Do these people that your are reading only befriend people if they are "obsessed" with ťhem? Because sure they love to throw around this word a lot regarding MJ's friendships with anyone. So it's simply a stupid, fallacious argument. Befriending someone, spending time with someone =/= obsession.
I heard this "Safechuck has more of a case than Robson" thing from that person who was banned from here. I don't know if it is her you are quoting or it is a general hater sentiment that she too was quoting from somewhere else. But actually it shows to me that even haters doubt Robson now. If they make Safechuck now their star "victim" who is supposedly more credible than Robson - that's inadvertently admission that Robson isn't credible.
Not that Safechuck is any more credible, though. If Robson is not true then Safechuck isn't either, if Chandler is not true then Safechuck isn't either, if Arvizo is not true then Safechuck isn't either - as he has put his story together from elements of these stories. Plus from tabloids, hater websites and Victor Gutierrez's stories (whether directly or through hater websites). Frankly, when you read Safechuck's story he is just overdoing it way too much. Some of his stories are just ridiculous. And like Snow White said, he too is caught in lies.
Funny how the more you know about a case the less credible it becomes. (No wonder that haters love to go on about phantom victims more than presenting the details of the cases brought by the actual accusers.) Now after reading Wade's and Joy's depositions, Robson's ridiculous attempts at trying to make MJ's companies responsible ("madame" etc.), obvious lies and dishonesty in his deposition under oath, realizing that MJ hasn't actually spent that much time with Robson etc. - all this suddenly demotes him from being their star "victim" and now Safechuck is. Well, until Safechuck too is deposed.
How did he not protect kids?
As for emotional needs. Geez, that sounds like most relationships, friendships etc. to me. I mean ALL relationships, friendships involve "using" the other for emotional needs to some level - even the most genuine ones. No relationship is ever completely selfless. So again, it sounds like a stupid argument to me to hold something against MJ that is simply human nature.
How about these kids (yes, the kids themselves too) and their parents using MJ for
their needs? Be that the "coolness" of being associated with MJ, be that traveling with him on tours, be that expecting him to finance things for them or create a career for them? Hell, his accusers, like Robson or Safechuck STILL try to use him as we speak. So it's not MJ who is the real user here.
That just shows not having any idea about the Arvizo case. Zonen likes to throw around this argument too, but he is being deceptive. The Arvizos WERE after money, only they didn't manage to get it. They first went to TWO civil lawyers, William Dickerman and - surprise, suprise - Larry Feldman (the same one who negotiated the settlement for the Chandlers). Only, the law changed since 1993 so they were informed that they had to start a criminal trial first, they couldn't do like the Chandlers in 1993. Had they won the criminal trial that would have given them the money that they were after when they first went to civil lawyers.
themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/27/lawyers-being-hired-and-the-formation-of-the-allegations/It's worth noting that when they first went to Dickerman and Feldman they did not yet make any child sexual abuse allegations yet. Their story in the hindsight was that they went to these lawyers to get back some old furniture they had in a storage and to write letters to the media to stop using their likeness and image and to stop MJ's people from supposedly following them around. Yeah, right, it sounds credible that they would go to the Chandler lawyer to get some old furniture back. But that's their story. Then this Chandler lawyer just happens to send Gavin to his old buddy Stanley Katz, the same psychologist who evaluated Jordan (and also was involved in the McMartin case and made questionable statements in other cases), and lo and behold, Gavin suddenly starts making allegations. (Details:
themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/27/lawyers-being-hired-and-the-formation-of-the-allegations/ )
Theoretically the Arvizos could have still started a civil lawsuit after losing the criminal trial, but I am pretty sure they were advised by the prosecution not to because they knew how that would look (Zonen is still friends with the Arvizos - BTW, does that mean he is "obsessed with Gavin"?). And because after that criminal trial that was so disastrous for them they didn't have much chance to win that, anyway. They did ask for - and receive - money in other ways though. For example, they asked for "victims' compensation" from the state already back in 2003. They also had Larry Feldman file other lawsuits on their behalf.
This family was always on the lookout for how to make money and other benefits from their association with celebrities:
themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2017/05/14/general-credibility-problems-with-the-arvizo-family/I am pretty sure they got their benefit from the MJ case too. Perhaps not the millions of dollars they hoped for (like I said, Zonen & Co. probably talked them out of it) but I am pretty sure their friendship with Zonen isn't totally selfless either. They could continue to help them with "charity" and with career options (word is that Gavin is studying to become a lawyer). We know that Zonen's later girlfriend and current wife Louis Palanker provided money to them already before the allegations as charity. We know that the Arvizos have routinely lied to celebrities to get such charities (details in the above linked article).
BTW, Chris Tucker or George Lopez hung with the Arvizos way before they even knew MJ. They gave them money, Chris took them to a shopping spree, to the set of Rush Hour 2 etc. Does that mean an "obsession" as well, or it is only an "obsession" if it is MJ who hangs out with kids (or anyone, for that matter)? (Details:
themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2017/05/14/general-credibility-problems-with-the-arvizo-family/ )
If anyone wants to argue that the Arvizos were credible simply based on them never suing MJ in a civil court (not meaning they didn't want to!), then let's discuss the actual case then and see how credible it actually was. Even some haters admit that case was BS. It's THAT obviously BS!
This sounds some sort of tabloid nonsense. With no details or names provided. "Caught" doing what exactly? With whom? By whom? I can't take such National Enquirer level vague argument seriously. Generally, using tabloid crap as evidence (which haters do a lot) is laughable.
Wow, that's taking victim blaming on another level! If nothing sexual happened then MJ was a victim of a horrible extortion and false allegations. Period.
Then the Chandlers were the manipulators, not MJ. And again their ridiculously overused argument of being "obsessed". This argument sounds like: "The Chandlers did wrong, but they only did wrong because MJ made them to by simply being present in their life. They just couldn't help not turn on him and on each other with that opportunity of suing MJ so close at hand. It's all MJ's fault that other people behave rotten if they smell money." Are they serious? It's like a murderer arguing "she made me murder her by walking in front of me".
And was laughed out by the jury for his fake crying. Their impression of him was that he wasn't credible (and he wasn't).
Details of Fracia's disastrous testimony:
themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/jason-francia/That's a subjective opinion, not even an argument. And like Snow White said a lot of his charity wasn't even public. And I am sure already as a child MJ was plotting to look generous for the sake of PR. LOL.
I am sure this was for PR as well, even though no one would know if the bodyguards had never written a book.
LOL, how was he cruel to Quincy Jones? If anything it is the other way around. MJ always spoke of Quincy nicely which cannot be said the other way around. MJ left him as a producer and that's it. How is that "cruel"? Did MJ not have a right to change career path or what? And I am pretty sure that Quincy was handsomely paid for his work with MJ.
I don't know what happened with Bill Bray. That information of him supposedly dying in poverty comes from Roger Friedman who isn't the most credible and unbiased source. And often you don't know the full story with stories like this - and of course, MJ's side is not presented. Fact is, that we have a lot of stories like the following one of MJ helping Mabel King (co-star from The Wiz movie).
vallieegirl67.com/2013/05/06/mabel-king-and-michael-jackson/Yeah, sounds like such a cruel, sociopathic guy to me, who only does things for PR...