|
|
Post by pg13 on Aug 19, 2023 13:22:41 GMT
So is it definitely going to trial now? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Aug 19, 2023 18:02:29 GMT
Quite scary how the judges can totally ignore the facts and are obviously personally prejudicial against MJ . So what hearings do we have now. It goes back to the same judges who have already thrown it out? What will they think?
|
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Aug 19, 2023 19:40:04 GMT
Quite scary how the judges can totally ignore the facts and are obviously personally prejudicial against MJ . So what hearings do we have now. It goes back to the same judges who have already thrown it out? What will they think? I'm hearing from several sources the Estate will appeal to the California Supreme Court. Unfortunately the SC takes few cases, so there must be a very good reasoning to make them take it. But I think this case has that potential so let's see. |
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Aug 19, 2023 22:10:29 GMT
Trying a deceased man who can't defend himself is a travesty of justice but I'm sure the estate will give those crooks a fight. Only in California indeed!  Dean commented on his post that the estate will retain Dr. Elizabeth Loftus to articulate the problems inherent with memories and testimonies of Robson and Safechuck. Dr. Loftus has vehemently criticized the recovered memory therapy. It makes me think her expertise could have been used by the estate in the previous dismissed lawsuits. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus |
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Aug 19, 2023 22:18:42 GMT
So is it definitely going to trial now? 🤦🏻♂️ Earth calling Matthew……come in Matthew……. |
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Aug 20, 2023 1:57:07 GMT
Trying a deceased man who can't defend himself is a travesty of justice but I'm sure the estate will give those crooks a fight. Only in California indeed! Dean commented on his post that the estate will retain Dr. Elizabeth Loftus to articulate the problems inherent with memories and testimonies of Robson and Safechuck. Dr. Loftus has vehemently criticized the recovered memory therapy. It makes me think her expertise could have been used by the estate in the previous dismissed lawsuits. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_LoftusI've used the work of memory scientists like Elizabeth Loftus and others a lot. Certainly gets a mixed reception with the biggest reactions coming from women who really don't like memories being Questioned like this! |
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Aug 20, 2023 6:03:48 GMT
Trying a deceased man who can't defend himself is a travesty of justice but I'm sure the estate will give those crooks a fight. Only in California indeed! Dean commented on his post that the estate will retain Dr. Elizabeth Loftus to articulate the problems inherent with memories and testimonies of Robson and Safechuck. Dr. Loftus has vehemently criticized the recovered memory therapy. It makes me think her expertise could have been used by the estate in the previous dismissed lawsuits. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
I was quite surprised when I saw this comment by an ex-Court TV commentator as they weren't the friendliest to MJ in 2005. But I think he was one of the few good ones. I looked him up and he wrote three books on false allegations of sexual abuse because he himself was falsely accused in the 80s. So he knows. (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Tong ) I saw someone say on Twitter (in an older conversation) that they knew a person who knows Tong and he told them that he saw all the evidence in court in 2005 and he believed MJ was innocent.
As bad as biased as ther 2005 coverage was it was still a bit better than 2019. In 2005 TV channels they still at least tried to bring a little balance in their shows. So if they had a panel of five discussing the MJ case, even if they had four panelists who were pro-prosecution at least they had one who was pro-defense. Someone representing the defense POV. Probably Tong was that one on Court TV in MJ's case, though I don't remember him. In 2019 the media didn't even care about pretending they are somewhat balanced or giving ANY representation to MJ's side. They were just 100% anti MJ.
Re. Elizabeth Loftus. She was also on the Defense's witness list in 2005, but was never called, not needed as no one claimed recovered memories.
I personally don't think she is much relevant in Wade/James's case either, as they don't claim recovered memories. They claim BS like they always knew what happened they just didn't know/realize it was abuse and wrong until they sued the MJ entities. These aren't recovered memories, these are lies. Maybe she can be relevant to Jason Francia, who IMO got convinced by the prosecution at 13 that MJ touched his penis while tickling him at 7-10. That might be a case of someone developing "memories" of things that didn't happen due to outside influence.
|
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Aug 20, 2023 11:41:06 GMT
Quite scary how the judges can totally ignore the facts and are obviously personally prejudicial against MJ . So what hearings do we have now. It goes back to the same judges who have already thrown it out? What will they think? I'm hearing from several sources the Estate will appeal to the California Supreme Court. Unfortunately the SC takes few cases, so there must be a very good reasoning to make them take it. But I think this case has that potential so let's see. You would hope so. If anyone should have a case the estate should. First question in safechucks case . The company didnt even excist at the time. So we go through all the accusers testimony then cross examination and the first comment/question is “ the company you are sueing didnt excist....” and what are the jury supposed to think other than why is this even at trial if the company he is accusing didnt even excist at the time and thats before you get to all the other inconsistencies in his accusations.or will they be so taken in by the acting they will ignore that fact. Have the appeal judges not even looked at that are is it not relevent or do they simply not care? |
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Aug 20, 2023 11:48:57 GMT
MJJ Ventures didn't exist until 1991, I believe, but MJJ Productions exists since 1979.
As for the judges not looking into MJJV not existing. They didn't. They also didn't look into other facts already proven at discovery. They just took the accusers words at face value. Of course in a case that was thrown out at demurrer (Safechuck's) that's what they have to do, but I'm not sure that it was correct for them to do the same re Robson's which already went through a discovery phase and got thrown out at Summary Judgment. The two cases were consolidated for appeal purposes and I think Jon tried to argue before the appellate court that it's not correct to treat the two cases the same way as they were thrown out at different phases but the Judges didn't even want to hear that. We will see what happens with the SC appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Aug 20, 2023 12:45:13 GMT
Trying a deceased man who can't defend himself is a travesty of justice but I'm sure the estate will give those crooks a fight. Only in California indeed! Dean commented on his post that the estate will retain Dr. Elizabeth Loftus to articulate the problems inherent with memories and testimonies of Robson and Safechuck. Dr. Loftus has vehemently criticized the recovered memory therapy. It makes me think her expertise could have been used by the estate in the previous dismissed lawsuits. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
I was quite surprised when I saw this comment by an ex-Court TV commentator as they weren't the friendliest to MJ in 2005. But I think he was one of the few good ones. I looked him up and he wrote three books on false allegations of sexual abuse because he himself was falsely accused in the 80s. So he knows. (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Tong ) I saw someone say on Twitter (in an older conversation) that they knew a person who knows Tong and he told them that he saw all the evidence in court in 2005 and he believed MJ was innocent.
As bad as biased as ther 2005 coverage was it was still a bit better than 2019. In 2005 TV channels they still at least tried to bring a little balance in their shows. So if they had a panel of five discussing the MJ case, even if they had four panelists who were pro-prosecution at least they had one who was pro-defense. Someone representing the defense POV. Probably Tong was that one on Court TV in MJ's case, though I don't remember him. In 2019 the media didn't even care about pretending they are somewhat balanced or giving ANY representation to MJ's side. They were just 100% anti MJ.
Re. Elizabeth Loftus. She was also on the Defense's witness list in 2005, but was never called, not needed as no one claimed recovered memories.
I personally don't think she is much relevant in Wade/James's case either, as they don't claim recovered memories. They claim BS like they always knew what happened they just didn't know/realize it was abuse and wrong until they sued the MJ entities. These aren't recovered memories, these are lies. Maybe she can be relevant to Jason Francia, who IMO got convinced by the prosecution at 13 that MJ touched his penis while tickling him at 7-10. That might be a case of someone developing "memories" of things that didn't happen due to outside influence.
Didn't Robson originally claim repressed memory, but later changed that to "I didn't know it was abuse" once he realised the holes in it? IIRC, I don't think Loftus' research is solely on repressed memories. She's an expert on memory in general which is why she's involved in various cases where repressed memories don't feature. Especially the issue of false allegations. Her and colleagues' work shows memory is malleable and prone to changing depending on what you've heard, etc. People will even lie about memories deliberately to protect a political ideology. Doing it for money is even easier. What a mad, mad world..... |
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Aug 20, 2023 12:50:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by LindavG on Aug 20, 2023 14:16:55 GMT
Trying a deceased man who can't defend himself is a travesty of justice but I'm sure the estate will give those crooks a fight. Only in California indeed! Dean commented on his post that the estate will retain Dr. Elizabeth Loftus to articulate the problems inherent with memories and testimonies of Robson and Safechuck. Dr. Loftus has vehemently criticized the recovered memory therapy. It makes me think her expertise could have been used by the estate in the previous dismissed lawsuits. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
I was quite surprised when I saw this comment by an ex-Court TV commentator as they weren't the friendliest to MJ in 2005. But I think he was one of the few good ones. I looked him up and he wrote three books on false allegations of sexual abuse because he himself was falsely accused in the 80s. So he knows. (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Tong ) I saw someone say on Twitter (in an older conversation) that they knew a person who knows Tong and he told them that he saw all the evidence in court in 2005 and he believed MJ was innocent.
As bad as biased as ther 2005 coverage was it was still a bit better than 2019. In 2005 TV channels they still at least tried to bring a little balance in their shows. So if they had a panel of five discussing the MJ case, even if they had four panelists who were pro-prosecution at least they had one who was pro-defense. Someone representing the defense POV. Probably Tong was that one on Court TV in MJ's case, though I don't remember him. In 2019 the media didn't even care about pretending they are somewhat balanced or giving ANY representation to MJ's side. They were just 100% anti MJ.
Re. Elizabeth Loftus. She was also on the Defense's witness list in 2005, but was never called, not needed as no one claimed recovered memories.
I personally don't think she is much relevant in Wade/James's case either, as they don't claim recovered memories. They claim BS like they always knew what happened they just didn't know/realize it was abuse and wrong until they sued the MJ entities. These aren't recovered memories, these are lies. Maybe she can be relevant to Jason Francia, who IMO got convinced by the prosecution at 13 that MJ touched his penis while tickling him at 7-10. That might be a case of someone developing "memories" of things that didn't happen due to outside influence.
Are you sure? I haven't kept up with these allegations for the last few years and I haven't seen LN so maybe their stories have changed but I think they (or at least Wade) did claim repressed memories at first? Didn't he say he had a mental breakdown, he went to therapy, and only in therapy did he 'remember' he was abused? And that's why the statute of limitations shouldn't apply to his case? Anyway, I just saw a news clip about this case and they mentioned that MJ's companies are being sued and that their defense is "we had no obligation to protect these children". That makes it sound like MJ's guilt is already established and now it's just a question of who's responsible. I'm really worried about what this will do to MJ's image in the long term, especially if Wade & James win. Not only will this confirm MJ's "guilt" in a lot of people's minds but who knows who else comes crawling out of the woodwork then, looking for a big payday. |
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Aug 20, 2023 14:22:32 GMT
I was quite surprised when I saw this comment by an ex-Court TV commentator as they weren't the friendliest to MJ in 2005. But I think he was one of the few good ones. I looked him up and he wrote three books on false allegations of sexual abuse because he himself was falsely accused in the 80s. So he knows. (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Tong ) I saw someone say on Twitter (in an older conversation) that they knew a person who knows Tong and he told them that he saw all the evidence in court in 2005 and he believed MJ was innocent.
As bad as biased as ther 2005 coverage was it was still a bit better than 2019. In 2005 TV channels they still at least tried to bring a little balance in their shows. So if they had a panel of five discussing the MJ case, even if they had four panelists who were pro-prosecution at least they had one who was pro-defense. Someone representing the defense POV. Probably Tong was that one on Court TV in MJ's case, though I don't remember him. In 2019 the media didn't even care about pretending they are somewhat balanced or giving ANY representation to MJ's side. They were just 100% anti MJ.
Re. Elizabeth Loftus. She was also on the Defense's witness list in 2005, but was never called, not needed as no one claimed recovered memories.
I personally don't think she is much relevant in Wade/James's case either, as they don't claim recovered memories. They claim BS like they always knew what happened they just didn't know/realize it was abuse and wrong until they sued the MJ entities. These aren't recovered memories, these are lies. Maybe she can be relevant to Jason Francia, who IMO got convinced by the prosecution at 13 that MJ touched his penis while tickling him at 7-10. That might be a case of someone developing "memories" of things that didn't happen due to outside influence.
Are you sure? I haven't kept up with these allegations for the last few years and I haven't seen LN so maybe their stories have changed but I think they (or at least Wade) did claim repressed memories at first? Didn't he say he had a mental breakdown, he went to therapy, and only in therapy did he 'remember' he was abused? And that's why the statute of limitations shouldn't apply to his case? Anyway, I just saw a news clip about this case and they mentioned that MJ's companies are being sued and that their defense is "we had no obligation to protect these children". That makes it sound like MJ's guilt is already established and now it's just a question of who's responsible. I'm really worried about what this will do to MJ's image in the long term, especially if Wade & James win. Not only will this confirm MJ's "guilt" in a lot of people's minds but who knows who else comes crawling out of the woodwork then, looking for a big payday. Yes, I believe Wade Robson claimed that when Henry Gradstein was his lawyer. Personally, I believe that's partly why he got rid of him for Manly, Finaldi et al who apparently are well known for taking sexual abuse cases. Robson and Safechuck have changed the course of their narratives before once other side begins exposing their holes. Even LN started editing out holes in TV broadcasts which got shorter and shorter. It's ridiculous the extent of changing stories and plugging gaps. Hurts actual victims and the falsely accused in long run. |
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Aug 20, 2023 14:35:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Aug 20, 2023 14:37:56 GMT
I think it was TMZ who initially reported that it was a repressed/recovered memory case. I think they were confused because this whole "I knew we had sex but I only realized it now that it was wrong/abuse" crap is so absurd, especially considering the fact that Wade testified at a trial that was all about how it's wrong/abuse. In his deposition he was specifically asked if he alleges repressed memories and he said no, he claims his memories have "evolved". So if Loftus is not dealing only with repressed/recovered memories, but all kind of "memory" issues, she might be relevant - re. "evolving memories" to which "details get added to" in the hindsight (although I think Robson/Safechuck are simply liars and it has nothing to do with their memories). But Loftus may point out how people might even develop "memories" for themselves of things that never happened if they want to convince themselves of something etc.  |
|
Dec 5, 2020 18:51:15 GMT
Dec 5, 2020 18:51:15 GMT
