Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 11, 2019 Author Share Posted March 11, 2019 11 minutes ago, Whispering said: Yes, that’s correct. No, it makes sense because people are complex human beings. They may be straight, but can be manipulated through abuse, especially as a child. No. Most adults wait well into their thirties or forties, ans scientific studies show that men are especially triggered by having children. I read one study that said for the men abused by priests, the average age was 52 before they told their story. Because he wasn’t ready. Because he blamed himself. Because he didn’t want anyone to know. Because he still confused abuse for love. Because he knew he would be contradicting himself whenever he did come out. Because he’s a straight man. Because human beings are complex with varying emotions. No, it doesn’t. He was a victim, just like the other four boys. His family was torn apart, he lost his childhood, he doesn’t trust his mom and his dad is dead. He’s had a lot to deal with. Ok got you. You think that as long as someone claims to be a victim, they can have a free pass when it comes to lies and credibility issues. I beg to differ. Moving on... Thanks for the discussion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilkSpectre 114 Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said: Not talking about 2004 trial. He lied under oath as recently as 2013 and 2014. In one instance, the judge asked if he had any interactions/contact with MJ Estate before he made his allegations, he said in his written statement no. It turns out that there were even emails that confirmed that he was in contact with them asking to be lead choreographer for MJ's Cirque Du Soleil (and they refused). The judge was so appalled that he said "No rational trier-of-fact could've possibly believed Robson's sworn statement". So his pattern of lies is an issue for me. And sorry just because he claims to be sexual assault survivor, doesn't mean we have to turn a blind eye to his credibility issues. If that's the case, the easiest way to destroy someone's reputation is to claim you're their victim. Btw why are you also focusing so much on wade and ignoring James? Because it’s easier to pick wade apart? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 11, 2019 Author Share Posted March 11, 2019 1 minute ago, SilkSpectre said: Btw why are you also focusing so much on wade and ignoring James? Because it’s easier to pick wade apart? Btw why are you diverting the question? If you want, answer about Wade first. Or are you admitting that he does indeed have a pattern of lying but James doesn't? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilkSpectre 114 Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 10 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said: Btw why are you diverting the question? If you want, answer about Wade first. Or are you admitting that he does indeed have a pattern of lying but James doesn't? Ugh I just wrote a response that didn’t save. I am waiting to find something that corroborates what you said re the recent case as nothing I’ve ever read matches what you state the judge said. All say the judge didn’t comment on his credibility. I’ve admitted he lied under oath previously and that no it isn’t an issue for his credibility. Why only focus on wade and what proof would you need to doubt his innocence? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 12, 2019 Author Share Posted March 12, 2019 5 hours ago, SilkSpectre said: Ugh I just wrote a response that didn’t save. I am waiting to find something that corroborates what you said re the recent case as nothing I’ve ever read matches what you state the judge said. All say the judge didn’t comment on his credibility. I’ve admitted he lied under oath previously and that no it isn’t an issue for his credibility. Why only focus on wade and what proof would you need to doubt his innocence? You see, you'll learn some new insight when you read the rebuttal of MJ Estate. Hear from both sides: https://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Michael-Jackson-estate-suing-hbo-sex-abuse-doc-leaving-neverland-kids-victims-docs.pdf "The trial judge found one of Robson’s lies so incredible that the trial judge disregarded Robson’s sworn declaration and found that no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statements. Specifically, Robson falsely swore under oath that he did not know about the Jackson Estate until March 2013, despite having met with John Branca, the CoExecutor of the Jackson Estate in 2011 trying unsuccessfully to pitch himself to direct a Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil show. When Robson learned about the existence of the Jackson Estate was the key issue on his attempt to get around the statute of limitations." "The trial judge in Robson’s initial case against the Estate found one of Robson’s lies—on the key issue in that case, i.e., when he learned about the Estate for statute of limitations purposes—so clear that the judge took the extraordinary step of disregarding Robson’s sworn statements on a summary judgment motion. The judge found that no rational fact-finder could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statement (i.e., his lie under oath) given the unequivocal evidence to the contrary and issued judgment in the Estate’s favor as a result.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PunkTheFunk 123,473 Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 8 hours ago, nicolasrumet said: In case you didn't know his sister admitted that her abusive husband forced her to make those claims. Source: her book "Starting Over". Nice try. How do you know she wasn't lying? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 12, 2019 Author Share Posted March 12, 2019 38 minutes ago, PunkTheFunk said: How do you know she wasn't lying? You're the one using her as evidence. If she flip flops and "lies" as you say, surely her words shouldn't be used as evidence should they? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispering 18,865 Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 7 hours ago, nicolasrumet said: Ok got you. You think that as long as someone claims to be a victim, they can have a free pass when it comes to lies and credibility issues. I beg to differ. Moving on... Thanks for the discussion. No, I think that five victims make a pattern. I also understand that CSA victims often have “credibility issues” due to their lifelong trauma wounds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PunkTheFunk 123,473 Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 1 hour ago, nicolasrumet said: You're the one using her as evidence. If she flip flops and "lies" as you say, surely her words shouldn't be used as evidence should they? First of all, that wasn't even me who posted that. Second, YOU used her as evidence, not me. Your statement was "his sister admitted that her abusive husband forced her to make those claims. Source: her book "Starting Over". Nice try." Unless you were just trolling? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 12, 2019 Author Share Posted March 12, 2019 42 minutes ago, PunkTheFunk said: First of all, that wasn't even me who posted that. Second, YOU used her as evidence, not me. Your statement was "his sister admitted that her abusive husband forced her to make those claims. Source: her book "Starting Over". Nice try." Unless you were just trolling? As a response to someone who USED her as evidence to support the allegations that MJ was a pedophile. So... I'm happy with not using her as evidence for either side since she flip flopped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilkSpectre 114 Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 6 hours ago, nicolasrumet said: You see, you'll learn some new insight when you read the rebuttal of MJ Estate. Hear from both sides: https://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Michael-Jackson-estate-suing-hbo-sex-abuse-doc-leaving-neverland-kids-victims-docs.pdf "The trial judge found one of Robson’s lies so incredible that the trial judge disregarded Robson’s sworn declaration and found that no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statements. Specifically, Robson falsely swore under oath that he did not know about the Jackson Estate until March 2013, despite having met with John Branca, the CoExecutor of the Jackson Estate in 2011 trying unsuccessfully to pitch himself to direct a Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil show. When Robson learned about the existence of the Jackson Estate was the key issue on his attempt to get around the statute of limitations." "The trial judge in Robson’s initial case against the Estate found one of Robson’s lies—on the key issue in that case, i.e., when he learned about the Estate for statute of limitations purposes—so clear that the judge took the extraordinary step of disregarding Robson’s sworn statements on a summary judgment motion. The judge found that no rational fact-finder could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statement (i.e., his lie under oath) given the unequivocal evidence to the contrary and issued judgment in the Estate’s favor as a result.' Okay the link you sent me doesn’t work and when I google the article name it also doesn’t load. Do you have source that isn’t radar online? I’ll keep trying to find it elsewhere but ever article ive come across from more reputable news outlets says the judge did not comment. In the meantime you’ve still avoided my two questions - what would Need to doubt his innocence and seen as you seem to have a lot to say against wade why are you ignoring James Safechuck ? Edit: ive just had a deeper look and even read through the summary judgement of the case and can’t find what you’re stating. I can only find it quoted in discussions re Wade Robson? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,379 Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 15 hours ago, nicolasrumet said: Barely legal is not a second magazine. It's the same one and only magazine that was published 6 months after Gavin's departure and the only one that had both MJ and the accuser's finerprints. Stop taking quotes, mixing them up and pretending that there were two magazines with both fingerprints. Did I not just repeat twenty damn times there is only one magazine with both fingerprints? Anyway, for the devoted readers of this thread, I once again (with even more detailed court paper evidence this time) proved this guy wrong in another MJ thread, right here, enjoy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bling 31,039 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 I'm just 45 min into this documentary and as a victim of child sexual abuse, this is eerily accurate. I understand the end result of the court cases. I understand his family and others saying the accusations are just that, accusations. But this is real. It's too real for me. Because I was not believed either. https://discord.gg/hausofdelulu Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akiki 3,900 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Saw it today and they are clearly Gold Diggers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2019 Share Posted March 17, 2019 In his own words Wade Robson admits to being a liar and a master of deception. I agree with him on being a liar, and I agree he deceives people to achieve his goals. I don't agree he is a master of deception due to the conflicts in statements that he has made over the years-very sloppy work .He knows when to lie,when to tell the truth and even knows how to combine the truth and lies in order to deceive people to try and get what he wants. I would suggest that Wade Robson is a compulsive liar and can't control it and keeps replacing one lie with another and keeps getting caught out. Wade Robson wants everyone to believe he lied in the 2005 trial to protect Michael . That means he deceived the police ,child services,lawyers who in their professional capacity are well trained in determining deceit-convinced all of them he was not abused . The truth is he told the truth in the trial to help save Michael's reputation and he participated in this film with the aim to destroy Michael's reputation. Well his efforts will fail. There will be a time when the Estate will hit back so hard that Wade Robson will probably change his story again and revert back to nothing happened . I would like to see a Based on a true story TV made about Wade and James and focus on the missing facts about their lives that was left out of the film. I would start from when Wade appeared on the Today Show in 2013 and the next scene with James and Wade getting together and discussing their financial problems. I would go into much detail of the law suits both men filed . I would show their actions leading up to the decision to appear in the film . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.