rhilo
Wondering Who
Posts: 188
|
Post by rhilo on Jul 6, 2020 9:13:41 GMT
Blimey, Taj has been busy. Thread. Two wade Robson hashtags were trending, I think Taj grabbed the opportunity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 10:23:38 GMT
The more I think about this, the stranger it is. Was this a plan all along, for LN to leave a lasting affect and for the case to be reduced as they knew they wouldn't get a win?
The documentary Capuring the Friedmans was made to influence the review of one of the Friedmans convictions to get it overturned, and like LN (but not to the extent) provided a distorted picture of the details. So:
1. LN is made, broadcast to the public to influence the public opinion. Widespread reporting. 2. Appeals were contested, hoping LN would influence. Lucky for them, the law changed. 3. Current case drops the CSA part, as now the "damage has already been done" so "IF" they are succesful, it would be seen as "a win for CSA victims" EVEN THOUGH this court case is now completely divorced from the narrative of the 4 hours of LN. From my memory, there was little to no implication that MJ's companies were operating the biggest child smuggling/abusing network in the universe? 4. Current court charges (whatever the term is) could possibly to Finaldi and co could be the easier route to getting a payout. Endgame all along?
We need a lawyer on here, I don;t even understand what I've rambled on about above.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 6, 2020 10:40:27 GMT
Please read the thread what I just posted and don't run with this fan nonsense that the CSA allegations have been dropped and that they are not going to still be claimed if the case goes to court. I mean technically they have been dropped against the companies . It's just that it was wrong to accuse the companies of CSA in the first place, simply because a company obviously cannot commit CSA directly. Only a natural person can. That's what this is about. They still will claim MJ sexually molested them. If it goes to court that's still going to be discussed. But the companies would be accused of things a company is able to do: ie. assisting it, turning the other way. Etc. Nothing changed. This is a 2016 filing. It's just some fans completely misunderstood a tweet by TSCM.
I explained it in the Twitter thread I posted on the previous page.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 10:44:33 GMT
Please read the thread what I just posted and don't run with this fan nonsense that the CSA allegations have been dropped. It's a complete misunderstanding of what TSCM originally posted and I explained it in the Twitter thread I posted on the previous page. .. I'm assuming this wasn't aimed at me. I read your post and tweet and my above posts were nothing to do with any allegations being withdrawn, but the 3 amendments to the complaint.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 6, 2020 10:52:44 GMT
Please read the thread what I just posted and don't run with this fan nonsense that the CSA allegations have been dropped. It's a complete misunderstanding of what TSCM originally posted and I explained it in the Twitter thread I posted on the previous page. .. I'm assuming this wasn't aimed at me. I read your post and tweet and my above posts were nothing to do with any allegations being withdrawn, but the 3 amendments to the complaint. Oh, OK. Indeed the narrative in LN is very different from the lawsuits. They claim they were doing LN to get "their truth" out there, yet in 4 hours they didn't bother to even mention this big "child abuse mafia" their whole lawsuit is about. Why? I think they know talking about this aspect would reveal their greed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 11:05:46 GMT
.. I'm assuming this wasn't aimed at me. I read your post and tweet and my above posts were nothing to do with any allegations being withdrawn, but the 3 amendments to the complaint. Oh, OK. Indeed the narrative in LN is very different from the lawsuits. They claim they were doing LN to get "their truth" out there, yet in 4 hours they didn't bother to even mention this big "child abuse mafia" their whole lawsuit is about. Why? I think they know talking about this aspect would reveal their greed. Yeah, that's one of the 2 big points that now confuses me more than ever. Surely in the new discovery part (I'm not sure if I'm correct here with that phrase), LN will cause some damage to this theory. I'm sure they'll think of some ridiculous lie/reason as to why they "couldn't discuss it" during LN, but that whole idea is absolutely in contrast to the picture painted of MJ "befriending and grooming entire families". Second, is "negligent retention/hiring". Surely this is a huge hurdle for them to prove they were in fact hired? Dont remember this in LN. Both of them were "friends". Dont recall Safechuck being listed as a dance during the Bad tour. Negligent to "warn, train or educate) seems like desperation. All of those amended points can be applied to both families now. Surely, in the eyes of the complaint above, both families are just as much to blame for what they claim happened. Also, I dont know how anyone could have misinterpreted TCSM's tweet. The internet should have an entrance exam.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 6, 2020 12:45:04 GMT
Safechuck was not employed by the companies during his alleged abuse. He claims him dancing on stage with MJ was employment where he was "paid" with food and accommodation, but it's just a desperate, ridiculous attempt to link him to the companies. Besides in the appeal documents MJ's side stated that MJ's companies had nothing to do with the tour, anyway. IMO Safechuck case should definitely be thrown out again.
Robson's is more complicated because he and his mother were employed when they moved to the US. This was because they needed green cards to be able to stay in the US and Joy asked MJ to employ them and he did. But the employment was 1991 or beyond, by the time the alleged abuse already started, Joy stated she would have befriended MJ anyway, so really the companies are just incidental to their relationship. It's not like a school or church where the alleged victim trusts a teacher or priest due to his connection to the school/church. There are other issues that Wade would face too. Like Joy Robson knowing just as much as the companies did (she knew about the 1993 allegations, yet, continued to let Wade hang out with MJ, or there was that 1992 meeting with Victor Gutierrez etc). So if Wade is claiming this now, how is he suing MJ's companies instead of his mother? It's another question whether these issues are enough to get the case thrown out again, or it has to be decided by a jury.
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Jul 6, 2020 12:56:56 GMT
Safechuck was not employed by the companies during his alleged abuse. He claims him dancing on stage with MJ was employment where he was "paid" with food and accommodation, but it's just a desperate, ridiculous attempt to link him to the companies. Besides in the appeal documents MJ's side stated that MJ's companies had nothing to do with the tour, anyway. IMO Safechuck case should definitely be thrown out again. Robson's is more complicated because he and his mother were employed when they moved to the US. This was because they needed green cards to be able to stay in the US and Joy asked MJ to employ them and he did. But the employment was 1991 or beyond, by the time the alleged abuse already started, Joy stated she would have befriended MJ anyway, so really the companies are just incidental to their relationship. It's not like a school or church where the alleged victim trusts a teacher or priest due to his connection to the school/church. There are other issues that Wade would face too. Like Joy Robson "knowing" just as much as the companies did (she knew about the 1993 allegations, yet, continued to let Wade hang out with MJ, or there was that 1992 meeting with Victor Gutierrez etc). So if Wade is claiming this now, how is he suing MJ's companies instead of his mother? It's another question whether these issues are enough to get the case thrown out again, or it has to be decided by a jury. It's fucking sickening to think about. MJ gave Wade everything, but it was never enough. It wasn't enough that MJ got them their greencard, it wasn't enough that MJ put Wade in two music videos, it wasn't enough that he signed Wade to his label, it wasn't enough that he opened up his home to them. They wanted Wade to be on the Dangerous tour. Even during Michael's darkest hour, Wade was thinking about himself, wanting to ask to get married at Neverland. Even when he died, they were thinking about themselves, wanting custody of the kids (probably for financial reasons), with not a single thought that these poor three orphaned children barely even knew the Robsons. Surely even the people who believe MJ was guilty must concede that the Robson family were stone-cold, calculating opportunists. I guess that's what happens when you have a generous spirit and try to help people. Someone like Wade grew up believing he was entitled to everything that came his way and had no genuine gratitude to MJ for the opportunities he'd opened up for him. Spoilt narcissistic little shit.
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Jul 6, 2020 13:07:33 GMT
Safechuck was not employed by the companies during his alleged abuse. He claims him dancing on stage with MJ was employment where he was "paid" with food and accommodation, but it's just a desperate, ridiculous attempt to link him to the companies. Besides in the appeal documents MJ's side stated that MJ's companies had nothing to do with the tour, anyway. IMO Safechuck case should definitely be thrown out again. Robson's is more complicated because he and his mother were employed when they moved to the US. This was because they needed green cards to be able to stay in the US and Joy asked MJ to employ them and he did. But the employment was 1991 or beyond, by the time the alleged abuse already started, Joy stated she would have befriended MJ anyway, so really the companies are just incidental to their relationship. It's not like a school or church where the alleged victim trusts a teacher or priest due to his connection to the school/church. There are other issues that Wade would face too. Like Joy Robson "knowing" just as much as the companies did (she knew about the 1993 allegations, yet, continued to let Wade hang out with MJ, or there was that 1992 meeting with Victor Gutierrez etc). So if Wade is claiming this now, how is he suing MJ's companies instead of his mother? It's another question whether these issues are enough to get the case thrown out again, or it has to be decided by a jury. It's fucking sickening to think about. MJ gave Wade everything, but it was never enough. It wasn't enough that MJ got them their greencard, it wasn't enough that MJ put Wade in two music videos, it wasn't enough that he signed Wade to his label, it wasn't enough that he opened up his home to them. They wanted Wade to be on the Dangerous tour. Even during Michael's darkest hour, Wade was thinking about himself, wanting to ask to get married at Neverland. Even when he died, they were thinking about themselves, wanting custody of the kids (probably for financial reasons), with not a single thought that these poor three orphaned children barely even knew the Robsons. Surely even the people who believe MJ was guilty must concede that the Robson family were stone-cold, calculating opportunists. I guess that's what happens when you have a generous spirit and try to help people. Someone like Wade grew up believing he was entitled to everything that came his way and had no genuine gratitude to MJ for the opportunities he'd opened up for him. Spoilt narcissistic little shit. Correct!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 6:11:33 GMT
Safechuck was not employed by the companies during his alleged abuse. He claims him dancing on stage with MJ was employment where he was "paid" with food and accommodation, but it's just a desperate, ridiculous attempt to link him to the companies. Besides in the appeal documents MJ's side stated that MJ's companies had nothing to do with the tour, anyway. IMO Safechuck case should definitely be thrown out again. Robson's is more complicated because he and his mother were employed when they moved to the US. This was because they needed green cards to be able to stay in the US and Joy asked MJ to employ them and he did. But the employment was 1991 or beyond, by the time the alleged abuse already started, Joy stated she would have befriended MJ anyway, so really the companies are just incidental to their relationship. It's not like a school or church where the alleged victim trusts a teacher or priest due to his connection to the school/church. There are other issues that Wade would face too. Like Joy Robson knowing just as much as the companies did (she knew about the 1993 allegations, yet, continued to let Wade hang out with MJ, or there was that 1992 meeting with Victor Gutierrez etc). So if Wade is claiming this now, how is he suing MJ's companies instead of his mother? It's another question whether these issues are enough to get the case thrown out again, or it has to be decided by a jury. Yes, this is what I can't get my head around. Its glaringly obvious that these dopes have abused the new law change and are coming at the Estate like others are going for the Catholic Church or the Scouts. It's a mockery, everything I've bolded above.
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Jul 9, 2020 21:07:18 GMT
So there's a new trash book coming out "BAD" by Dylan Howard. UK paper The Express has been doing daily serialisations covering the book. Strangely they seem to contradict eachother, one suggesting Safechuck's allegations in LN were put through some advanced lie detector technology and the results proved to be inconsistent and suggest that he embellished the sexual abuse. The next day they ran a story (from the same book) claiming to have seen "secret FBI files" that indicate that MJ was being investigated by the feds for running a global child sex trafficking operation. Sounds like little more than a mouthpiece for Finaldi tbh. The author is the former editor for RadarOnline, and fwiw, has faced multiple sexual harassment and sexual misconduct allegations himself: www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/national-enquirer-editor-dylan-howard-accused-harassment-sexual-misconduct-1064604
|
|
|
Post by ShadowDeeps on Jul 9, 2020 22:44:29 GMT
“Secret FBI files” - does this stem from the retardation Radar Online was perpetuating four years ago, for which there is no basis? The actual FBI investigation on MJ did not show any evidence of wrongdoing regarding the allegations at the very least as per the files from the vault available online. There was no “secret” investigation. If Sneddon could have found any way to incriminate MJ in the 90s or 2000s, he would have, and same goes for the very FBI the LAPD and SBPD was working with. This isn’t hard to figure out. If MJ was arrested on such tentative grounds in 2003, he certainly would have been arrested if there was enough evidence to indict him in 1993 or 1994. Added to that, MJ would have been convicted on at least one felony count if there was any merit to the allegations in 2003-2005. At the time of his unanimous acquittal, he was acquitted by a conservative jury (without any African American representation), a conservative judge, in a very conservative community (Santa Maria county), in a jurisdiction where the conviction rate was usually very high for people accused of that type of crime. And it’s well known that the conviction rate is higher for African Americans than other ethnicities (IOW: they never receive equal or fair treatment).
Dylan Howard is scum. This man was complicit in working the Harvey Weinstein machine. He was the senior editor for Radar Online (founded by none other than Jeffrey Epstein). He even attempted to silence Donald Trump’s accusers and endorsed R Kelly. In other words, actual creeps and predators or people who are at least much more probable to be. And yes, Dylan was accused of sexual harassment by what, a dozen? women. Yet somehow he’s still able to bring this to bear. The Safechuck story is laughable. Lie detectors (IE, polygraph tests) aren’t wholly reliable or conclusive by their very nature anyway. I’ve seen multiple US outlets run this garbage too. Dylan likely paid them and UK tabloids to do so (the Mirror is still holding claim that MJ possessed illicit material when nothing of the such was ever discovered at Neverland - even Ron Zonen has said so! The same site also posted a BS article about the autopsy and the image featured is an unflattering one of Michael with tape on his nose - will this never end?). I guess they don’t care what Dylan’s done, as long as they can run salacious, sensational stories on MJ, which will garner attention, clicks, and generate revenue. Anything for money. SMH.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 10, 2020 3:50:19 GMT
I really don't care about this book. It's a bunch of twisted facts and old lies, nothing the tabloids haven't already thrown at MJ over the years. The lies aren't even very clever ones. Who cares? It's always fans giving these articles the clicks and free promotion. They just can't help their curiosity even if you can know just from who the author is that it's BS. I won't give it my time.
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Jul 10, 2020 6:19:03 GMT
I really don't care about this book. It's a bunch of twisted facts and old lies, nothing the tabloids haven't already thrown at MJ over the years. The lies aren't even very clever ones. Who cares? It's always fans giving these articles the clicks and free promotion. They just can't help their curiosity even if you can know just from who the author is that it's BS. I won't give it my time. I wish I could be as pragmatic as you respect77. I dont know why, but this book has upset me. I think its because 2020 has been relatively quiet in terms of MJ bs, especially after the rollercoaster of 2019, and every time things settle down I naively hope that the media will move on and leave MJ alone. But its never going to end, is it? I need to take your advice and just ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Jul 10, 2020 7:36:21 GMT
So thats whats on the mirror front page. More documented and provern lies.Just more confirmation that mj was the scapegoat for all the real paedos in hollywood. If you ever needed an example this is it considering who howard is.
|
|