sure, it would be easier to detect at the time of its occurrence, rather than twenty to thirty years after the fact!).

      1. Raven, I’m aware of the rumors that Michael might have been sexually abused (don’t believe them), but I’ve never heard that anyone confessed to doing it. Who was it? Why wasn’t it big news, why wasn’t he prosecuted? The implication is that Joe Jackson allowed it, which strikes me as ludicrous. On the contrary, I could well imagine that Joe Jackson would beat the crap out of anybody who laid a hand on any of his kids, like that father in Florida who left his son’s molester with a broken jaw, black eyes, and a swollen head.

        I believe that the notion of pedophilia being rampant in Hollywood is greatly exaggerated. I do believe there are hoards of young men who willingly engage in sexual activity with rich, powerful, influential men in hopes of becoming movie stars, like the man who sued Bryan Singer.

        While anal penetration doesn’t always cause scarring, it does often enough that Wade should be required to undergo a rectal exam, to rule it out. If he had claimed that Michael beat him repeatedly over the years, but had no scars, no discernible change in his behavior, and a continuing eagerness to be around his abuser, nobody would believe it.

        1. I looked for the link to the story before I commented to you but was unable to locate it in the time I had. I will try to look for it again. I read this some time ago; it may have been on a discussion forum. The guy was supposedly some big TV producer or personality back in the 70’s and had supposedly confessed a lot of horrific things he had done in his past. Among his “confessions” was this alleged childhood rape of Michael Jackson. The problem now is that I can’t for the life of me recall the guy’s name. If I could, I could probably find the info in a heartbeat, but since I can’t remember his name, I’ve been trying all of these google searches using every relatable phrase I can think of (lol) but all that’s coming up is the Wade Robson garbage. I am sure I can find it if I keep looking, or maybe a reader will come across this who knows the story I am referring to. I wish I had saved it when I first saw it, but apparently I either didn’t or if I did, I have lost the file.

          I said before that I believe Joe would have whaled hell out of anyone who touched any of his kids-if he knew about it.

      2. Its dangerous to speculate about the possibility of Michael being sexually abused. Its a slippery slope, as dangerous as the recent hollywood accusations that now seem like fabrications. As a child Michael was always surrounded by his brothers and overly protected, someone would have noticed something.
        Its the same as the rumors that he was chemically castrated and got hormones to suppress his sexual urges towards children. Mind you, these claims were made by respectable doctors. One of them as recent as in 2011 was Alain Branchereau a french professor at a reputable university hospital.(At the time I sent a complaint to the medical board against him for abuse of his authority to sell a book full of speculation)
        Anal sex is painfull, even for adults and for a child it is a torture. And because the rectum is very delicate and not constructed for penetration(tight muscles, no lubrication, tissue texture etc)it can get injured easily. That is one of the reasons why homosexual men who have(unsafe)anal sex have a much higher risk of contracting HIV and infections than heterosexuals.

        1. You’re right, Sina. We always have to be careful about speculating or theorizing about anything that hasn’t been “proven.” It’s the stance I take with most of the issues of Michael’s life. If he never confirmed it, and it cannot be confirmed via the facts we know, it has to be placed within the realm of speculation. I don’t think it hurts to keep an open mind to some things; keeping an open mind doesn’t have to lead to any foregone conclusions that either accept or deny.

          But yes, the reason we have to be especially careful with any such speculations about Michael being sexually abused is because some haters have tried to use this as “proof” that he, in turn, perpetuated the cycle of abuse.

          However, while this is common, it is not true in every case and there is plenty of evidence that shows that boys who are abused do not necessarily become abusers in turn. The haters’ logic is very flawed in that regard.

      3. That rumour about Michael being sexually abused as a child is only one another sneaky attempt by the media to make him look like a pedophile. It’s well known that molesters often had been victims of child molestation before they start molesting. Of course, not always and it’s not fair to generalize, but still it’s a fact that it’s often discovered about molesters that they too have been molested as children. I think this whole rumour of Michael being molested boils down to that suggestion and as a fan I would be careful to embrace such rumours without any evidence. Like Sina said it’s a dangerous and slippery slope.

        The guy who “confessed” molesting MJ as a child “confessed” it to the National Enquirer. I don’t remember his name either but it was the NE he supposedly told this story – not to authorities. As we know the likes of NE pay for such claims – and the more salacious a claim is the more the money is. But the article eventually was retracted and not punlished. He must have realized that by telling such tales to the NE he risks being investigated. I think it was later claimed in a book that this story existed and the NE almost published it but later retracted it. So it’s a case of someone with questionable credibility supposedly told a tabloid with no credibility, but even that tabloid dropped the story eventually…

        I think Michael was physically abused, ie. beat, but I don’t believe he was sexually abused. Well, besides the fact that he had to perform in strip clubs at an early age. But I don’t believe this thing about being passed around Hollywood. Whatever you may think about Joseph and Katherine Jackson, I don’t think they would let their children being “passed around” for people to rape them. Especially for men to rape their boys. For a start they both are very homophobic.

        1. It’s been reported that Wade’s father was molested as a child. If abused children are likely to become abusers themselves, that bolsters my theory that Wade may have been sexually abused by his father or even his older brother, who may also have been a victim. What kind of ‘loving’ family man leaves his wife and children in a foreign country for years at a time? Clearly the Robsons were a dysfunctional bunch.

          By the way, I don’t think being homophobic has much to do with not wanting your child sexually exploited. I don’t know if the hetero cases are increasing, but charges are being brought against more and more female offenders who have engaged in sex with nearly grown boys.

          1. “By the way, I don’t think being homophobic has much to do with not wanting your child sexually exploited. I don’t know if the hetero cases are increasing, but charges are being brought against more and more female offenders who have engaged in sex with nearly grown boys.”

            Yes, but in Michael’s case the rumour was not that he was passed around to female executives, but to males. (Although there were also rumours of Diana Ross having sex with him when he was underage – I don’t believe that either.)
            And while we can be pedantic and point out that pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality (and indeed it does not), but I don’t think old school people like Joe or Katherine would make that distinction if a male executive asked them to let their son being abused by him.

          2. Suzy, my point is not wanting your child to be used for the sexual gratification of an adult has nothing to do with homophobia.

        2. Suzy I agree with what you said. Michaels pain was real to him but there are a myriad of more logical reasons for it than alledged sexual abuse. There is the obvious loss of his childhood that he lamented till the day he died. The backlash of his fame especially the allegations that defined his life up to his last day. To entertain the idea that Michaels parents would willy nilly facilitate sexual abuse of their son, homophobic or not is beyond outrageous.

          “I think Michael was physically abused, ie. beat, but I don’t believe he was sexually abused. Well, besides the fact that he had to perform in strip clubs at an early age”

          I have heard this before among fans and since we are debunking myths, lets also get rid of this one. Performing in a strip club is the last thing one should want for kids, but sexual abuse it is not.
          There is an accepted definition of sexual abuse, lets stick to it.
          Children these days have acces to the worst images (pornomovies and internetsex chatrooms),prostitution in many cities is in the open with half naked women sitting behind windows waving to potential customers, sextoy shops with every possible attribute on display, the average pop video these days looks more like a porn movies than musicfilm, the way some teenacts behave on stage, Its not what we want young children to be exposed to. But sexual abuse is really something else.

          1. As to whether working in the strip clubs could be defined as sexual abuse, it’s important to keep in mind that the definition of what constitutes child sex abuse has changed and widened considerably in scope in the last few decades. In the same way that spanking a child with a belt used to be a generally accepted practice, but can now bring charges of physical abuse, some might be quite surprised now to know what the law actually defines as child sexual abuse. By today’s standards, exposing a child to any form of sexual activity-and this includes simply having them in an environment where sexual activity is taking place or where they are bound to see inappropriate activity-is enough grounds to bring charges of sexual abuse.

            Just as in his day, Joe probably didn’t think twice about using his belt as a form of physical punishment-in his mind and according to the standards of the generation in which he had been raised, this was not abuse but discipline. Likewise, I am sure that Joe and Katherine, back in the mid 60’s, would not have seen having their children perform in some of those clubs as “abuse.” I think we do have to consider intent, even if we live in a much more PC world today that has changed a lot of the old rules. I don’t think anyone-certainly no one here-is suggesting that Joe and Katherine intentionally pimped their kids out or intentionally placed them in harm’s way. It was a different era, and back then people simply didn’t think as much about the long term and potentially harmful repercussions that could come from having kids in such an environment. From a legal standpoint today, placing their kids in such environments could be considered a form of sexual abuse.

            Michael himself said that he saw things in those places that no child his age should have been seeing. And, in one of the most telling and frank passages of his autobiography Moonwalk, he alludes to having images in his mind from that experience that had never left him. Though he doesn’t come right out and say it, he basically hints that he was over stimulated sexually at a far too young age from being in those places and seeing the things he saw (and then later, of course, being in the same rooms with his brothers when they brought girls in to have sex).

            Again, by today’s definition, that would be considered a form of sexual abuse, as these experiences obviously did have a scarring impact on him. By no means do I think his parents did this intentionally; this isn’t to point fingers and call Joe and Katherine monsters. It was, rather, a by product of putting their kids into show business.

            But there are many today who will still say this is sexual abuse of a child, regardless of the time period or intent. I guess it really boils down to how strictly one wishes to interpret the definition of child sexual abuse, and whether one does or does not agree that a person should be judged according to the values and accepted standards of their own time vs. today.

          2. Sexual abuse is a very serious crime against a child and not a matter of interpretation. If exposing a child to seks was sexual abuse many parents whose child ran into their bedroom and cought them in the act would have comitted a crime. Silly example, but just to illustrate.

            Sexual abuse is a crime that ‘includes several types of offenses, the highest level usually involves a sexual assault (actual penetration of a sexual organ) After sexual assault, the lowest level of sexual abuse charges are the indecency charges. This is where a defendant exposes their sexual organ to a child (or vice versa)or touches a child with intent to arouse their own sexual gratifications. Regardless of which level of sexual abuse is charged, some common elements required for each charge include (1) AN INTENTIONAL SEXUAL ACT (2)LACK OF EFECTIVE CONSENT BY THE VICTIM.” A sexual act with a child in the US( as in most countries )is always illegal.

            “Though he doesn’t come right out and say it, HE BASICALLY HINTS THAT HE WAS OVER STIMULATED SEXUALLY at a far too young age from being in those places and seeing the things he saw (and then later, of course, being in the same rooms with his brothers when they brought girls in to have sex).

            No he doesnt say it and with respect,the hinting is your interpretation. Going by your interpretation of sexual abuse, children today are constantly abused because they are alledgedly constantly overstimulated by what they are exposed to 24/7 and what they have access to on the internet.
            By your interpretation Michael would have gone to jail for not protecting a child(Arvizo)against exposure to porno magazines and access to pornochannels on the internet.
            It is difficult enough to distinguish between inappropriate and indecent behaviour (the lowest level of abuse.) That is why we have the law to define what is and what is not sexual abuse and not opinions.

          3. Sina, what I am telling you is not my interpretation of the law. It is how the laws currently stand. And yes, of course, there is due legal process for any accusation, and “intent to harm” is certainly one of the factors that are weighed in any court’s decision as to whether an individual case merits actual abuse or not. Obviously, for example, if the parents of a child have pornography hidden in their bedroom, and the child wanders in and finds it by accident, that is not the same thing as leaving it in plain view or inciting the child to watch it. No reasonable person is going to bring charges against someone if a minor accidentally sees a TV image or happens across a porn channel in their home. However, the laws as they currently stand do refer to situations where adults knowingly and willfully place children in situations and/or environments where they may be exposed to sexual images or acts. You are right that there are varying degrees, but those degrees as they are currently defined do go beyond just physical acts between the perpetrator and child. They can include the act of willfully and knowingly placing a child in situations where abuse might be likely or willfully allowing a child to be exposed to explicit images. I believe this may fall under the umbrella of “exploitation” (certainly it falls under the umbrella of “non sexual contact” abuse) but again, it is all reliant on the ability to prove willfull intent.

            No one here is stating that Joe and Katherine were willfully or maliciously abusing their children in this manner (at least I’m not). I am saying, however, that the legal definition of what constitutes childhood sexual abuse is a much broader definition now. Today, if parents booked their underaged children to play in a club where strippers performed, it would at the very least be grounds for an investigation. But again, that was a different era and it is not necessarily fair to apply the rules and standards of today to what was done almost a half century ago. But yes, of course, all manner of individual considerations that define the degree of willfulness and intent still have to be considered. That is why we have courts and due process.

            On p. 38 of Moonwalk (at least it is p. 38 in my edition) Michael refers to joining in with his brothers to peep into the holes that had been drilled in the girls’ bathroom. He says, “I saw stuff I’ve never forgotten.” It stands to reason that the things he was referring to “seeing” were obviously sexual in nature, even if it was just seeing a girl naked or peeing. Granted, little boys are curious and he might well have seen the same things at home or at school but working in strip clubs definitely upped the ante’ so to speak.

            You’re right that it’s my interpretation to say that’s what he was hinting at, but I think it is a reasonable interpretation based on his own words. For a little boy no older than he was at the time to be watching men sniff womens’ panties, etc (all of which he describes quite explicitly in Moonwalk) is definitely a case of a child being exposed too soon to sexual stimuli.

            That’s really all I’m saying. On p. 39 Michael says at the end of that passage, “As I said, I received quite an education as a child. More than most. Perhaps this freed me to concentrate on other aspects of my life as an adult.”

            This is a very telling statement. People have often said that Michael’s life was like Benjamin Button; it seemed a strange case of ageing in reverse. In this passage, he essentially says he received most of his adult education as a child, so by the time he was an adult, he focused on other things. In the book, of course, his tone is very light hearted and he doesn’t dwell too much on any “trauma” out of the experience. Chances are, he probably didn’t feel any trauma at all; he is simply chalking it all up to “Wow, what a bizarre childhood I had!” But when he says, “I saw stuff I’ve never forgotten” that is nevertheless quite revealing as it tells us those early introductions to sex-the things he saw peeping into those bathroom holes-were images he has never forgotten, even as a thirty year old adult.

            And again, I think stories like this have to be considered when we seek to understand why childhood innocence-and the desire to recreate it-became such a driving force of his adult life.

          4. California Penal Code Section 11165.1

            Legal Research Home > California Laws > Penal Code > California Penal Code Section 11165.1

            11165.1. As used in this article, “sexual abuse” means sexual
            assault or sexual exploitation as defined by the following:
            (a) “Sexual assault” means conduct in violation of one or more of
            the following sections: Section 261 (rape), subdivision (d) of
            Section 261.5 (statutory rape), 264.1 (rape in concert), 285
            (incest), 286 (sodomy), subdivision (a) or (b), or paragraph (1) of
            subdivision (c) of Section 288 (lewd or lascivious acts upon a
            child), 288a (oral copulation), 289 (sexual penetration), or 647.6
            (child molestation).
            (b) Conduct described as “sexual assault” includes, but is not
            limited to, all of the following:
            (1) Any penetration, however slight, of the vagina or anal opening
            of one person by the penis of another person, whether or not there
            is the emission of semen.
            (2) Any sexual contact between the genitals or anal opening of one
            person and the mouth or tongue of another person.
            (3) Any intrusion by one person into the genitals or anal opening
            of another person, including the use of any object for this purpose,
            except that, it does not include acts performed for a valid medical
            (4) The intentional touching of the genitals or intimate parts
            (including the breasts, genital area, groin, inner thighs, and
            buttocks) or the clothing covering them, of a child, or of the
            perpetrator by a child, for purposes of sexual arousal or
            gratification, except that, it does not include acts which may
            reasonably be construed to be normal caretaker responsibilities;
            interactions with, or demonstrations of affection for, the child; or
            acts performed for a valid medical purpose.
            (5) The intentional masturbation of the perpetrator’s genitals in
            the presence of a child.
            (c) “Sexual exploitation” refers to any of the following:
            (1) Conduct involving matter depicting a minor engaged in obscene
            acts in violation of Section 311.2 (preparing, selling, or
            distributing obscene matter) or subdivision (a) of Section 311.4
            (employment of minor to perform obscene acts).
            (2) Any person who knowingly promotes, aids, or assists, employs,
            uses, persuades, induces, or coerces a child, or any person
            responsible for a child’s welfare, who knowingly permits or
            encourages a child to engage in, or assist others to engage in,
            prostitution or a live performance involving obscene sexual conduct,
            or to either pose or model alone or with others for purposes of
            preparing a film, photograph, negative, slide, drawing, painting, or
            other pictorial depiction, involving obscene sexual conduct. For the
            purpose of this section, “person responsible for a child’s welfare”
            means a parent, guardian, foster parent, or a licensed administrator
            or employee of a public or private residential home, residential
            school, or other residential institution.
            (3) Any person who depicts a child in, or who knowingly develops,
            duplicates, prints, or exchanges, any film, photograph, video tape,
            negative, or slide in which a child is engaged in an act of obscene
            sexual conduct, except for those activities by law enforcement and
            prosecution agencies and other persons described in subdivisions (c)
            and (e) of Section 311.3.

            Comprehensive sites about child sexual abuse


            Reading through research and documentation on Child sex abuse was an eye opener. What struck me is the difference between the states. California has the most clear and unambiguous definition.
            What is more complicated is the effect of sexual abuse on children. Most children are affected by abuse,but up to 40% does not show any of the symptoms related to SCA. Also that research on the effects of SCA is still poor or poorly conducted.

            This is from the childwelfare site
            “Our understanding of the impact of sexual abuse is frustrated by the wide variety of possible effects and the way research is conducted. Researchers do not necessarily choose to study the same effects, nor do they use the same methodology and instruments. Consequently, a particular symptom, such as substance abuse, may not be studied or may be examined using different techniques. Furthermore, although most studies find significant differences between sexually abused and nonabused children, the percentages of sexually abused children with a given symptom vary from study to study, and there is no symptom universally found in every victim. In addition, often lower proportions of sexually abused children exhibit a particular symptom than do nonabused clinical comparison groups. Finally, although some victims suffer pervasive and debilitating effects, others are found to be asymptomatic.44

            In addition, a variety of factors influence how sexual maltreatment impacts on an individual. These factors include the age of the victim (both at the time of the abuse and the time of assessment), the sex of the victim, the sex of the offender, the extent of the sexual abuse, the relationship between offender and victim, the reaction of others to knowledge of the sexual abuse, other life experiences, and the length of time between the abuse and information gathering. For example, the findings for child victims and adult survivors are somewhat different.

            It is important for professionals to appreciate both the incomplete state of knowledge about the consequences of sexual abuse and the variability in effects. Such information can be helpful in recognizing the wide variance in symptoms of sexual abuse and can prevent excessive optimism or pessimism in predicting its impact”

          5. You are correct in that there are many variations from state to state. I know, for example, that the definition of child sex abuse that pertains to environment (i.e, knowingly allowing a child to be exposed to graphic images or sexual acts) has been grounds for conviction in some cases in Alabama. It may, in fact, fall more under this general heading:

            “Sometimes, child sexual abuse is considered a type of child maltreatment, which also includes physical and psychological abuse as well as forms of neglect.”


            That is a kind of convenient catch-all umbrella that somewhat neatly circumvents the tricky, gray area between what is technically “sexual child abuse” and what may actually be closer akin to neglect (if, say, a parent is leaving a child unsupervised with access to pornography). Interestingly, while many child sex abuse websites will state that cases of children bringing false accusations against an adult are extremely rare, many of them do note an interesting exception-in almost all of the cases where this has happened (that is, where the accusations were proven to be false) it was due to the manipulation of an adult.

            This was definitely true in both the Chandler and Arvizo cases. And now, interestingly enough, we have Wade and Jimmy, who voluntarily chose to not bring accusations as children (when apparently no adults were coercing them) and have instead VOLUNTARILY decided to bring accusations as adults. Wade and Jimmy are exactly the type of individuals who, if Michael were alive and spent any time in their childrens’ company, would try to concoct a case of child molestation. But since Michael is dead and that isn’t possible, their only alternative now is to try to turn back the clock twenty-five to thirty years and pretend that everything they remember is now abuse.

          6. On these legal isues, there is a category re ‘lewd and lascivious acts on a child” which fall short of direct, full-on molestation but include acts like masturbating in front of a child, and this is what Jordan Chandler accused MJ of, among other things, in connection with his civil suit. Jason Francia also brought up the lewd and lascivious acts in terms of bring touched in the genital area, even though he was clothed. The CA law classifies it as ‘inappropriate touching’ if it is for sexual purposes but the touching need not occur in any genital area–it can be anywhere on the body–and the child can be clothed. The penalty is very severe and means the person convicted has to register as a child offender.

          7. Oh for sure, absolutely. And IF Michael had actually committed the acts that he was accused of by Jordan Chandler, they would still be more than enough to label him a sex offender and child molestor. That is why it is as important to debunk those allegations as any that have been made since.

            Both Jordan and Jason Francia (or their parents, to be more precise) were obviously taking full on advantage of the “lewd and lascivious” clause which can be very vague since it can even include acts of innocent or accidental genital contact. For example, what if Michael did happen to be playing a tickling game with Jason and his hand accidentally brushed across his groin area (I have seen boys and men engaging in these kinds of tickling games, and they can get quite rowdy sometimes, bordering on rough housing; a person’s hand could accidentally brush against any part of the body during those games)? If such a thing occurred, even by accident, the Francias could have still used it as grounds to “justify” their claims. Where the problem can come in-simply because these laws ARE so vague-is that even if the genital contact was completely accidental and only occurred in the act of a rough housing game, Jason could still claim to have been traumatized as a result and, thus, the act would qualify as “sexual abuse” by the legal definition. After all, a person can claim trauma as a result of most anything, and there simply isn’t any way to quantify such a claim.

            And this kind of comes back to the whole point of where I’m going with some of this. I believe that a lot of times Michael was very innocently put in situations (or participated in situations) that made him vulnerable to accusations because if, say, a parent had already made up their mind that this was their ultimate goal (to extort money from Michael on a sex abuse charge) they would be just waiting for the first opportune moment for Michael to behave in such a way that could be construed as “inappropriate.” It doesn’t take much stretching, after all, to construe an innocent act of kissing a child on the head into “head licking” or an innocent game of tickling into genital fondling. Or let’s say a kid got really dirty after playing hard and Michael said, “Boy you’re a mess, we have to get you cleaned up before your mom sees you like this” and so he lets the kid use his shower, etc. Alexander Montague, as part of the set-up he had planned, purposely brought Michael to his hotel suite to play hide-and-seek with his son. Obviously, he was hoping the game would evolve into some act that could then be construed as lewd behavior. (What is even more repulsive than setting up an innocent man is the fact that in some of these cases, the parents really had no way to know if, in fact, the stories about Michael were true, so one could also argue that they were deliberately setting their children up for POSSIBLE abuse for money, which is even more repulsive and reprehensible).

          8. Key words in any state code, no matter what their definition of sexual abuse, are always sexual and intentional= to gratify sexual desire, arousal etc.

            e.g. Tickling a child in general is not considerd a sexual act as it is not intended as such, even if by accident a private part is touched, which under “Innappropriate touching” could be any body part as the intention was sexual.

            Inappropriate touching “does not include acts which may reasonably be construed to be normal caretaker responsibilities; interactions with, or demonstrations of affection for, the child; or acts performed for a valid medical purpose.”

            Ergo, sexual abuse has a very wide scope but also built in boundaries. Fortunately.
            Or else normal adult child interaction would become impossible and children could report their parent,caretaker, sportstrainer, teacher etc for any physical contact regardless.

          9. But I do wonder, with so many codes that are built in that allow for “trauma” as a defense, if some couldn’t take that and run with it (for sure, I believe that Jason Francia did). I believe the only reason it is not more out of hand is because, in general, there is the steadfast belief in place that children do not make up false accusations. The theory that children who do so are being manipulated by adults is probably true (and we know it was true in the case of the Chandlers, Arvizos, and Francia). But we shouldn’t forget that the Salem witch hysteria was caused largely by children, acting on their own accord (only in hindsight did adults join in), though even there, adults still manipulated the children with their interrogation tactics. In the 1990’s there was a rash of false allegations made, which may have played some part in amending some of the codes. When I was abused back in the 70’s and was made to attend therapy, there were dozens of books I was asked to read and when I look back now on a lot of what I read at the time, it seemed this must have been the dawning of the era when most any thing an adult did could be construed in some way as “abuse” (even down to hugs and kisses). When I was in therapy again in the late 80’s, I was given The Courage to Heal as a piece of recommended reading. (Ironically enough, my then therapist ended up making a sexual move on me!). The only criteria for accusing someone of sexually abusing you seemed to be if they made you “uncomfortable.” Well, that in itself can be a pretty broad definition (heck, my paternal grandmother’s icky kisses on the mouth made me “uncomfortable,” but sexual they definitely weren’t!). I think this was really a case of severe pendulum swinging to the far left, after all the years in which child sexual abuse had been practically an unspeakable crime that went under reported and was never discussed. But when it swung too far left, it also made these laws far too easy to abuse. In my time, there were a lot of girls, for example, who would try to bring charges of sexual abuse just to “get back” at their fathers or step fathers, or a teacher they didn’t like. Maybe in some cases the allegations were true; I suspect that in many, however, they were not. It stands to reason that there should be codes in place to protect from these kinds of frivolous and arbitrary allegations, but as we know, any minor who brings an accusation automatically has the law on their side, and that is a heady power trip for some, especially those who are old enough to be well aware of what they’re doing (here referring more to teenagers and adolescents than younger children).

        3. Thanks for the clarification on that. I couldn’t recall the source; only that I had seen a mention of it online somewhere. Yes, I knew he hadn’t reported it to any authorities. I assumed it was a tabloid story or one of those confessional “tell all”type books that tabloids and other media occasionally excerpt from. If NE retracted it, that probably explains why I can’t find any reference to it now.

          Although we tend to be dismissive of tabloid stories, they can sometimes provide important clues in getting to the bottom of who is (or has been) part of this conspiracy against Michael. It’s not a case of the stories being true, but rather, what is important is who is telling them-and why.

          1. Yes, I agree. For example, I have saved some NE articles from 1993 because they pretty much prove that the Chandlers talked to the tabloid media back then and the NE was their mouthpiece. It becomes clear when you compare those 1993 NE articles and then Ray Chandler’s 2004 book and you will find that not only some stories are identical but the exact same expressions are used as well. And Ray Chandler praised NE in 2004 as being very “accurate” in their reporting of the 1993. It’s very clear to me the Chandlers fed them.

  14. I ordered through Amazon and have now read most of “Trauma and Memory: Clinical & Legal Contoversies” (editors Paul S Appelbaum, M.D. ; Lisa A. Uyehara, M.D. ; Mark R. Elin, PH.D) Oxford University Press, 1997.

    Of particular interest: Chapter 18 “Legal Rights of Trauma Victims” and Chapter 19 “Repressed Memory and the Challenges for the Law–Getting Beyond the Statute of Limitations.”

    I highly recommend it for all of us crucially invested in the Robson outcome. It provides a clear understanding of where Gradstein is coming from,the logic behind the strategies he is using, and what he will likely proceed to do in the upcoming months.

    It also sheds light on the legal complexities the Estate is facing at the moment and why the strategy they are employing make the best (if not the only)strategic defense.

    I’ve taken pages of notes and underlined crucial passages that are far too complex and numerous to distill here, but if you can get a hold of a copy it’s well worth the read. Especially the two chapters I’ve noted.

    Am I feeling more assured of a just outcome? Yes, I am. But I’m not an unethical and out-for-blood top-notch lawyer. Still, I see no way for Robson to win. It will be an incredible (and almost impossible) legal sleigh-of hand if he does.

    I, for one, am encouraged.

    1. Sounds interesting, but Robson does NOT claim repressed memory. That he does is still out there because of the initial TMZ article, but that was only TMZ’s understanding of the story which turned out to be incorrect. Robson claims he always knew, repressed nothing, only he was unwilling and unable to realize it was abuse. But when you look at the law (and maybe the book you mention talks about this as well) there are two ways to go to try to get around statues: one to claim repressed memories, the other to claim not knowing about/not realizing the wrongfulness of the alleged acts. Robson goes with the latter.

      I also looked into this “insight oriented therapy” which Robson claims helped to understand him his alleged abuse and it makes sense why TMZ mistook it for repressed memory therapy. Here is a good article about the criticsm of the method:

      Some highlights from the article:

      “To cast light on these questions, and to coax them into a more
      manageable format, I focus on one specific question which has an obvious bearing on the scientific status of the insight-oriented psychotherapies: Does truth matter in the insight-oriented psychotherapies—and if so, to what extent? In other words, is it the case in the insight-oriented psychotherapies that clients’ explorations, discoveries, and insights, as well as psychotherapists’ interpretations of their clients, must be true in order to be therapeutically effective? To what degree are pseudo-insights, confabulations, and falsehoods—in short, explanatory fictions—tolerated as therapeutically beneficial?”

      “Naturally, the achievement of insight is an intense experience (or series of experiences) that comes after months of struggle and hard work. It is all the more intense because it occasions a certain disenchantment with pretherapeutic self-understandings, which, from the therapeutic and post-therapeutic point of view, appear to be superficial or misleading. The intensity of the experience is often enough to convince clients that the truth has finally been achieved—but this is clearly an unworkable criterion of truth: Intense
      feelings also can be generated by illusions and importantly false beliefs that mimic genuine insight.”

      “First, the mere acquisition of insight is not a guarantee that the insight is true. This is the case even if the acquisition of insight is the culmination of months of hard work and struggle in a setting that constantly reinforces the image of insight-oriented psychotherapy as a legitimate venue for exploration and authentic discovery.
      For example, what might appear to the client to be veridical insight may in fact be the product of a pervasive and undetected strategy of self-deception that finds support within the therapeutic setting, or it may be a false realization which becomes apparent with further (post-therapeutic) self-inquiry and further (post-therapeutic) consideration of the evidence.”

      “Second, the client’s level of conviction about the validity and authenticity of a newly won insight is not a guarantee that the insight is true. The client may be deeply convinced about—even form strong identifications with—an insight that is in fact psychologically and historically false. The client’s level of conviction simply may be a function of a temporary lapse of judgment that is the result of systematically distorted epistemic and interpretive standards brought about by prolonged exposure to the epistemic and interpretive standards of the therapy.
      Naturally, this is not to deny the methodological significance of emotional arousal as a key ingredient in the acquisition of insight; but the fact
      that clients become emotionally aroused in certain stages in the therapy, during which they appear to arrive at an understanding of issues in their lives that they would not otherwise have understood, is not a guarantee that what they have understood in the emotionally aroused state is true.”

      “Third, the therapist’s conviction about the authenticity of the client’s explorations, and the truth-value of the client’s insight, is not a guarantee of the truth of the insight.
      Therapists have neither privileged nor authoritative access to their clients’ life histories and psychologies, even when their therapeutic interventions have all the marks of being carried out correctly according to the standards of the therapeutic theory and the clinical norms of the community of practitioners. Nor do therapists occupy the point of view of unbiased and impartial observers: They have vested interests in seeing their work suc-
      ceed, they operate with theoretical orientations that have the potential to blind them to salient psychological and behavioral evidence, and they have only a finite amount of clinical material with which to work.”

      “Fourth, the occurrence of therapeutic change following the acquisition of insight is not a guarantee of the insight’s truth. To assume otherwise is to commit the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. There are a number of plausible alternative explanations that would have to be ruled out before accepting that therapeutic change was directly or indirectly a function of the truth of the insight. The change, for example, may have occurred because
      of factors less related to the truth-value of the insight than to its capacity to persuade the client with its apparent coherence, elegance, and explanatory power. One of the factors common to all forms of psychotherapy is that clients are supplied with a coherent rationale that explains their problems, gives otherwise puzzling symptoms a name (Torrey, 1986), and provides a socially sanctioned method of treatment. But even if the rationale is false, and the symptomatology and nosology unsubstantiated, the therapy may still be
      effective. In these cases, therapeutic agency rests on the client’s belief
      in the rationale’s validity and veridicality—actual truth value notwithstanding (Frank, 1989; Frank & Frank, 1991)”

      “Here, I will explore only one alternative explanation of the phenomena that occur in the insight-oriented psychotherapies: the therapeuticity of insight-mimicking explanatory fictions and therapy-induced self-deceptions and illusions. In some respects, this explanation is at once the most obvious and the most easily overlooked. This is because it is so clearly at odds with the standard view. Rather than beginning with the obvious assumption that the insight-oriented psychotherapies are likely to generate veridical insight, and that any failures to do so are to be explained as failures in the application
      of the treatment methods (rather than failures in the methods themselves and the theories that explain them), I will begin with the opposite assumption: that the insight-oriented psychotherapies are likely to generate illusions, deceptions, pseudo-insights, and adaptive self-misunderstandings that convincingly mimic bona fide insight; and that their failures to generate bona fide insight are not merely failures in the application of the treatment methods but failures in the methods and the therapeutic theories

      “The second guiding assumption is that it may be more socially and psychologically adaptive to remain deceived, ignorant, or deluded about oneself than to be knowledgeable; that is, to live with an understanding of self that is shaped by misinformation, fabrication, false theories, and benign fictions.”

      “Placebo insights are a direct function of the highly volatile nature of the therapeutic encounter in exploratory psychotherapy. Given the psychological and cognitive pressures generated by the therapeutic encounter (Calestro, 1972; Strupp, 1972), including the wide range of expectancy effects, and the occurrence of doctrinal compliance (Grünbaum, 1986, 1993), there is a permanent risk that clients may be persuaded to accept from their therapists as true certain putatively truth-tracking interpretations that are in fact
      psychologically and historically incorrect (Mendel, 1964; Schmideberg, 1939). Epistemically, this leads to a downward spiral. Under the influence of false or inexact interpretations, leading questions (Fish, 1986), and subtle cues, clients will make false discoveries, and will come to formulate for themselves false insights on the basis of evidentiary and interpretive criteria that have been progressively weakened by continued exposure to the pressures of the therapeutic situation and the therapist’s theoretical orientation.”

      “The metaphor of insight-oriented psychotherapy as a kind of mirror of the soul, or as a kind of archaeology, is therefore misleading. Clients are less like archaeologists of the soul and more like explorers in a strange land whose every step forward alters the landscape which they are exploring.”

      “Placebo insights help clients feelthat they are more insightful, more coherent, and more in touch with themselves than they would otherwise have had occasion to be, even if there is a clear sense in which they are significantly less in touch with themselves than they believe themselves to be. Moreover, placebo insights have the potential to serve the purely instrumentalist function of offering up useful guides or tools for post-therapeutic self-inquiry, which might ultimately lead to genuinely truth-tracking insights — or to further insight-mimicking illusions and deceptions.”

      “The criterion for demarcating insight-oriented psychotherapies that trade in fiction and fantasy from those that track the truth—and, a fortiori, for demarcating pseudoscientific from scientific psychotherapies—is much less
      clear and much less comprehensive that what defenders of the standard model would like.”

      “Second, the benefits of placebo insights always must be weighed against the undesirable interpersonal consequences that may follow from their cultivation (Jopling, 1996). If one of the central functions of placebo insights is to mediate the harsh impact of reality through explanatory fictions, then one of the potential consequences is the editing or filtering out of negative social feedback—that is, the criticisms, advice, disapprovals, and hurt feelings of other persons. But while this may be beneficial from a strictly self-
      regarding standpoint, it can result in a kind of “other-blindness:” that is, a systematic misrecognition or misinterpretation of the effects of one’s actions upon others. If therapeutically induced illusions and deceptions leave clients less responsive to negative social feedback, then they are less capable of experiencing the kinds of moral and personal growth that are only possible in contexts of interpersonal relations unencumbered by illusions and deceptions.”

      “Finally, embracing explanatory fictions and therapy-induced self-deceptions for their therapeutic value runs into conflict with some of our deeper convictions about what it is to be a fully developed and fully self-aware human being. “

      1. I am aware that Robson does NOT claim repressed memory. And that Robson claims he always knew, repressed nothing, only he was unwilling and unable to realize it was abuse.

        The book I site also addresses the validity of the claim that he was “unwilling and unable to realize it was abuse” also in Chapter 19: “Getting beyond the Statute of Limitations”:

        “Adult plaintiffs in childhood sexual abuse cases have tried to use the traditional common law exceptions such as mental instability, fraud, duress, and equitable stoppage to toll the limitations period [but] these efforts have been largely unsuccessful.

        “Courts have rejected that the “fraud exception” should be applied even in circumstances when the defendant told the child that the sexual act was not wrong. Only if the victim is deceived as to the sexual nature of the act will the fraud toll the limitations.

        “Courts have also uniformly rejected “duress” as grounds to toll the statute of limitations past the date when the plaintiff moved away from the situation in which the defendant was in physical control of the plaintiff’s person.

        “Courts have uniformly rejected arguments that the power differential between an adult and child constituted duress, even when there are facts in the complaint that describe threats to the child or others if they were ever to reveal the abuse.”

        Above from “Trauma & Memory: Clinical & LegalControversies”,Oxford University Press; 1997.

        I’ll try to include more relevant quotes from this same book in a post below.

        1. Apropos Robson/Safechuck claims regarding “Stockholm Syndrome” and/or “brainwashed”– these are not recognised as valid by the courts.

        2. Robson tries to use equitable estoppel in his lawsuit, but I think the attempt is very weak. I wrote about it in this post earlier:

          I read too that courts usually do not easily give the green light to expand statues of limitations. Plaintiffs have rights but so do Defendants.

          “Courts have rejected that the “fraud exception” should be applied even in circumstances when the defendant told the child that the sexual act was not wrong. Only if the victim is deceived as to the sexual nature of the act will the fraud toll the limitations.”

          This is why he claims MJ told him it was “loving” bla-bla-bla. But I think this is another reason why he shot himself in the foot with the anal rape claim. It would be easier to make people believe he did not realize some mutual masturbation or something like that was wrong and sexual abuse. But not realizing that about anal rape? That’s hard to sell. And for how long into adulthood one can claim he’s been deceived to think that anal rape was not wrong and not sexual abuse? Especially when you testified at a criminal trial like Wade did as an adult.

          “Courts have also uniformly rejected “duress” as grounds to toll the statute of limitations past the date when the plaintiff moved away from the situation in which the defendant was in physical control of the plaintiff’s person.”

          The duress allegation he tries to make is that lame story about MJ supposedly telling him they would both go to jail. It’s just ridiculous when you compare it to the precedent cases he cites. And again, how easy is it to make people buy that you did not ralize until the age of 30 that alleged victims of child abuse do not go to jail? Also considering the fact that neither Jordan or Gavin went to jail.

    2. That sounds like a very informative book, and definitely worth looking into as it pertains to these cases.

      I, too, feel very encouraged about the outcome of this case but the downside is that I highly doubt anything will come out of this case that will completely exonerate Michael once and for all, especially since civil cases do not have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The best we can hope for is that Wade’s and Jimmy’s cases are thrown out due to the statute of limitations. If that happens, it will be good in the sense that the story can die down and won’t be discussed anymore in the media, but it won’t do anything to dissuade those who are convinced they’re telling the truth. The fact that the accusations have been put put there at all is like a little victory train that haters will be riding from here on out. They won’t give two cents what the outcome of these hearings will be, or the trials if they happen. If the cases are thrown out, all we will hear is how these two “victims” were denied justice.

      The public reaction to these accusations basically falls into three camps:

      Those who believe Michael never did anything wrong, and these two are just out and out liars (most fans comprise this group)

      Those who think maybe he did or maybe he didn’t, but either way, Jimmy and Wade have waited too long and should have brought these charges while he was alive (I would say this is the general consensus of most of the population)

      Those who are salivating over the prospect of these cases going forward because they have an agenda to prove (the haters).

      As much as we would love to see Michael completely exonerated for once and all, realistically and from a legal standpoint it will probably come down to the statute of limitations as the factor that really decides whether this goes forward or not. I am not completely happy about that because I don’t really consider that a defense nor an exoneration but it will probably be the best case scenario that can be hoped for.

      1. “The best we can hope for is that Wade’s and Jimmy’s cases are thrown out due to the statute of limitations.”

        I’m not that optimistic. If it gets thrown out then expect Wade and/or James go on a media tour to try to collect their money. Expect them to cry on Oprah and Oprah presenting them as sympathetic and credible. Expect them to write a book. Expect Wade to pose as some self-help guru and a champion of child abuse victims. He already started that campaign with a website:

        Unfortunately there is no real way for Michael to come out of this well. Even if it went to trial and Michael won. Well, he did go to trial in 2005 and he won, and polls showed that people still believed he was guilty because the media brainwashed them into it. Most people did not know what went on in the courtroom, but they followed the likes of Diane Dimond and formed their opinion based on that. This is the nature of these type of allegations. It’s easy to pose as a victim, but it’s difficult to prove a negative – ie. that the defendant has not done anything wrong. It’s easy to emotionally manipulate the masses by repeating salacious allegations in the media, while the accused is not here to say anything and defend himself.

        1. Sorry, this is the full quote I wanted to answer to:

          “The best we can hope for is that Wade’s and Jimmy’s cases are thrown out due to the statute of limitations. If that happens, it will be good in the sense that the story can die down and won’t be discussed anymore in the media, but it won’t do anything to dissuade those who are convinced they’re telling the truth.”

          I do think that it should be thrown out on statues, that’s not the part I’m not optimistic about but rather the second sentence, ie. that then it will die down. Wade/James will make sure to not to let it die down until they collect their paycheques. That’s the usual pattern of these type of crooks and we all know how happy the media is to assist them when it comes to trashing Michael Jackson.

        2. I actually don’t think Wade will write any books, or go on any media tours. Interviewers and people at book signings ask questions. He’s not skilled enough to handle that without cracking. He’ll take the money he’s being paid and disappear. Or he’ll try to resurrect his career by teaching master classes at dance conventions. He can forget about working with any name performers ever again. (Based on the video bits he’s shot so far, he has no skill as a filmmaker, and he’ got too much ego to go to film school.) I think we’ll see even less of Safechuck.

          At some point, it’s likely somebody will spill the beans on the whole thing. Wade is not the most lovable guy in he world. Already Safechuck’s cousin has scoffed at the idea that Jimmy was molested or paid off. Any crack in the Robson marriage and Amanda will talk. Or Wade will – he’ll blame her for master-minding the whole thing. There’s no honor among thieves. Sooner or later, and I hope sooner, somebody will spill. It’s human nature.

          1. “I actually don’t think Wade will write any books, or go on any media tours. Interviewers and people at book signings ask questions.”

            He can pick interviewers who are sympathetic to him and/or biased against MJ and he can choose not to do book signings. It’s not like Today’s Show asked him any hardball questions while he was given a platform to call a man who cannot defend himself a pedophile on national TV.

            I agree he’s not a talented film maker (and this probably has more to do with Michael’s failed “prophecy” about him than the tale of him being sexually abused – but he needs a scapegoat, which I suspect is another reason for his allegations besides the monetary motive).

            The claim in his lawsuit about him leaving entertainment for good and never being able to work there any more because of the alleged abuse is clearly BS and he knows it’s BS. In fact, just recently I discovered that not only he still has his entertainment company but he filed some papers for it in January 2014 – about change of address and things like that. But he still keeps that business. Why if he’s leaving the entertainment industry for good and has no plans to ever return?


            Address: 415 Dairy Rd Ste E-504
            Kahului, HI 96732
            Registered Agent: Wade Robson
            Filing Date: January 09, 2014
            File Number: 49688 F1

            Wajero Entertainment, Inc. is a Hawaii Foreign Profit Corporation filed on January 9, 2014. The company’s filing status is listed as Active and its File Number is 49688 F1.

            The Registered Agent on file for this company is Wade Robson and is located at 415 Dairy Rd Ste E-504 Kahului, HI 96732. The company’s mailing address is 415 Dairy Rd Ste E-504 Kahului, HI 96732.

            The company has 1 principal on record. The principal is Wade Robson.


        3. True, but I have a hunch that if the cases are thrown out, the story is going to lose a lot of its steam and the media is going to lose interest.

          But yes, I have considered the possibility that having the case thrown out-or losing the case if it goes to trial-still won’t prevent them from turning to the media as a kind of retaliation.

          However, again, if their main motive is money they may lose a lot of their incentive once their cases are thrown out and they know that no amount of intimidation is going to pressure the estate to settle. And I believe a lot of the media outlets will lose interest in giving them a platform except maybe for their usual allies.

          I don’t know. I guess we’ll just have to see how it plays out.

  15. Dear Raven,
    This has nothing to do with this topic, but I have asked before but I cannot remember what you said. You know the boxes, I assume they are photographs or pictures, with a little ‘x’ in the top left hand corner. How do I access them, what do I have to do? I have tried mouse clicking on the ‘x’ but nothing happens. Maybe I have to have a particular function on my laptop?

    1. Yes, if you are seeing a box with an “x” instead of an image then for some reason your computer is not fully uploading the site. Or it may be up uploading it very slowly. It could also be that you are using a browser that isn’t compatible with the site for some reason.

      Just out of curiosity, is anyone else having this issue? It looks fine on my screen. I can’t always tell what others may be seeing.

      Also, are you having this problem only with this post, or others as well?

  16. Speaking of conspiracy, there’s something very weird going on at another website, that on the surface, has nothing to do with Wade. But I’m suspicious. It reads “A world famous music icon is hiding a dark and tragic secret – he was sexually abused as an innocent nine-year-old child, The Enquirer has learned.” There is a warning that the item deals with “sensitive material” about child abuse. Supposedly the Enquirer came upon this confidential material as part of a custody battle, because the abused music star’s wife is trying to strip custody from him, on the grounds that he was abused. At one point, the star is supposedly asked, “Now, [name redacted], when you were younger the person who molested you was [name redacted], your [family member], correct?” The singer-songwriter responded, “Correct.” That’s a very strange exchange for an attorney and his client at a child custody proceeding.

    The “family member” is described as “sick”, a “fiend”, “a depraved monster” and so forth. But instead of inviting readers to guess who it is, they ask people to post their experiences with being abused! This is NOT how a blind item website usually operates. Predictably, most of the posters say that they were molested “years ago” and are just now able to deal with it.

    I believe this was a “bait” item, designed to get people thinking about child sexual abuse suffered years ago, juxtaposed with the image of an “award-winning music star”. When I posted my skepticism about the veracity and the purpose of the the post, my comment was deleted.

    I think this is Wade’s team at work. If I come across as paranoid or overly-imaginative, I’d like to know what others think of this.

    1. BTW there is a lot of speculation that what is happening now with the Cliff Richards case is an off shoot of what is happening with Wade Robson, not that they are related, but that a lot of people are evidently getting the idea now to try to press charges on cases that are decades old. In the case of Richards, however, he is still alive and is in a position to fight or deny the allegations.

      1. Raven, you read my mind regarding the Cliff Richard case! The Brits are outraged that CR found out his London home was being searched from the BBC, that had been tipped off ahead of time and even had a helicopter present. All of this on the twenty-five year old claim of one individual. If a crime did occur, the odds are very low that there would be any evidence of it this many years later.

        Now “others have come forward” to offer information. Well of course – CR is very wealthy. There’s easy money to be made. Like Michael, he has a somewhat unconventional lifestyle, which may have contributed to him being treated so harshly. In the UK, the accuser’s identity is not revealed. Based on the comments on various media websites, the public, over there at least, is becoming aware of how unfair this is to the accused. But as you point out, at least CR is alive to fight back. It seems ludicrously unfair that a dead man can be accused of a crime, years after the purported occurrence, with no evidence, solely for the purpose of scoring a huge monetary award. Yet I found no references to Michael from commenters, which is not surprising. To this day, the Brits have reveled in savaging him to a ridiculous degree. Cliff Richard is one of their own, i.e. human. To them, and too many Americans, Michael is not.

        1. I have heard the British media actually have been protective of Cliff Richard. They are giving him the benefit of doubt and there were even commentars saying how this may inspire bandwagon jumpers. Michael, “of course” never got this benefit of doubt. Like you said because he wasn’t human to them, was not one of their own.

  17. As promised, more quotes from “Trauma & Memory: Clinical & Legal Controversies” Oxford University Press; 1997 as they might be relevant to the Robson case:

    “Because arguments based on “equitable stoppage” could potentially result in any childhood sexual abuse plaintiff’s open-ended ability to bring suit, no court has accepted equitable stoppage as the sole reason for tolling the limitations period.

    “For adult plaintiffs in childhood sexual abuse cases the “discovery” exception has been the only legal argument by which they have succeeded in tolling the statute of limitations. Designed to ensure that the discovery provision is not perceived as allowing meritless claims to be filed, procedures uniformly offer protections to defendants.

    “The most severe procedural limitation enacted so far [as of 1997] to protect the defendant has been the amendments to the discovery provision in California which require the filing of a “certificate of merit” with every civil claim for the recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood abuse before a complaint is served on the defendant.

    A “certificate of merit” is a measure designed to erect a higher threshold of reliability for such claims providing a disincentive to plaintiffs to bring these cases and a caution to lawyers about the risks involved in taking these cases. The “certificate of merit” must contain a corroborative fact. The corroborative fact may not be the opinion of a mental health practitioner, but rather a “fact” that confirms or supports the allegation of abuse. The corroborating “fact” may be either a document, or a record, or a witness. In the initial stages of the complaint, when a defendant challenges a lawsuit in a motion to dismiss, the court is procedurally required to treat all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true.

    “A single judge in camera (alone in judicial chambers) reviews the ‘certificate of merit” and if there is found to be reasonable and meritorious cause for the lawsuit, then and only then may the defendant be served with the complaint. In order to name the defendant personally, a plaintiff over the age of 26 who brings a claim for childhood sexual abuse (and whose claim is therefore based on the discovery provisions to toll the statute of limitations) must file with a court the “certificate of corroborative fact” executed by the plaintiff’s attorney, declaring that the attorney has discovered at least one “fact” corroborating the abuse alleged in the claim. Once again, the corroborating “fact” may be either a document, or a record, or a witness.”

    Based on the above, and Mesereau’s estimation that Gradstein is no fool and a top-notch lawyer, my guess is that a “certificate of merit” is ready to be (or has already been) filed. (I so hope I’m wrong).

    Since several in this discussion seem to be savvy regarding laws involving cases like these, does anyone know if (or can we find out) if a “certificate of merit” has actually been filed?

    1. I believe that I read that there was a certificate of merit. But I suspect that if it’s a witness, it’s Blanca Francia, who has already been discredited. But Gradstein might not know that, or he might hope that Beckloff doesn’t know and can’t be bothered to find out. Of course the logical question is, if there was a credible witness to sexual abuse of a child, why didn’t they go to the police? Why didn’t they tell his mother? If the witness IS the mother, then Wade needs to be suing her. Joy Robson is the center of his whole mess. Unless she’s dead, she can’t remain hidden forever. Come on out, Joy- you got some ‘splainin’ to do.

      1. Hard to believe that the court would consider a statement from a bought-and-paid-for ‘therapist’ meritorious. An opinion is not a fact. Unless the doctor witnessed the so-called abuse, how can he know it happened? Psychiatrists have been fooled before.

        1. Yes. Psychology is not an exact science. You can find a therapist to support any position you want to support. That’s why these mental health practitioner opinions are pretty unreliable to me. Just think of the mess Mathis Abrams created by giving out a written opinion without even meeting Jordan or Michael. Or Stanley Katz. Sorry, but Katz believing the Arvizos only shows that some of these therapists are willing to believe anyone who makes an allegation. You only need to find a therapist who is inclined to believe such allegations.

          Yes, it happens that victims of child abuse do not discover what happened to them was abuse for a couple of decades, and I think that is what Arredondo will vouch for, but the circumstances of this case are pretty unique. I don’t think there’s any other case you can compare to this. People who discover their abuse late are usually not bombarded for 20 years by such questions by media and authorities and they usually do not testify at a criminal trial for their alleged abuser as adults…

          I think Gradstein’s declaration may contain references to Blanca Francia’s 2005 testimony as “facts” which support the filing. (Yes, Francia is unreliable, but like the above extract said: “In the initial stages of the complaint, when a defendant challenges a lawsuit in a motion to dismiss, the court is procedurally required to treat all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true.” It’s up to the court to decide whether they find Francia credible or not. The Judge at this stage cannot make that call.)

          But I don’t think this is the main issue for Robson at this point legally. Even if the Judge accepted Arredondo’s opinion and Gradstein’s declaration that still would not solve Robson’s problems regarding statues. We should not forget that there are many more statues at play here than in the case of a living person. Like I said earlier in this thread:

          There is a window of time you can file a creditor’s claim against the Estate of a deceased person, which has long passed when Wade or James filed their claims. But the law allows the filing of a late claim in case of

          a) you have only recently learned about the facts your claim is based on; or
          b) you have only recently learned about the administration of the Estate.

          But even here there is a time limit. You must file within 60 days of learning either of the above facts. Now, Wade even missed that 60 days in case of a), since he claims he went to therapy in May 2012 and that’s when he first realized he’s been allegedly abused and his psychological injury is linked to his alleged abuse and he filed in May 2013. So he even missed that 60 days window for a). So his case really clings on b) which is why he claims he has not learned about the administration of the Estate until March 4, 2013 when his lawyers Gradstein and Marzano enlightened him about it. And he filed on May 1, 2013, so that claim would bring him within 60 days. Well, if he can bring some “facts” supporting this claim and if the Estate cannot poke holes in this argument.

          1. “So his case really clings on b) which is why he claims he has not learned about the administration of the Estate until March 4, 2013 when his lawyers Gradstein and Marzano enlightened him about it.”

            Clearly, Wade knew about the administration of the estate long before 2013, as did one of his attorneys – she was negotiating with the estate on his behalf years before this filing. They aren’t claiming amnesia, or diminished capacity. Don’t they have to swear that the facts that they present are true to the best of their knowledge? How is this not fraud?

          2. Yes, his long time entertainment lawyer, Helen Yu talked about the MJ Estate and its earning potential here in this 2009 article. She seems very well aware of everything surrounding the Estate and she seems to have kept an eye on everything MJ (even visiting auctions)… :

            I guess they’ll claim that while Yu knew, Wade didn’t or some other far-fetched crap like they so often do in this lawsuit. For him to get the go ahead the Judge must believe he’s been living under a rock between 2009-12.

            And I remember an article too where in a short sentence it was mentioned that the Estate managed to get him admit in a deposition that he was aware of the guardianship dispute the Estate was in involving MJ’s children in 2009…

      2. Here is a clue about what the certificates of merit they filed contain:
        (CCP 340.1(h))

        (h) Certificates of merit shall be executed by the attorney for
        the plaintiff and by a licensed mental health practitioner selected
        by the plaintiff declaring, respectively, as follows, setting forth
        the facts which support the declaration:
        (1) That the attorney has reviewed the facts of the case, that the
        attorney has consulted with at least one mental health practitioner
        who is licensed to practice and practices in this state and who the
        attorney reasonably believes is knowledgeable of the relevant facts
        and issues involved in the particular action, and that the attorney
        has concluded on the basis of that review and consultation that there
        is reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of the action.
        The person consulted may not be a party to the litigation.
        (2) That the mental health practitioner consulted is licensed to
        practice and practices in this state and is not a party to the
        action, that the practitioner is not treating and has not treated the
        plaintiff, and that the practitioner has interviewed the plaintiff
        and is knowledgeable of the relevant facts and issues involved in the
        particular action, and has concluded, on the basis of his or her
        knowledge of the facts and issues, that in his or her professional
        opinion there is a reasonable basis to believe that the plaintiff had
        been subject to childhood sexual abuse.
        (3) That the attorney was unable to obtain the consultation
        required by paragraph (1) because a statute of limitations would
        impair the action and that the certificates required by paragraphs
        (1) and (2) could not be obtained before the impairment of the
        action. If a certificate is executed pursuant to this paragraph, the
        certificates required by paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be filed within
        60 days after filing the complaint.

  18. I just want to state that irrespective of the very thorough discussion analyzing all aspects of the laws and possible myriad legal strategies we are exploring here, I am on the side that believes Michael is innocent.

    Accusations are neither evidence or truth.

    There is something disturbing and frighteningly “off” about Robson. He seems strangely calculated, cold, empty, and amoral.

  19. Tina Seals, a homeless woman, filed suit against Beyoncé and Jay Z, demanding compensation as the ‘real’ mother of Blue Ivy. In the past, she has also claimed to be the surrogate mother of North West, the daughter of Kanye West and Kim Kardashian, and even Michael’s children. She filed in July and the judge has already dismissed her suit. The judge’s opinion:

    “The Court, after reviewing Plaintiff’s complaint, finds that it lacks any arguable basis in law or in fact,” the documents state. “…Plaintiff’s factual allegations rise to the level of the irrational, and there is no legal theory on which she may rely… Plaintiff’s complaint must therefore be dismissed as frivolous.”

    Wade’s case is equally irrational and frivolous. Why is the court takibg so long to handle it? Does anyone know why?

    1. Boy, Tina Seals sure gets around, doesn’t she?

      In general, paternity cases usually aren’t taken very seriously in the entertainment world. I have seen Howard Weitzman quoted as saying that the Michael Jackson estate gets hit with dozens of paternity cases a year; most are considered frivolous and instantly dismissed. My guess would be that any time it is an accusation of child sexual abuse (even in cases where the statute of limitations has long expired) they are taken more seriously by the courts.

  20. I think the criticism with this article in particular comes from the fact that we’re entertaining the possibility of MJ flaunting the fact that he has porn to kids. Although it is well intentioned analysis, I don’t think it does MJ any favors as a defense to the allegations or even coming to an understanding about MJ’s relationship with kids (in hopes of shedding light on the allegations). Most of these stories (even from MJ’s so called “friends”) should be looked at with a skeptical eye, as most of MJ’s “friends” really weren’t friends at all and would sell their stories for the same reason everyone else would. Or similarly those friends would think they were closer to MJ than they really were. Or these stories are simply sensationalized and blown out of proportion when they were told. Now he may have done such a thing (flaunting about what he’s seen in porn), but he also may not have. So it kinda doesn’t do much good to even entertain it as it only incriminates him for those who don’t have an open mind (just as MJ sleeping in the same bed with children might – its just one more extra thing).

    Even analysing “Michael Was My Lover” is kinda iffy because that whole thing could have been completely fabricated and it doesn’t really give much insight into how MJ really was given the source of it. Its hard to base an argument off of something like that, because if you don’t believe those accounts are even remotely true, it doesn’t give much insight to anything else you’re trying to get across.

    This isn’t to say that I don’t think MJ made crude jokes or had a “problem” (I guess you can call it a problem) with being age inappropiate with folks but I think there are better examples you could have used. Such as MJ’s private phone conversations from the early 90s. even there he made some crude jokes and talked about women – but it definitely was not consistent with anything Victor wrote about him but it does show that very real and raw, juvenile side.

    That said, I think this (and your other articles) are well written and thorough. However, I must be honest that I guess analyzing his personal habits to such a degree and drawing conclusions from them to such a degree almost makes me a bit uncomfortable. Mostly because we don’t know, and will never know, his mindset to that much detail, so its kinda of turning the wheel for more speculation rather than new insights about him. I understand a lot of it is an attempt to try to better understand him, but I personally believe that if we overthink it too much, if we analyze every little move, every phrase he said, every joke he made as something calculating and planned or with some deeper meaning – we lose sight of who he was. It almost dehumanizes him a bit because now we’re painting a picture of someone whose every move was tied to some deeper expression of some trauma, a publicity ploy, or fabricating a self-illusion when it could just be him just being himself for that moment. NOt saying that you’re doing that, but I think that stuff like this is treading that line just a teeny tiny bit.

    Just my 2 cents.

    1. What I try to look at are the things that are consistent with his personality as we know it. That “very real, raw juvenile side” as you put it-and which we glimpsed often enough to know it was at least one facet of his personality-is exactly what I’m referring to. With his older friends, he was known to crack crude jokes about girls. He made jokes with Frank Cascio about “fishing.” It doesn’t mean he did anything wrong; certainly it doesn’t mean he did anything criminal, and that is where the line has to be drawn. To me, it’s kind of pointless to try to argue away these aspects of his personality, just as Thomas Mesereau in his defense of Michael didn’t attempt to argue away certain aspects of Michael’s behavior and personality, but rather to put them in their proper context. He did that quite successfully, and has credited it as one of the main factors for winning Michael’s acquittal. I haven’t yet tied up all the loose ends of where I was going with that particular line of reasoning, and will return to it in future installments of this series. Hopefully I can also bring the additional clarification you are referring to, and as for using “better examples” I am always open to suggestions from readers. I devote hours on end of my personal time for this blog, and I try hard not to “rush” any post into being, but sometimes there are things I miss that in hindsight, I always think, “Gosh, I wish I’d had that info when I did the piece” or “I wish I had included that.”

      1. Sure, I’m not saying to argue away these facets, but to put them under a microscope to such a degree and draw huge conclusions about his state of mind when he says these jokes , for instance, I’m not sure if its helping. Mez didn’t exactly go into extreme detail and try to psychoanalyze MJ’s decision to call wine Jesus Juice. He simply stuck to the facts and yes put them in context.

        So in this way, I’m saying insinuating MJ bragged about how much porn he had, or what he’s seen in porn to minors when we have no really evidence of him doing such a thing is to me only adding more fuel to the fire, whether he did or didn’t. Sure it possible, plausible, however that specific instance – there is nothing to explain away because we’re drawing conclusions that aren’t necessarily guaranteed to be there. We’re trying to explain something that may or may not have happened. In the case of Michael Jackson I think it is always better to stick to examples that we know for sure rather than add on to them with more speculation (even if it fits what you or I might think is his personality)…*especially* when it links MJ talking about porn to minors, even if the act is not criminal (again, this is just like having sleepovers, which is also not criminal but in MJ’s case it just adds more smoke to what people think is fire). I get what you’re tryign to do and sure, perhaps it’ll all come together in later installments, but those are just my concerns about it. One, drawing conclusions about what MJ might have done especially when it all it does is give more raised eyebrows even if the act is not criminal (just why add more speculation when we have plenty of examples that aren’t speculation?) and two, I say lets be careful about dissecting everything too much and losing sight of the fact that sometimes – MJ just said things because he wanted to say things and do things because he wanted to do them lol, like anyone else. It doesn’t necessarily all tie in to a big conclusion.

  21. aww that video with the little girl is so cute. I remember Diane Dimond writing in her book that MJ was a little too touchy feely around kids. The prosecution actually tried to use it against him. They tried to turn the kisses on the cheek/forehead and the holding of hands and the caresses of the cheek, and the touching of the hair into something sinister.

    1. Yes, and this is exactly what I think happened in several cases. I believe that some certain individuals observed some of Michael’s actions and tried to exaggerate them into inappropriate displays of affection. I have mentioned this before, and it’s something I will be returning to in subsequent posts.

  22. Hello I am wondering where the 1.6 billion figure you cite comes from? I have checked the court documents available and it is not mentioned. The only reference to a dollar amount is from a United Kingdom tabloid. Otherwise your article is OK.

    1. That figure was being bandied about in the media. I imagine most of them were copying it from that UK source. When I get time, I will update and correct the article to clarify that this figure has not been confirmed.

Leave a Reply