We are comparing Robson’s complaint, containing fictitious allegations against Michael Jackson, with his own and his mother’s and sister’s testimonies at the 2005 trial. Up till now the process helped us to discover that everything Robson said about his so-called abuse – and I really mean everything - is a fake.
Indeed, the story of a start and continuation of “abuse” allegedly during his first visit to the US and MJ’s Neverland has turned out to be a silly and outrageous lie from its very beginning to end. Pure lies like that seldom occur but Robson’s papers are a rare exception to the rule – the story told by him is a 100% lie.
Due to the abundance of lies the restoration of the truth is a long process and has already taken two posts (see here and here please), and up till now we have only reached point 13 of his “Second Amended Complaint” filed on February 19, 2014.
So this is the point we are starting with now. It says:
“The following Monday, Plaintiff, his mother and sister went to stay with Decedent at his apartment in the Westwood section of Los Angeles in Wilshire Blvd, across the street from a Holiday Inn, while Plaintiff’s father and grandparents continued on their road trip for a few more days. Plaintiff slept with Decedent in his bed at the Westwood apartment; Plaintiff’s mother and sister stayed across the street at the Holiday Inn hotel. The sexual abuse occurred on each of those nights as well. Later that week, the entire family returned to Australia.”
This paragraph is of tremendous importance – it will be instrumental for learning a lot of many other details associated with Michael Jackson and will help us understand a much bigger picture as a whole. Therefore this post will cover not only those few days spent by the Robsons in Los Angeles, but will extend towards their May 1990 visit when Wade Robson and his mother returned to Los Angeles to take part in Michael’s commercial for LA Gear and stayed in the US, according to their testimony, for whole 6 weeks.
But first let’s clarify what is meant by “the following Monday” in the above paragraph.
THE TIMELINE ACCORDING TO THE US CALENDAR
The ‘following Monday” was February 12th, 1990 which was the beginning of the family’s last week in the US.
Quoting Robson’s papers their visit to the US ended sometime ‘later that week’ after ‘a few more days’ spent outside Neverland. After the second weekend at Neverland the family split and Wade’s father and grandparents went to San Francisco while Wade and his mother Joy and sister Chantal went back to Los Angeles, this time with Michael Jackson. After those few days the family reunited and ‘later that week’ they left for Australia.
My 1990 calendar marks the few days the family spent with Michael in LA as Monday–Wednesday Feb.12-14th. Thursday, Feb.15th was most probably the day when the family reunited in Los Angeles (they should have got together and packed their luggage, shouldn’t they?) and Friday, Feb.16th is marked as a probable date for their leave for Australia.
In case they left the country a day later, their time in LA together with Michael can be prolonged by one day, but this is the absolute maximum we can allow for it. And this variant seems to be an unlikely one as the complaint said they left “later in the week” and not at the end of it, so for all we know the departure could be even as early as Thursday, February the 15th.
So since the period they stayed in LA can be stretched longer or shorter, I’ve chosen the average of three days they spent together with Michael as not the longest, but not the shortest option either.
Here is the calendar for January-February 1990 in the USA:
Now that you have a calendar in front of you it would be nice to refresh in your memory the correct timeline of all the events on January-Fabruary 1990 the way they really happened and not fantasized by Robson:
- The time of their arrival in the USA could be the eve of January 26th which was Australia day celebrated in Disneyland. On that day Wade danced with the Johnny Talent Time School and imitated Michael Jackson’s “Smooth Criminal”. The performance was on one day only.
- Then the family tried to contact Michael for more than a week as they didn’t have his or his secretary’s contact numbers.
- When the meeting was finally arranged they met him in his recording studio and were invited to spend a weekend at Neverland. This is February 3rd-4th, 1990 according to Robson’s present complaint.
- Then came a week-long break when the family left Neverland. The break was confirmed by Wade’s mother during her 2005 testimony as well as her deposition and testimony before the grand jury in 1993 (most probably Wade said the same during his own deposition in 1993 before the two D.A. of Los Angeles and his own lawyer).
- On the second weekend of February 10-11th, 1990 the family returned to Neverland and spent two more days there.
- The following Monday (Feb.12th) Wade, his mother Joy and his sister Chantal went back to Los Angeles together with Michael while Wade’s father and grandparents travelled to San Francisco.
- Later in the week they reunited and left for Australia.
- All in all the Robsons stayed in the US for approximately three and a half weeks.
- So out of the maximum of 24 days according to this estimation the time they spent with Jackson was seven days (marked green in the calendar) which is exactly a “week” which the seven-year old Wade remembered at the time.
Four days out of these seven days have already been accounted for. We’ve determined that no abuse could start on those days even in theory. Here is quick recap why not:
a) Robson’s “second night” story is false as the ten-year old Chantal slept in one bed with her younger brother that night and her testimony at the trial was the exact opposite of what Robson is saying now.
b) Robson’s story about a “week-long abuse after the family left him behind” is another crazy lie as he was simply not there at the time. The whole of the family left Neverland for a week and Joy Robson extensively testified to it.
c) And both nights of the second weekend Wade and his sister Chantal spent together in Michael’s room again, so any “continuation of abuse” is highly unlikely again, especially since it never started in the first place and everything Robson said up till now was refuted here as a complete LIE.
This way we get to the last three or so days of their first visit to the US and this post will be an attempt to restore the truth behind the more lies Robson is telling us about that period.
THE TOYS-R-US SHOP
Back in 2005 Tom Sneddon asked similar questions and at some point raised with Joy Robson the subject of a Toys-R-Us shop. We are extremely interested in this subject too.
Tom Sneddon says that the shopping visit took place in the night. This was customary for MJ as it was his only chance to avoid the mob. This makes the visit to the toy shop possible only when the Robson family was staying together with Michael during the night, irrespective of where it was.
These nightly occasions can now be counted on the fingers of one hand only. They included 1) two nights on the first weekend at Neverland, 2) two nights on the second weekend at Neverland and 3) some two or three nights spent with MJ in Los Angeles with Joy Robson and her children.
At the 2005 trial Joy Robson remembered that visit to Toys-R-Us. She didn’t accompany her children there and couldn’t recall when exactly the visit took place, but she was sure that it wasn’t during the first weekend, probably not during the second and all she could barely remember was that the children went there with MJ possibly after the opening hours:
3 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: During the first weekend4 trip to Neverland, did you go to Toys-R-Us?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Was that the second weekend?
7 A. I never went to Toys-R-Us.
8 Q. Did your children go to Toys-R-Us?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Which one of those weekends did they go?
11 A. I don’t recall.
12 Q. But you do recall a trip?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And they went with Mr. Jackson?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And it was after hours, the store was
18 A. I don’t remember.
19 Q. And they were allowed to buy anything — or
20 allowed to get anything they wanted and Mr. Jackson
21 paid for it, correct?
22 A. I think so.
Let us try and narrow down the Toy-R-Us episode to when and where it could indeed happen.
Joy Robson says the visit was not during the first weekend and this is correct. The first weekend was a busy one. On Saturday February 3rd, 1990 Michael accepted an award from Japan via a satellite and therefore spent only part of the day with the Robsons. Due to a huge time difference (Japan is 17 hours ahead of the US) if the ceremony in Japan took place on Sunday evening local time, it would fall on midnight in the US the previous day, and if the ceremony took place in Japan on Sunday morning it would fall on late Saturday afternoon in the US.
The latter variant fits better with the Robsons’ testimony. Joy said that they arrived at Neverland first and even had time to look around the house before Michael’s arrival. He came sometime in the afternoon, so on February 3rd they actually had very little time together before the evening came (when the children asked for a late night stay in Michael’s room).
Sunday, February 4th was another busy night. ABC was airing a tribute to Sammy Davis’s 60th year in show business and Michael and the Robson family surely watched the ceremony on TV. It was a highly publicized event – the proceeds of the show, some $250,000, were going to the United Negro College Fund and Michael sang there a song “You were here” as a tribute to Sammy Davis who was suffering from throat cancer. By then the man could not utter a word and actually died several months after the show aired. The show was filmed in November the previous year but was broadcast on February 4th, 1990, and since it was so emotional and significant an event (which later won the Emmy for Outstanding Musical Special) Michael surely watched it live on TV – most probably together with the Robson family.
So the trip to Toys-R-Us shop certainly did not take place during their first weekend at Neverland.
You can watch Michael’s tribute to Sammy Davis Jr. here:
Now could the visit to Toy-R-Us take place during their second weekend in Neverland?
It looks like it did not either.
To determine it a map could be a great help, and the Google map indeed shows us that the Toy-R-Us shops closest to Neverland are in Santa Maria and Santa Barbara (the places where the two grand juries would later sit in the Chandler case), and both of these towns are rather far away from the ranch – one is more than 40 kms to the north of it and the other is more than 60 kms to the south. Both distances are really too big especially considering that it was a night trip as Tom Sneddon claimed.
But if both weekends are out, so when could the trip take place?
And this is when we recollect that after the second weekend at Neverland Michael and the three Robsons went to Los Angeles. The map shows that Los Angeles has a whole network of Toys-R-Us shops and several of them are not far from the Wilshire boulevard in Westwood where Michael was said to have his condo. Actually a visit to that shop was probably the whole reason why Michael went to LA with the family at all.
Not that the visit to a toy shop matters to us that much. Michael liked shopping for toys and visited Toys-R-Us shops at every opportunity that presented itself, and when some children were around him there was probably no stopping him.
However the correct timing for that visit enables to place it on one of those nights which Wade, Chantal and Michael spent in Los Angeles together and determine that that it was not spent in a bedroom, but in a brightly lit toy shop.
Was it a suitable night for the “abuse”? Hardly so. The journey to the shop and back should have taken at least an hour, not to mention the time spent choosing and trying out various toys there, same as the natural desire of the children to play with their toys when they came back.
And the fact that crowns it all is that on the night visit to a toy shop Chantal was with her brother Wade again and all throughout the night too!
So out of the three nights available for “abuse” one night is already out. What about the remaining two?
THE HOLIDAY INN
Point 13 in Robson’s complaint describes their stay in LA in a very strange way. On the one hand it says that Joy, Wade and Chantal went to “stay with MJ in his apartment in Westwood” and on the other hand “his mother and sister stayed at the Inn across the street”. So which way it was? Did the girls stay in MJ’s apartment or did they stay at the Holiday Inn?
How are we supposed to read this?
“The following Monday, Plaintiff, his mother and sister went to stay with Decedent at his apartment in the Westwood section of Los Angeles in Wilshire Blvd, across the street from a Holiday Inn.<> Plaintiff’s mother and sister stayed across the street at the Holiday Inn hotel.”
Back in 2005 Tom Sneddon was also trying to untangle their memories of who stayed where on their first visit to MJ’s condo and how was it different from their second visit to the US when they came in May 1990 to work on a commercial and stayed at the Holiday Inn for 6 weeks.
Sneddon called their visit to LA in February 1990 a “January visit” but apart from that his timing is okay. Read this piece from his examination of Joy Robson and you will probably notice that it contains a tremendously important fact.
She recalls that during their winter visit to LA with MJ she and her daughter Chantal stayed a couple of nights in MJ’s condo sleeping on the floor there.
23 Q. In May, when you came back, it was for the
24 purpose of your son participating in an L.A. Gear
26 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, at the time that you came over here for
14 the L.A. Gear commercial, you were staying in The
15 Holiday Inn?
16 A. Yes. In Westwood.
17 Q. And you were here for approximately six
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And Mr. Jackson had a condo right across the
22 A. Yes.
28 Q. And on a couple of those occasions, you 9232
1 actually were in the condo with them and you and
2 your daughter, or you, slept on the floor; do you
3 recall that?
4 A. I think that was the first trip that my
5 daughter and I slept on the floor. It wasn’t during
6 that time.
7 Q. The first trip back in January?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Was there a time that you visited Mr.
10 Jackson in his condo in January?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, these visits to The Holiday — these
13 visits to Mr. Jackson when you were staying at The
14 Holiday Inn, many of those calls from Mr. Jackson
15 were very late at night; isn’t that correct?
16 A. Yes, he was working.
17 MR. SNEDDON: Move to strike as
18 nonresponsive, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: I’ll strike the last — after
Now we know that though reservations for the three of them were made at the Holiday Inn in February 1990, the actual time the family spent there was minimal, if any at all.
Joy probably slept there just once, when the children went shopping for toys, but on the two remaining nights she and her daughter Chantal were surely together with Wade and Michael as they slept on the floor in Michael’s condo.
This nails down another of Wade Robson’s lies – his mother and sister were not staying at the Holiday Inn as he alleges in his complaint.
At least they were not sleeping there. Instead they slept together with Wade in Michael’s apartment.
And this means that on all three nights of their stay in Los Angeles Wade was never alone with Michael – on the shopping night he was accompanied by his sister Chantal and on the remaining two nights his mother and sister stayed with them in the same condo and slept on the floor there.
WHY SLEEP ON THE FLOOR?
Each time we hear that someone slept on the floor in Michael’s apartment we wonder why it had to be the floor and not the bed. Indeed, why should a grown-up woman like Joy and her ten-year old daughter Chantal sleep on the floor instead of the bed and for two consecutive nights too?
Your subconscious mind suggests that there was probably one bed there and it was occupied by Michael and Wade (?) Well, admit it that this is what crossed your mind – especially since Wade blatantly claims that he slept in Michael’s bed at his Westwood apartment on Wilshire boulevard:
“Plaintiff slept with Decedent in his bed at the Westwood apartment; Plaintiff’s mother and sister stayed across the street at the Holiday Inn hotel.”
The story about “his mother’s and sister’s stay at the Holiday Inn” has just been proven to be a lie, but how true is Wade’s story about sleeping in MJ’s bed and is there a way to verify it?
And here comes the moment to recall the testimony of Michael’s maid Blanca Francia and one detail of it which has suddenly acquired a tremendous significance for us.
At the 2005 trial Blanca Francia testified that there were no beds in Michael’s condo in Wilshire boulevard – they were simply never there and in none of the rooms:
23 Like –
24 kind of an apartment, suite. Called it “The
26 Q. Where was that; do you know?
27 A. I know it’s on Wilshire. 4981
2 Q. Okay. Was there a bed at that residence?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Never?
5 A. Never.
6 Q. The whole time that you were cleaning there?
7 A. Yeah.
Again and again the incredulous prosecutor and counsel for the defense asked her about a bed in the Wilshire condo and again and again she would repeat the same thing – the hideout apartment in the condominium on Wilshire boulevard didn’t have a single bed in it:
22 Q. Okay. Let me ask you about the hideout. At
23 the hideout, you had mentioned that there wasn’t a
24 bed. What did Mr. Jackson sleep in?
25 A. He sleeps in a sleeping bag.
26 Q. All right. The whole time that he was at
27 the hideout?
28 A. Yeah. There was no bed. 5015
1 Q. I’m sorry?
2 A. There was no bed there.
16 Q. Okay. Now, you testified that in the
17 apartment owned by Mr. Jackson that you referred to
18 as “The Hideout,” there was no furniture, right?
19 A. Uh-huh.
20 Q. Was there any bed in there at all?
21 A. No.
25 Q. Okay. Now, what did he — I asked you what
26 he slept on, and you said a sleeping bag. Describe
27 the sleeping bag for us. What kind of a sleeping
28 bag was it? 5016
1 A. A regular sleeping bag that you sleep on.
2 Q. Sleeping bag for one person? For two
3 people? How big?
4 A. A regular one.
5 Q. Just a regular sleeping bag?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. Was that sleeping bag always open, or was it
8 rolled up?
9 A. It was open.
10 Q. Always?
11 A. Well, when I made it, I would try to make it
12 like a bed, you know.
13 Q. Were there any blankets on the sleeping bag
14 or under the sleeping bag?
15 A. Yeah, there were blankets.
16 Q. Which? On the sleeping bag or –
17 A. On the sleeping bag, yes.
18 Q. Was the sleeping bag simply on the floor?
19 A. Yeah.
20 Q. Was there carpet on the floor?
21 A. Yes.
Surprise-surprise, but Blanca Francia makes it absolutely clear that Michael Jackson’s condo in Wilshire boulevard did not have any beds at all. The furniture in Michael’s hideout was extremely scarce – a table, a chair, a TV set and sleeping bags on the floor. She actually says there was no furniture there.
Why so? Most probably because Michael used the flat for practicing dance there, and preferred to leave the whole space of it unoccupied with as little furniture as was only possible.
So where did all of them sleep then?
Michael and all the rest of them slept in sleeping bags on the floor.
The sleeping bags were a standard size – for one person only. So most probably each of them had his own sleeping bag lying open on the carpet and the whole sleeping arrangement was evidently a highly open one too.
Michael’s detractors will naturally say that it doesn’t matter whether there was or wasn’t a bed there – abuse can take place even without any bed, and this we will agree about.
However Wade Robson is making to us a clear statement that he “slept in one bed with Michael” and this is where his “abuse” occurred on each of the nights “again”.
And now we discover that this statement is totally fictional and has no leg to stand on.
To begin with there was simply no bed there, and secondly we are absolutely unable to spot the moment when that alleged abuse started, not to mention it happening “again”!
Is it possible for a real victim of abuse to forget whether there was a bed or there wasn’t?
I’ve already written on numerous occasions that the horrible things that happened to you in your childhood imprint in your memory in their full entirety including the time of day, location, circumstances, details and even smells associated with it.
If you really experienced something like that in your past, it comes back to you as a flashback when you find yourself in exactly the same place with all the details that go with it. You are incapable of changing a single detail of that scene, and you see yourself once again as the little you entering that elevator and there he was, someone in a dark coat whom you didn’t even see up his waist…
And even though thirty years have passed since that incident you will still remember that it happened in the elevator and not in a room or stairs of the same building.
The change is simply impossible because your flashback makes you see and re-experience it in exactly the same circumstances and exactly the same way it was, with not a single change made to it.
So when Wade Robson talks now of some abuse taking place on a “bed” and we find that there was actually none there, it means that he is describing something fictional, because if there was no bed, there was no abuse either.
Still doubtful? Then recall an accident you had when you were riding a bicycle down a country hill and ran into a tree at full speed there. Will you be able to change anything in that picture if someone tells you were actually in a big avenue and you ran into some post there? Though the accident itself is absolutely the same you memory will never agree that the crash taking place on a country road happened in a town street instead. Such a replacement is simply ruled out and this is all there is to it.
The same with Robson. If the crime was alleged to be on the bed there and you discover that there was no bed, this is irrefutable evidence that there was no crime.
Now what remains of Robson’s story as a result of this analysis?
We’ve discovered that:
- the abuse didn’t happen on “the second night” at Neverland,
- it didn’t happen on the second weekend either,
- it didn’t happen during the week in between the two weekends because Robson was simply not there,
- it didn’t happen on the night of shopping for toys
- and it didn’t happen in Michael’s condo either as there was simply no bed there described in his complaint.
And we also discovered that Wade Robson is accompanying his false story with a good deal of fraudulent details meant to make his story more “realistic” and “credible”.
In short we DISCOVERED ROBSON TO BE A LIAR and he is again requested to be man enough to admit it.
This post will be a further comparison of Wade Robson’s complaint with the testimonies of all Robsons at the 2005 trial – Wade Robson, his mother Joy and sister Chantal. The purpose of it is to pinpoint Robson’s lies (which are many) and restore the real events the way they really happened and not fantasized by this guy.
All this is purely restoration work, same as in arts, so let it be the way it should be – thorough, methodical and true to the original in its every detail. In slander cases like Robson’s, especially when the defamed person cannot speak for himself, no detail can be regarded as ‘unimportant’. Every fraction matters as these are the fragments of the original canvas, helping us to restore the whole picture to its true self.
Those who are set on Michael Jackson’s character assassination have tried hard to make their false story as consistent as it is only possible. However lies can’t be impeccable in principle as they are the artificial product of an evil mind, so a false detail uncovered here and there and in the essential parts of the story too will point to an obvious fake.
My goal is not so much discrediting Robson and his lies, but restoring the innocent truth about Michael Jackson as well as proving to skeptics that the truth is an absolute matter and can be reached even in utterly impossible situations.
The first post about Robson’s complaint has already uncovered a huge lie his whole story is based on. He claimed that his so-called sexual abuse started on the second night he spent at Neverland and from that moment his “nightmare” went on and on. However a simple comparison of his words with his sister Chantal’s testimony at the 2005 trial immediately disproved it – Chantal explained in no uncertain terms that on the night now selected by Wade for his abuse story she slept with her brother in one bed.
And the fact that at that time Chantal thought it necessary to clarify where she slept on which night, unaware that her detailed explanation would later disprove her brother’s lie, adds a good deal of irony to the story. One can only marvel at how an innocent word said ten years ago can echo today correcting a big wrong.
Here is the summary of the previous post focusing on this matter:
1) The Robson family of mother, father, grandparents and sister Chantal accompanied Wade to the US where he danced with Johnny Talent Dance Troupe in Disneyland on January 26, 1990 (Australia Day).
2) After the performance they spent a whole week seeking contact with Michael Jackson whom they had not seen since their meet-and-greet meeting in Australia two years before that.
3) A week later they finally managed to contact Michael’s secretary and the next day were invited to his recording studio where they showed him a two-year collection of Wade’s dance videos specially brought by them from home. Michael was very much impressed by Wade’s talent and at the end of the visit invited the family to Neverland.
4) On the very first day of that visit the children insisted on staying with Michael late at night and ended up spending both nights of the weekend in his room (Feb.3-4, 1990).
5) Chantal Robson, who was ten at the time, says that on the first night she went to the bedroom upstairs not to invade on Michael’s privacy. She said she asked Wade to do the same but he didn’t.
6) On the second night Chantal slept together with her younger brother in Michael’s bed. She emphasized that it was on the second night and not the first.
7) Today Robson claims that the “abuse” started on that very second night. According to him Chantal allegedly left them as she was “concerned” about the sleeping arrangement and went upstairs to sleep in a separate bed.
8) This story is in a grave contradiction with Chantal’s testimony at the 2005 trial. Funny, but having no idea that the fact would be of any importance later, Chantal thought it necessary to explain why she had slept together with Wade on the second night and not the first. The first time she was a little concerned about invading on Michael’s privacy, but after a full day spent with him was less mindful of formalities. And in general there was no idea behind it at all – the brother and sister simply fell asleep in Michael’s bed after a tiring day, and that’s it.
Even if we imagine that the girl’s sleep was very sound and this is why she didn’t hear or see anything, it is impossible to believe that any abuser would deliberately choose a day when he would have a direct witness of his wrongful activities.
And Robson also tells a blatant lie here – he invents a story about Chantal expressing “concern” about the sleeping arrangement the second night, while Chantal explained that she was concerned about invading on MJ’s privacy and the whole thing happened in exactly the opposite way. And Chantal’s testimony has a priority over Wade’s as she told the truth 10 years earlier than he is telling his lie now.
This lie is the opening act of his fiction story and is only an overture to much-much more of it. If you think that the rest of his narration is any better you are in for a big disappointment here – the further you go the more ridiculous it becomes.
GREAT DISCUSSION AT NIGHT
The very next paragraph of the complaint will make you wonder again. In an attempt to make his story look credible Robson added to his description one detail which made it only more ridiculous - especially now that we know that his own sister was lying side by side with him in the same bed.
Our darling Robson claims that on the second night the seven-year old he and MJ allegedly discussed it and the discussion took place not sometime in the afternoon as one could probably imagine, but just during the night and in that very bed.
If we hadn’t known that Chantal was right in the same bed with Wade this detail would have surely gone unnoticed by us, but now that we know that she could easily overhear their conversation, this small addition to the story makes the whole situation laughable.
How could the alleged predator be sure that the girl was asleep and was not just lying there with her eyes closed? And how could he actually see if her eyes were closed if it was in the dark of the night? And what was the point of discussing the matter during the night, and not sometime in the morning when there would be at least a guarantee that the girl was not listening?
No, none of it is fitting in. This lazy guy couldn’t even read his own sister’s testimony at the 2005 trial to avoid all these incredible blunders…
Points 11-12 of the complaint describe his story as follows:
The sexual activities began on or about that night, February 4, 1990. <> That first night Decedent began telling Plaintiff, “We can never tell anyone what we are doing. People are ignorant and they would never understand that we love each other and this is how we show it. If anyone were to ever find out, our lives and careers would be over”. Plaintiff swore to Decedent that he would never tell a soul.
What a prolonged and great discussion indeed, especially since it allegedly took place right under Chantal’s ear! Apparently, when making his complaint Robson was so focused on the need to explain why he hadn’t told anything to his parents the next morning that he decided to decorate his lie with an extra frill – “he was told not to, this is why.”
Well, he shouldn’t have. As a result now we know the truth – not only there was no molestation on the second night (if ever), but there was no discussion with MJ about it either. All of it was simply impossible as Chantal would have been a direct witness to it, but she never heard or saw anything – simply because it never happened, that’s why.
Blunders like often occur when liars try hard to make their story convincing. They stick out their tongue thinking “What else can I add here to make it look more credible?”, invent this and that, and as a result overdo it reaching the totally opposite result. Each new detail only discredits his story further and can even bring the whole scam into the open.
So let us not look too condescendingly upon small details. The devil is in the detail and not in something they shove in your face and want you to see. Look at what they don’t want you to see and this will help you get to the bottom of things.
Let us also note that real child abusers never commit their crimes in so risky a manner, and that’s why it’s so difficult to catch them. They are extremely careful and take every precaution to never have any direct witnesses for what they do. Michael’s detractors will want you to believe that the alleged abuser defied all logic and didn’t mind the direct witness of his alleged crime, but considering that there was a father and grandfather on that visit I wouldn’t be too sure of it if I were you…
And by the way if you assume that MJ was fearless in activities like that, then why all that fuss about a certain alarm chiming when someone was approaching his room? A good story should be consistent in each of its details, so if someone in the hallway was a problem, wasn’t the presence of a ten-year old girl in the same bed a bit of a problem too?
It also won’t hurt us to recall that Macaulay’s father Kit Culkin described Michael as an “absolute scaredy-cat” and a “fellow who is perfectly terrified of his own shadow”. The dictionary defines “scaredy-cat” as “someone frightened by almost everything” and this small detail of Michael’s character doesn’t help Robson’s story either, even if MJ’s detractors try to portray to us a confident predator who doesn’t mind abusing a child even when a direct witness to it is staying right in the same bed.
ANOTHER TRAGIC BUT FALSE DETAIL
The further you go the more absurd Robson’s narration becomes. Just one more step and you are ready to reap a new harvest of lies. A whole bunch of them is found in the very next paragraph of the paper describing a remarkable episode of Robson’s life which is also totally remarkable in its falsity.
Point 13 of the complaint says in full seriousness that after the first weekend at Neverland the family left the poor boy behind and he had to stay there all alone at the mercy of the alleged predator!
Look at the sheer horror of this description:
“Plaintiff’s family left the ranch on Monday to continue their road trip, but left Plaintiff behind to stay with Decedent. Plaintiff slept in Decendent’s bed every night and sexual abuse took place every night. Plaintiff’s family returned to stay with Plaintiff at the ranch the following weekend. Again, Plaintiff slept in bed with Decedent while the family slept elsewhere in the house. The sexual abuse continued on each of those nights.”
What a tragic (and novel) story indeed. The boy was allegedly left alone by his whole family just two days after making their acquaintance with MJ, and was picked up only a week later! And see what happened to him there!
Leaving a small boy with a near stranger is indeed so strange an occurrence that after reading it you can’t even decide who is supposed to be a worse criminal here – the parents and grandparents who allegedly left the child alone with a near stranger or the man allegedly to blame for his inappropriate behavior.
Indeed, if we are to believe Robson’s story this episode portrays his whole family as a gang of pimps who are ready to prostitute their offspring to someone they hardly know. This is the impression the story creates – but only in case you believe it of course and don’t see it as the invention of a pervert mind.
To check whether there is any truth behind this strange episode we need to do a good deal of work – go over the trial testimonies of each Robson, establish the correct timeline for their activities, find out who went where and when. All of it is just for verifying one small detail but it is well worth it as you can imagine.
So let’s see what Wade’s sister Chantal remembered about it.
WHAT CHANTAL ROBSON SAID
In her testimony at the 2005 trial Chantal never mentioned staying at Neverland for a week between the two weekends and never spoke of Wade or any of them left alone there on their first visit to the US.
She testified that the visit was split into two weekends and she was there on both of them and each time she slept in Michael’s room. She clarified that all in all she slept there on four occasions and this fully coincides with our own understanding of their timeline – they came to Neverland for a weekend, then left it and then came back for another weekend and later the next week left for Australia.
This is what Chantal said:
8 Q. How many times do you think you’ve been in
9 Michael Jackson’s room?
10 A. I’ve probably been there a lot of times,
11 just sort of in and out. I’ve slept there four
13 Q. When you slept in Michael Jackson’s room,
14 has your brother Wade always been there?
15 A. Yes.
Chantal also recalled their visit to Los Angeles together with Michael which is a journey that took place after the second weekend:
14 Q. To your knowledge, has your family traveled
15 with him?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What is your knowledge about that?
18 A. I know that my brother and my mother have
19 been to Vegas. I take that back. I have been to
20 Los Angeles with him. On my first trip. I went to
21 Los Angeles, just me and my mom. Sorry, me and my
And this is practically all we have from Chantal on this issue.
The testimony of her mother Joy was a much longer one and she had much more to say about their first visit to the US (and Neverland).
WHAT JOY ROBSON SAID
From the very start of it Joy Robson clarified that they had been invited to Neverland for a weekend only and the weekend they did stay. A week later they came again and spent another weekend there.
Tom Sneddon was persistent in his questions and made sure that there was a week between the two weekends. She once again clarified that they weren’t there for an entire week and at some point even mentioned that “they all left” the ranch before going to somewhere else.
Here are some excerpts from her testimony:
4 Q. And then you were invited up to the ranch,
5 as I understand it, for a weekend?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. So you weren’t there for an entire week?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Just for the weekend?
10 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you go back for a second weekend?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. And was there a weekend between, or more
28 than one week in between?
1 A. There was a week in between.
2 Q. So it was the following weekend you went
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And when you went back on that occasion, who
6 was present from your family?
7 A. My husband, my daughter, my son, and my
9 Q. Now, on the occasion of the first visit,
10 were your husband and your parents with you?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you recall testifying at a deposition
13 that your parents and your husband were in San
14 Francisco on a trip the first time you visited the
16 A. No, they went — we were all there for the
17 weekend. They left — we all left and went to
18 San — no, they went to San Francisco the second
19 week. We went back to Los Angeles with Michael.
The timeline is crystal clear. A weekend at Neverland, a week spent elsewhere, another weekend at Neverland, and then Joy and her children went to Los Angeles with Michael while her parents and husband went to San Francisco. Later in the week they reunited and returned to Australia.
There is absolutely no mention of the poor boy being abandoned by them at Neverland. Joy Robson’s testimony simply rules it out – she clearly says that they did not spend there the entire week and there was a break between the two visits . One more detail in the story also confirms that when they came to Neverland the second time their son Wade was together with the family:
5 Q. And when you went back on that occasion, who
6 was present from your family?
7 A. My husband, my daughter, my son, and my
All of it is in direct contradiction with what Wade Robson is telling us now – he was not left behind there and consequently no abuse happened. Not only didn’t it happen on the “second night” but it didn’t happen during the following week either. Robson was simply not there and there is nothing else to discuss here.
So is it another of his blatant lies? AGAIN??? Well, I am afraid it is. It sounds incredible but Robson is indeed lying in each of his statements.
Those who are still catching at straws to save Robson’s situation are invited to reflect on the following. If the little boy had really been left behind at the master house in Neverland on his first visit there, this fact would have been difficult to hide. Some maids would have surely noticed it and remembered. However no maid ever mentioned it, even Blanca Francia who was Michael Jackson’s personal maid in 1990 and cleaned his room every day. She is also an extortionist type and would have surely noticed it had there been anything to notice, however even she did not say a word.
Robson’s supporters will naturally clamor that we shouldn’t believe everything his mother says. They will call her a pimp, a gold-digger and whatnot. But according to Robson’s story he was allegedly left behind at Neverland not only by his mother, but by his father, grandfather and grandmother too!
So do his supporters suggest that the whole of his family are pimps? And is Robson is ready to sacrifice the reputation of all of them for the sum of $1,62 billion he is demanding now?
However I agree that we’ve reached a point when it is the mother’s word against her son’s. One of them is a definite liar and the choice is between Joy Robson’s lies then and Wade Robson’s lies now, and you will agree that either option is not a very attractive one.
To help us decide who is who let us also remember a couple of more details.
First of all Joy Robson gave her deposition in 1993 and testified in front of the grand jury where she was examined by none other than Tom Sneddon (in the absence of the defense attorney of course, as they are not allowed there). Wade Robson was deposed as well. So the facts both of them related at the 2005 trial were also very well fixed in their earlier testimonies and never did any of them mention Robson being “left behind” on their first visit to Neverland.
The other observation is that if Joy had really had some skeletons in the cupboard and was afraid that her children would disclose their secret, the three of them should have sat together prior to their 2005 testimony and agreed to stick to her variant only. That would have turned the children into her accomplices (but only in case we believe Robson’s present lie of course).
However the interesting point about their testimonies was that they were far from uniform and this suggests that they were true, natural and not coached. For example, you will be surprised to learn that in his 2005 testimony Wade Robson did say that during his first visit to Neverland he had spent a week there, only he said he was not alone there but with his family.
He couldn’t remember the second weekend at Neverland and even claimed that immediately after that “week” at Neverland “they all went back to Australia”. There was no recollection of a trip to Los Angeles or of his grandparents touring the country either.
In short the timeline he provided back in 2005 was utterly ridiculous, however in this case it is only for the better as it shows that Wade Robson was not coached.
THE MEMORIES OF A SEVEN-YEAR OLD
His memory of his first visit to the US at the age of seven was so vague and unclear about certain things that one can’t help being amazed that now he remembers all of it so well. Ten more years have passed and he suddenly recollects every detail of it? What an interesting phenomenon indeed.
His then memory was full of exciting impressions but had little correct detail in respect of time and location:
25 … we went, my whole family
26 went to the ranch. And, you know, we stayed for, I
27 don’t know, about a week or something like that.
28 Q. And approximately what year do you think you
1 first went to Neverland, Mr. Robson?
2 A. That was 1989.
3 Q. Okay. And who did you go to Neverland with
4 the first time?
5 A. Went with my mother, my sister, my father,
6 and my grandfather, grandmother.
7 Q. And how long did you stay during that first
9 A. I think it was about a week.
10 Q. And after you spent a week at Neverland,
11 what did you do?
12 A. Went back to Australia.
21 Q. Do you recall the second time you ever
22 visited Neverland?
23 A. No, I don’t.
What a great timeline indeed. So he thought that his stay at Neverland lasted for about a week. And all this time his family was with him:
- “we stayed for, I don’t know, about a week or something like that”
And then they went back to Australia. There was no second weekend at Neverland, no trip to Los Angeles, no travel to San Francisco of his father and grandparents – it was just a “week” with Michael spent by the whole family and that’s it.
Is it a lie? No, it isn’t – it is just the memory of a child. Try to remember yourself when you were seven and you will realize that you are able to recall only some fragments that produced the biggest impression on you, positive and negative alike. They come as a flashback here, a flashback there with no connection between the two and no clear succession and timeline of the events.
The older members of the family will naturally tell you more about your own childhood and as a result of their descriptions, photos, videos, etc. you will have a more or less coherent picture of your childhood, but you will agree that your own memory retains only the brightest and most emotional moments of your early past.
In the same way Wade’s memory captured only the brightest moments of that visit – and it was the time he stayed with Michael Jackson.
Michael was all that mattered to him at the time, and this is why their nearly month-long visit to the US reduced in his memory to one week only. It is clear that he remembered nothing but only the time he spent with Michael, while all other events of the trip completely faded away.
If you had asked him then where they stayed in LA before or after they met Michael, he wouldn’t be able to tell – all he remembered was the time he spent with Michael. His impressions of him compressed into one continuous week “after which they all went to Australia” and that’s it.
Robson’s testimony of his later years became more detailed and accurate as he was growing older, but at the age of 7 his memory was as fragmented as yours or mine at the same age. If something really grandiose or horrendous happened to us, we do remember it while the routine events uncolored by any emotion fade away. Test yourself and you will see that the only things you remember are the episodes imprinted into the memory through some strong emotion – joy, fear, happiness, anxiety, distress, shock, amazement, etc. All the rest of it is nearly blank – unless the impression made by the event was really strong.
So Robson’s memory was typical for his age and even though technically his timeline was all wrong he was telling the truth when he was testifying about it in 2005.
Robson also clearly remembered that his sister Chantal had been together with him all the time he was with Michael. For him it was a “week” again and technically speaking his impression was correct – they really stayed with Michael for two weekends (four days) and for a couple more days in Los Angeles closer to the end of the trip. And all in all the period was indeed something like a “week”. The only difference is that it wasn’t a continuous stay with MJ, but the whole time spent with him made up of separate occasions.
Here is an example of what Robson remembered about the fun they had together with his sister Chantal there – rides, golf carts, animals, videos and even a jacuzzi. He clearly remembers that she slept with him in Michael’s bed on three or four occasions (which coincides with Chantal’s words) and remembers that she was with him the entire time “during that week”:
28 Q. Okay. What do you recall doing at Neverland 9098
1 during that first visit when you spent approximately
2 a week?
3 A. Well, at that point he didn’t have many of
4 the rides. We would watch movies in the theater.
5 You know, we’d play video games. We’d drive around
6 on the golf carts, look at the animals. Those sort
7 of things.
24 A. One time with my sister and I, my sister and
25 I and Michael, we went in the Jacuzzi at Neverland
27 Q. And do you know approximately when that was?
28 A. I don’t. I can’t say for sure. I have a 9100
1 feeling that it was within that first trip in ‘89
2 when I went there.
3 Q. Do you recall what Mr. Jackson was wearing
4 in the Jacuzzi?
5 A. From my recollection, he was wearing shorts.
5 Q. Now, you said your sister would sometimes
6 stay in Mr. Jackson’s room, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And how often do you recall that happening?
9 A. I remember it just within that first trip we
10 were there. So it was — it was, you know, three or
11 four nights or something like that.
1 Q. All right. But you slept in the same bed
2 with him when you were seven years old; is that
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Was anybody else in that bed with you?
6 A. My sister, Chantel Robson.
7 Q. She was ten years old; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Is it true that there was not another adult
10 anywhere in that room at the time you crawled into
11 bed with Mr. Jackson?
12 A. True.
13 Q. And in fact, you continued to sleep with Mr.
14 Jackson through the balance of that week during your
15 seventh year; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Was your sister there the entire time during
18 that week as well?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Was she in that bed with you as well?
21 A. Yes.
I don’t know how Robson is going to adjust his then version that “Chantal stayed with him for the entire week” and “always slept with him in one bed” with his tragic story today that “he was left behind for a week all alone there”. Something definitely does not fit here, but let it be Robson’s headache and not ours.
Instead let us approach the matter from a different side and see whether Robson ever mentioned staying in Neverland alone, without his mother. Is there anything in his testimony to suggest that at some point he could really be alone there?
No, there is absolutely nothing to suggest it. He remembers one occasion when his mother was not accompanying him to Neverland. It was just once and it took place three years after their first visit to the US, in 1993. By then he had already met Jordan Chandler and actually the reason why he stayed on his own at Neverland was that there were other children there, including Jordan Chandler, Macaulay Culkin and Brandy Jackson.
See some more excerpts from Robson’s then testimony:
— most of the time my mother
1 and I went to the ranch together. I think once I
2 was there by myself without my mother. There was
3 other people there.
12 Q. Were there occasions that Mr. Jackson would
13 summon you to Neverland Ranch?
14 A. Summon me?
15 Q. Yes. Call you up and ask you to come and be
16 there; invite you to Neverland Ranch?
17 A. Invite us, yeah.
18 Q. All right. Without your mother?
19 A. Like ask if I could come without my mother,
20 do you mean?
21 Q. Or just ask you to come, and you came by
23 A. The only time I remember being there –
24 sorry. The only time I remember being there was
25 that — that trip that we spoke of by myself with
26 Jordie Chandler and Macaulay.
7 Q. Now, how often do you recall your mother
8 going to Neverland with you?
9 A. It’s been every time except for that one
10 time that I spoke of when I was there with Jordie
11 Chandler and Macaulay and I.
So despite all those insistent questions Robson recalled only one occasion when he was at Neverland without his mother. It was three years after his first visit there and he was actually not alone there but with Jordan Chandler and Macaulay Culkin.
And that was all.
LET US SUM UP
Remember Robson’s nightmarish account that “on the second night” this and that started, and the Decedent told the Plaintiff to keep it a secret, and “the sexual activities took place every night during the entire week that followed”, etc. ? Horrible, isn’t it?
And what was the reality?
- On the first night of their first weekend at Neverland there was no abuse as Robson himself did not say anything about that day.
- On the second night nothing happened either as Chantal already explained to us the circumstances of the second night.
- The entire week between the weekends the whole family was away from Neverland, so there was no episode called “leaving him behind for a week” and consequently there was no sexual activity allegedly going with it.
- And on the second weekend at Neverland Chantal again slept in the same bed with Wade. Both of them confirmed it, so in terms of sexual activity the second weekend is also ruled out.
So what is left as a result of all these deductions from Robson’s nightarish account?
The only point we are left with is a trip made by Joy, Wade and Chantal together with Michael to Los Angeles and staying there for a few days before they finally went back to Australia. These few days in LA are a thrilling story in and of itself, so let us leave it for a later time.
However while we are not yet on that subject let us agree at least about the interim result – everything Wade Robson said in his complaint up to this point is a LIE.
There was no “second night”, no “week all alone at Neverland” and no “continuation of it later”. ALL of it is a lie, with absolutely no exception to it.
For reasonable people that would be enough to close the subject of Wade Robson once and for all, so I leave you to decide whether you really need any more proof of his lies. However I myself am very much intrigued why Robson decided to invent a horrible story about him being abandoned by the family at the tender age of seven. Wasn’t it clear to him that it could be easily refuted by his mother’s words, so why did he go for it at all?
WHY THIS LIE?
The first reason I see here is that Robson hoped that no one would really check up the testimonies of his mother and sister at the 2005 trial and didn’t expect these inconsistencies exposed.
The second reason is that his aim is not really to prove anything to anyone. His aim is to shock and run and make as many shocking statements as it is only possible and spread them via the media without any proof whatsoever. His case is meant solely for the public and is a sort of bargaining process with the MJ Estate – “unless you give me a billion and a half, I will continue to drag Michael through the mud. Groundless or not groundless but the shock of my accusations is still there”.
The third reason is that Robson’s story is a pure skeleton and needs some meat to grow on it. It is not enough to claim that he was just “molested” – it should be a story with all respective details and horrors of it. So the more picturesque details are added to it, the more the public will have to talk about. Hence the tearful story of a lonely boy left behind by the family and picked up only a week later. Let the people discuss the poor boy’s fate, his unscrupulous family and their possible motives. It will give them something to talk about and will keep them from thinking that even the very basics of the story are totally crazy.
And finally, the main reason why he made up that fiction story is because he needed to make his present complaint consistent with his testimony at the 2005 trial. The transcript of the testimony conveniently contained the word “week” which resulted from the vague and uncertain memory of a child and therefore provided an opportunity which Robson did not intend to lose. He took advantage of it and built a horror story around it about being abandoned by his naive parents and a week-long abuse by his idol.
We have already seen that there is absolutely nothing in the testimonies of the three Robsons to confirm this crazy scenario. He was not there for a week as his mother said several times under oath (though his childhood memory left him with that impression), his family and sister stayed with him the entire time (as he himself said) and the first time he was alone at Neverland was not in 1990 but three years later when he was there with other children (as Robson himself clarified).
And there was no molestation on the second night either (as Chantal explained) and there was no discussion of the matter with MJ as there was simply nothing to discuss. All of it is a simple invention.
And the funniest thing of all is that now Robson remembers every small detail of his horror story while ten years ago he remembered absolutely none of it.
How would you explain this strange phenomenon, I wonder?
Sometimes it is just enough to reread some court documents to stop looking into the behavioral intricacies of the ‘poor boy’ Wade Robson and see the simplicity of the case in all its brutal nakedness.
This refreshing change took place with me when I was looking for the $1,62 billion sum the ‘poor boy’ is demanding now and in the process happened to reread not only his present court documents but also the testimonies of the whole Robson family at the 2005 trial.
You cannot imagine what an eye-opening experience it was. Indeed, the present documents read best of all against the background of these testimonies, thus opening your eyes not only to the glaring falsity of Robson’s current story but also to his incredible ego, cynicism, ingratitude, jealousy, callousness, and his lust for money of course.
The three documents from the year 2005 are the testimonies of the 22-year old Wade Robson, his mother Joy Robson and his 25-year old sister Chantal Robson. The two documents from Robson today are his ‘Second Amended Complaint’ filed on February 19, 2014 and certain ‘Special Interrogatories and Requests for Admission‘ filed on July 25, 2014.
Same as the first claim the amended one doesn’t elaborate on any “sexual acts” (as it is heavily redacted) but enumerates probably all paragraphs of the California Penal Code on various types of molestation, thus implying that the complaint covers the whole spectrum of them. The advantage of this paper is that it gives Robson’s story.
The “Special Interrogatories” introduce you to a broad range of subjects on which the Claimant wants information from the “Corporation” (MJJ Productions). Its 143 points range from identifying “all business entities in which Decedent had an ownership interest during the time period from approximately 1990 through 1997” to “all persons to whom the Corporation paid consideration to settle claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress by Decedent”. To put it in one word the Claimant’s interrogatories want everything.
The document a curious mind will be most interested in is “Requests for admission” which in its 93 points invites the Defendants to admit various things including the alleged ‘sexual acts’ of which the MJJ Productions and the Estate were evidently supposed to know.
Most of the requests for admission are insane, even the most innocent ones. Here is a sample of a request to admit that “the Decedent told Robson that he would become a film director”. So what?
Naturally the “Requests for Admission” look like the most captivating part of the collection, but believe it or not, after comparing them with the testimony of three Robsons at the 2005 trial the document impressed me most not by the encyclopedia of alleged sex crimes enumerated there but by presenting all the good Michael did to the family as something sinister and vile.
This is what strikes you most after comparing the glorious stories all Robsons told about their friendship with Michael at the 2005 trial and the dry statements of Robson’s present claim where all the good Michael did to them is turned upside down and presented in the vilest manner possible.
For example, the list requests the admission that the “Responding party arranged for Wade Robson to dance in one or more of Decedent’s music videos”, applied for visas for the family when they came to settle in the US, helped Robson’s mother with her employment and ensured that payment be made to her though her temporary visa did not allow for it, released an album for Wade on the Michael Jackson’s record label and committed many more malicious acts.
This list of crimes against humanity reads best of all against the background of the family’s testimonies because it is only when comparing these two that you realize that it was the burning desire of the family to get all these malicious things Robson is now complaining about.
The enormity of his today’s lies and ingratitude is monumental and beyond any possible description. At least I lack the necessary words suitable for print in order to describe it.
Therefore I will simply make my own first list of Requests for Admission (13 points) and address it to Robson and his family and also to those of you who are still sitting on the fence and “don’t know what to think of it”, poor things.
To make it easier for everyone I will try to follow the pattern of the document submitted to the court by Robson’s attorneys. The only difference is that my points will be more detailed than the single-line requests from WR which are only mystifying the public by their total scarcity of detail.
Some of the requests will be made for information sake only as they are necessary for describing the scene of the crime (Robson’s crime, naturally).
Request for admission No.1
Admit that in his claim Robson defines the time of Michael Jackson’s invitation to spend a weekend at Neverland as February 1990. However in their 2005 testimonies the time of their first visit to Neverland mentioned by the family varies – Joy Robson (mother) speaks of January 1990 and Wade and Chantal Robson remember it as the year 1989.
Now admit that the difference of opinion over this starting point of the story, same as over several other matters in it, makes it clear that the three members of the family did not try to agree with each other about each other’s testimonies, and that their testimonies were spontaneous and they were not coached by Michael Jackson or anyone in who should say what.
Request for admission No. 2
Admit that Wade Robson and his mother got acquainted with Michael Jackson after the dance contest in 1987 in Australia as meeting MJ was the prize for winning the contest. Basically it was a meet-and-greet event only.
Michael enjoyed seeing Wade Robson in his “Bad” outfit and offered him to take part in his show the next day. The second time they met him was the day after the evening performance when Wade and his mother went to his hotel room and talked for a couple of hours about what Wade wanted to do.
After Michael left Australia they weren’t in contact with each other for two years. Wade Robson continued to dance with his troupe, Johnny Young Talent company in Australia, Brisbaine.
So admit that Michael Jackson was not trying to keep up his ties with the Robson family in any way at all.
In his 2005 testimony Wade Robson described it as follows:
8 I met him first when I was five years old.
9 I think it was ‘87. And Michael was touring, he was
10 doing the “Bad” tour. And I was imitating him as a
11 dancer at that point. And he was holding these –
12 it was in connection with Target or something like
13 that, holding these dance, like, contests all around
14 wherever he traveled. So I entered one of the dance
15 contests and ended up winning it, went on to the
16 finals and won that, and then the prize was to meet
18 So I met him after one of his concerts in
19 Brisbane, Australia. And it was just like in a
20 meet-and-greet sort of room. And we met, and I was
21 in my whole, you know, “Bad” outfit and everything.
22 He was sort of laughing and tripping out on my
23 outfit and asked if I danced. I said, “Yeah.” And
24 he asked me to perform with him in the show the next
26 So after — it was like the end of the
27 concert, I pulled up, performed in the show with
28 him. The next — the next – I think within the
1 next couple of days, my mother and I went to visit
2 him at his hotel room, and we stayed for a couple of
3 hours. It was in Brisbane, Australia. Just talking
4 about what I want to do. And then that was kind of
5 it at first.
6 And then for the next two years, we didn’t
7 have any contact at all. And I continued pursuing
8 my dance career in Australia. And then the company
9 that I was with, the dance company, was traveling to
10 America to do a performance at Disneyland.
11 So we all went.
Request for admission No.3
Admit that the performance at Disneyland of the Johnny Young Talent School where Wade Robson was dancing was scheduled for one day only – it was January 26 which was Australia Day celebrated there.
The dance school was invited by Disneyland and Michael had nothing to do with it. In fact he didn’t even know that the whole Robson family had arrived in the US. The family included Wade, his sister, mother, father and two grandparents.
Here is Wade Robson’s performance on January 26, 1990 (an interesting sight):
Request for admission No.4
Admit that since the complaint is not mentioning January 26 as the date of the performance it produces the impression that the family had the telephone number of Michael Jackson or his secretary Norma Stakos, and that they contacted him just after the performance and “on the following day” met him.
In reality the family managed to get Norma Stakos’s telephone number only on the seventh day after the performance (on Thursday, February 1st) and called her hoping that Michael would recollect the boy he had met in Australia two years before that. To their great joy he did remember him and Norma Stakos arranged for a visit to Michael Jackson’s recording studio the next day after that telephone call, which was Friday, February 2, 1990.
Compare it with the text of the claim:
“When Plaintiff was 7 years old, Plaintiff and his family took a trip to California because Plaintiff’s dance company, Johnny Young Talent School, was invited to perform at Disneyland.
Plaintiff’s mother, father, sister (not brother) and maternal grandparents accompanied Plaintiff as the idea was to also turn the trip into a family vacation. After the performance, Plaintiff’s mother contacted Norma Staikos (Decedent’s personal assistant at MJJ Productions”) and a meeting was arranged for Plaintiff to meet with Decedent at a recording studio in Van Nuys, California on the following day, February 2, 1990. Following that meeting Decedent invited the entire family to stay the weekend at his ranch in Santa Barbara County, “Neverland”, which they did.”
Admit that Robson’s claim omits the above crucial details creating the impression that the family didn’t seek Michael during the period of January 26 – February 1 but had a sort of a pre-arranged visit with him. It also creates the impression that they took the invitation to his recording studio and then to Neverland in a matter-of-fact way (while in reality it was their wildest dream coming true).
Request for admission No.5
Admit that in her 2005 testimony Joy Robson also confirms that there was no pre-arranged visit and they were “calling around” after Wade’s performance trying to get Michael’s number before being eventually put to Norma Stakos. So it was the family’s ardent desire to see Michael and not the other way around.
4 Q. Do you remember the first time you visited
6 A. Yes. It was in January of 1990.
7 Q. And how did you end up visiting Neverland?
8 A. When we were here, we called around, trying
9 to find Michael again. He had told us if we
10 returned to the United States to contact him. So we
11 called around, and we eventually were put onto his
12 personal assistant, which at that time was Norma
13 Stakos, and they called Michael.
14 He remembered us, and said he would like to
15 see us again. So we met him at a recording studio
16 where he was working at the time.
24 Q. And when you came here, there were no
25 arrangements when you first came here to meet with
26 Mr. Jackson?
27 A. No.
Request for admission No.6
Admit that in his 2005 testimony Wade Robson provides even more details about their insistence to establish contact with Michael. It turns out that they cleverly took with them the whole video collection of Wade’s dance stuff for the previous two years to show it to Michael and make him interested in his talent. And when Michael checked out all his videos he was really excited about what he saw.
Wade Robson said about it:
12 As I said, we’d had no contact with
13 Michael or anything. Somehow my mother got in
14 contact with Michael’s secretary at that time, who
15 was Norma Stokes.
21 A. She talked to Michael about — we wanted to
22 see if we could hook up with him again and meet him
23 again. She talked to Michael. Michael remembered
24 me from when I met him when I was five years old,
25 wanted to meet me again.
26 So I was out there with my mother, sister,
27 my father, and grandparents. We all went to meet
28 him at Record One Recording Studios. And this
1 was — this was ‘89.
6 A. We met up with him. He was in between, you
7 know, working on music and that sort of thing. He
8 was doing a photo shoot at the time at the studio.
9 We took some photos with him. My family and I all
10 went into his — sort of like the green room, and
11 played him some videotapes of all the dancing stuff
12 that I’ve been doing over the last two years. And,
13 you know, he was just really excited, checking out
14 everything I had done. And then by the end of the
15 time, he invited my family and I up to the ranch
16 that weekend.
Request for admission No.7
Admit that in his testimony Robson makes it clear that Michael invited them for a weekend in Neverland after he had seen the collection of videos of Wade dancing and was really inspired by his talent.
Robson did indeed have an exceptional talent for dancing like Michael Jackson. Here is another video of his performance on Star Search in Australia in 1990:
Admit that you are very much excited by what you’ve seen (same as I am). So it doesn’t surprise us in the least that Michael was also excited and inspired by Wade’s talent. Michael surely realized his potential and knowing his ever-present desire to help others we can be sure that he was thinking of how to help Wade Robson too and give him a start in his career.
His belief in Wade Robson’s talent explains very well a note he wrote at some point to Robson encouraging him by words: “You are my biggest inspiration now”.
Joy Robson also testified that Michael’s interest in Robson was because he saw Wade’s potential and that for Michael it was like looking in the mirror at his old self:
18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Why did you allow Wade to
19 spend a lot of time with Michael Jackson?
26 A. They enjoyed each other. They — they were
27 very similar people. I remember Michael telling me
28 early on that it was like looking in the mirror, he
1 saw himself all over again. His interest was
2 because he saw Wade’s potential. And Wade loved
3 everything that Michael did and wanted to learn as
4 much as he could.
Request for admission No.8
Admit that even when Wade Robson still lived in Australia he took every effort to look like Michael Jackson. Even his hair looked like Michael’s and his “Australian” image strikes you as a total replica of MJ, only a little one.
Actually the nickname of “little one” was given by MJ to Wade Robson when he first saw him in 1987 when Wade was 5 and the name stuck.
“Australian-born Wade, who won National acclaim as a dancer `Downunder’ on popular talent show Starsearch rose quickly to the forefront of young performers in Australia after winning a Michael Jackson dance competition in Brisbane. The win led to him dancing with his idol on stage at the Brisbane Entertainment Centre and pint-sized Wade – tagged `Little One’ by Michael – stole the show and won the superstar’s heart.”
As a side note let us also admit that as soon as Wade Robson arrived in the US his image dramatically changed.
He dyed his hair and shaved his head thus making it clear that he was looking for a different image for himself and pursuing a career different from a simple imitation of MJ and his dance.
Let us also admit that Michael surely supported him in this independent pursuit of his identity, or otherwise Robson would have kept to his old a la Michael Jackson style.
Request for admission No.9
Admit that Wade Robson’s present complaint does not say a word how Wade and Chantal Robson found themselves in Michael Jackson’s room on the first night they were in Neverland and doesn’t explain that the children themselves pleaded with their parents to let them stay there.
The complaint omits that all of them including MJ were in the parents’ room discussing Wade’s costumes and it was getting late, but the children wanted the joy to go on and pleaded with their parents to let them stay with MJ and they agreed asking for his permission first. He said: ‘Oh, absolutely. If they’d like to stay, that’s fine.’
Joy Robson described it as follows:
8 A. Well, the first — the first night they had
9 been out doing the usual thing at Neverland,
10 playing. And later that night, they all came back
11 to the suite where my husband and I were staying,
12 and my parents were with us, as well. We were all
13 talking in the suite.
14 And Wade had been impersonating Michael for
15 some time and had lots of costumes of Michael’s that
16 we had made. And Michael was looking at them, and
17 we were just all discussing those.
18 And then it was getting late, and my
19 children said to me, both Chantel and Wade, my
20 daughter, said, ‘Can we stay with Michael.’
21 And my husband and I sort of looked at
22 Michael, and said, ‘Well, if that’s okay with you.’
23 And he said, ‘Oh, absolutely. If they’d like to
24 stay, that’s fine.’
25 Q. And did you allow your son and daughter to
26 stay in his room?
In his testimony Wade Robson even explained why they wanted to stay with Michael – they found a new friend and didn’t want to leave his side. “It’s the same way with any child”, said Robson.
2 I remember Chantel,
3 my sister, wanted to as well.
28 What caused you to ask him if you could stay with
1 him in his room?
2 A. Well, it’s the same way with any child.
3 When you — you know, when you have a best friend or
4 a new friend that you found, you always want to stay
5 in the same room with them.
Request for admission No.10
Now admit that from this point on the Robsons’ testimony at the 2005 trial differs dramatically from everything Wade Robson is claiming now.
Wade’s testimony of 2005 says that on the first night (Saturday, February 3rd) he slept in MJ’s bed on the ground floor and his sister Chantal was with them, same as the next night. To be more precise according to him she was in the same bed with them the “entire time”.
In the process of describing it Wade also makes it clear that it wasn’t sleeping “with” Michael Jackson – it was just sleeping in his bed.
21 Q. All right. Now, the first time that you
22 slept with Mr. Jackson you were seven years old; is
23 that correct?
24 A. I slept in the same bed with him. But, yes,
25 I was seven.
26 Q. Did you understand my question to mean
27 something other than that?
28 A. Sounded like it.
1 Q. All right. But you slept in the same bed
2 with him when you were seven years old; is that
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Was anybody else in that bed with you?
6 A. My sister, Chantal Robson.
7 Q. She was ten years old; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Is it true that there was not another adult
10 anywhere in that room at the time you crawled into
11 bed with Mr. Jackson?
12 A. True.
13 Q. And in fact, you continued to sleep with Mr.
14 Jackson through the balance of that week during your
15 seventh year; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Was your sister there the entire time during
18 that week as well?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Was she in that bed with you as well?
21 A. Yes.
Today he also says that the first night Chantal was with them, but the next night she allegedly “expressed concern about it”, suggested they both sleep upstairs and when Wade declined she went upstairs alone, and this is when the “sexual activities” allegedly began.
The Second Amended Claim (points 10-11) says about it:
“The first night of the weekend, on or about February 3, 1990, Plaintiff and his sister slept in Decedent’s bedroom in the same bed with Decedent downstairs.
The next night, Plaintiff’s sister, who was 3 years older than Plaintiff, expressed concern about sleeping in the same bed with Decedent, and suggested they both sleep upstairs. Plaintiff declined and again slept with Decedent downstairs. The sexual activities began on or about that night, February 4, 1990. <text redacted.>
That was the beginning of Decedent’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff which over the next 7 years would regularly include sexual acts as described in paragraph 22 below. “
What a horrible, horrible story. So the abuse started the very next night and the girl couldn’t see it because she was in the bedroom upstairs and this is when the nightmare for poor Wade Robson began?
Yes, it would be horrible, horrible indeed, if only Chantal Robson were not telling a totally different story.
Request for admission No.11
The problem is that in her testimony at the 2005 trial the nearly 26-year old Chantal is telling the opposite of what Wade is saying now.
She says that it was on the first night that she didn’t want to invade on Michael’s privacy and eventually went upstairs expecting her younger brother to follow her (he either declined or had already fallen asleep by the time she went there).
Her explanation of why she decided to do it is understandable – it was their first visit to Neverland and in contrast to others she saw Michael for the second time in her life, so her natural reserve took the upper hand and she decided to leave MJ not to invade on his privacy.
However by the second night they already had a much closer friendship with Michael and her previous considerations didn’t bother her that much, and the children were evidently so tired that both of them – Wade and Chantal – fell asleep in Michael’s bed without thinking whether it was appropriate or not. She says that there was no “idea” behind her sleeping downstairs on the second night – they simply fell asleep there and that’s that.
So the resume of the story is that it was not on the first, but SECOND night that Chantal slept in Michael’s bed. The first time isn’t ruled out either as she could first drop in the bed but later change her mind and go upstairs.
Let me remind you once again that Wade Robson claims that the alleged abused started that very second time he stayed in MJ’s room.
Let us also recall that Chantal didn’t know that he would claim anything like that ten years later and therefore explained it the way it really was in her testimony in 2005. This is what she said and please note how insistent she is on her words:
19 Q. So the very first night that you
20 went to Neverland you spent the night in Mr.
21 Jacksons bedroom?
22 A. In his bedroom, yes.
23 Q. And on that first night, you slept
24 downstairs in the bedroom, correct?
25 A. No.
26 Q. You slept upstairs?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Did you — or I’ll rephrase that.
1 Were you interviewed by Scott Ross, an
2 investigator for Mr. Jackson, on May 2nd, 2005?
3 A. Yes. Not quite sure if that was the date,
4 but, yes.
5 Q. That was just a few days ago?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. And did you tell Mr. Ross that you recalled
8 the first night that you slept downstairs, and Wade
9 went upstairs and slept with Mr. Jackson?
10 A. No. It would be the other way around.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. Michael and Wade slept — Michael and Wade
13 slept downstairs and I slept upstairs on the first
15 Q. All right. So Mr. Jackson and Wade slept
16 together separately from the area that you slept in?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Why was that?
19 A. Because I left and went upstairs.
20 Q. Why did you leave and go upstairs?
21 A. Because I was a little older at that point
22 and I felt like I was interfering in Michael’s
23 bedroom, so I left and went upstairs.
24 Q. Because you wanted to give Mr. Jackson some
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. And he was alone with your brother at that
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And your brother was seven years old?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And that night, your brother slept in the
5 same bed with Michael Jackson?
6 A. Yes. I told him to come up with me.
7 Q. You told him to come up with you?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Was that because you felt like he shouldn’t
10 be sleeping in a bed with a grown man?
11 A. Not at all.
12 Q. Then why did you tell him to do that?
13 A. Because I didn’t want to make Michael feel
14 like two people were invading his space.
15 Q. Something about that first night made you
16 feel uncomfortable, didn’t it?
17 A. No, not at all.
18 Q. Didn’t you say you felt more comfortable the
19 second night to Mr. Ross when you spoke to him a few
20 days ago?
21 A. Comfortable with my friendship with Michael,
23 Q. And that next night, you slept in the same
24 bed with Michael Jackson?
25 A. I did.
22 Q. Whose idea was it that you sleep in Mr.
23 Jackson’s bed?
24 A. It was actually our idea.
25 Q. Sorry?
26 A. My brother and I. It was actually not an
27 idea. We just fell asleep.
Request for admission No.12
Admit that Wade’s own sister who was three years older than Wade and was ten at the time, spoke of a totally different timeline which disproves in principle his present theory of ‘how the abuse started’.
He claims that it started on the second night. And she says that on that very night the ten-year old her slept with the seven-year old Wade in one bed.
A special beauty of the situation is that Chantal’s testimony has a priority over Wade’s current story as she testified ten years ago when she was yet unaware that her innocent statement would contradict Wade Robson’s later claim.
Chantal had no reason to lie about where she slept on those nights. Whichever way it was, it turned out that one night she was together with Wade and the other night she was not, and it is only the succession of those nights which was different.
Also admit that at the time of her testimony at the 2005 trial it didn’t make any difference which of the nights she was sleeping downstairs and it was only the fact that Wade was alone with Michael at least on one of those occasions that had any significance for the jury. Whether it was the first or second night didn’t matter then.
It is only today that it matters very much.
Admit that by insisting on her story in 2005 Chantal could even produce a negative impression on the jurors as they could think that the members of the family were not quite consistent in what they said and she was not winning anything by telling her story. However she repeatedly insisted it was the way she described it and since she was the older and more responsible of the two we can fully believe what she said.
Also admit that these very small differences in their accounts make it clear once again that before the testimony in 2005 the members of the Robson family did not sit down to agree about the most basic facts and this means that nobody was coaching them prior to their testimony – neither Michael, nor anyone. If someone had been coaching them their theories would have been fully consistent with each other.
Request for admission No.13
In fact, this mismatch in his story is the direct evidence of his lies.
If you were abused in your childhood things like that just don’t get forgotten. They imprint in your memory in their full entirety – in time, space and relation to all other events of the period up to the smallest details. You remember them in succession and how one thing entailed another. You remember the oddest of details, the expression of the face, the thoughts racing through your mind and sometimes even the smells.
It is simply impossible to forget on ‘which night it happened’ (if it happened at all). Only those who have never gone through this experience can think that it’s like riding a bicycle and it doesn’t matter whether it was the first or second day of your stay in the country.
No, the timing matters very much and once it happened to you, you will never forget. Never.
So let us finally admit that Wade Robson’s “Second Amended Complaint” is telling lies from the very start of it. It begins with a big lie and goes on with them throughout his claim.
In short, Wade Robson is a LIAR. And hereby he is requested to admit it.
(The list of requests for admission may be continued)
Recently a reader asked a question why we should believe that Wade Robson is demanding the sum of $1.62 billion for the alleged abuse from MJ if this news is reported by almost no one, was published in some tabloid and is not mentioned in the court documents available to us.
The question is very interesting because it enables us to ask similar questions about the media coverage of Katherine Jackson’s lawsuit against AEG, compare it with media reports of Wade Robson’s claim and reflect on why the media cover these two civil suits (revolving around one person) in so different a manner.
1. Indeed, how is it possible that not so long ago all media was awash with rage and ridicule about the sum Katherine Jackson wanted from AEG for the wrongful death of her son, and now they are keeping almost dead silence about a certain sum demanded by Wade Robson in connection with his alleged abuse?
After all Michael Jackson died while the abuse most probably never happened, however the media (and some fans) chose to mock a mother who lost her beloved son, but do not say a word of criticism towards a person whose status of a ‘victim’ is highly disputable and needs a lot of proof before it only begins to become remotely credible.
I personally have never heard the word ‘greedy’ used by the media for Wade Robson, however I heard it a thousand times in respect of Katherine Jackson. Why so?
Moreover it is an extremely rare occurrence that the press reports that Wade Robson has any monetary demands at all, though the fact that he filed a civil suit automatically means that he wants money. A civil suit is always about money and you can’t be in two minds here, however no one even mentions it let alone elaborate on the idea. Why so?
2. Another side of the story is a question why the media screamed that Katherine Jackson wanted $40 billion though the sum was untrue and she never really claimed it.
The draft of her lawyers’ calculations was never approved and even seen by Katherine but it became known to AEG (and some super knowledgeable MJ fans) and this alone was enough for the media to create a tsunami of hatred for Katherine among the general public and even some fans.
For those who still don’t know that Katherine never asked for $40 billion here is a piece from her testimony at the AEG trial where the lawyers discuss the matter between themselves at a sidebar. Despite the fact that the sum was not filed in the court documents and was never even seen by Katherine Jackson the AEG lawyer Putnam still wanted to question her about the matter:
Mr. Putnam: What I don’t understand is, we have had two different figures in this case: there’s the $42 billion figure, and now we have $1.5 billion that happened within a span of four months.
The judge: When was the $40 billion?
Mr. Putnam: On December 3rd, 2010.
Mr. Panish: It was a statement of damages that she’s never seen.
The judge: If that’s where you’re going, that sounds like you’re asking legal questions about a statement of damages that the lawyers file that she doesn’t know anything about.
Mr. Panish: It’s not even filed.
Mr. Boyle: Not even filed.
Mr. Putnam: What it says, the case law says about that very thing; okay? That because it is an element of what they’re saying they believe their damages claim is, and they are an agent of the person. If you look at it, it says, “Katherine Jackson hereby demands.” that’s what it says.
Mr. Panish: She doesn’t sign it.
Mr. Putnam: And therefore I’m able to ask, “are you aware of this fact?” and that is clear. And the reason the case law says and makes it very clear why is because of the fact that if something is so out of whack this is what the case law says –
Ms. Chang: It does not.
Mr. Putnam: – is so out of whack with reality, the jury is allowed to assess that.
Mr. Panish: What case is that?
The judge: Here’s what I’m going to allow you to do: you’re going to skip over this portion of your questioning, and I want a brief on it.
As far as I know they didn’t return to this matter, so most probably the case law does not allow to ask questions about the statement of damages plaintiffs never knew of, saw or endorsed.
Now a question to the media:
If the calculations of those damages were only a draft that was never approved and seen by the claimant (but seen by the media instead), why turn this unsubstantiated figure into a reason for harassing the old woman for months and even years on end? Was it done by the media to bias the potential jury and portray as ‘villains’ the mother and children who suffered a terrible loss and the old good corporation AEG as their ‘innocent victim’?
And how come this preliminary document found its way into the press at all? Doesn’t it look like a preemptive strike by AEG to arrange a public hysteria against Katherine and portray her as nuts, and the media being unfortunately at their full service?
3. Now, if the media is so much impressed by huge claims, a similar hype could be expected around the sum reportedly demanded from the MJ Estate by Wade Robson now. Surprise-surprise, but no one is screaming about Robson wanting $1.62 billion (which is more than Michael Jackson earned during his lifetime) and there is no sign of any media mockery of this truly ridiculous sum – which is very strange indeed, especially when we recall that his allegations have no foot to stand on and on previous two occasions he was saying exactly the opposite and both times under oath too.
So do the media consider the $1.62 billion claim for a fantasy story a lesser sensation than the false claim of $40 billion for the death of Michael Jackson? I’m afraid they do, though the amount of money wanted by Robson is so incredible that the sum alone is quite a sensation and is absolutely newsworthy.
However we see that in Wade Robson’s case the media not only refrain from reporting the sum but silence the fact that he is after money at all. As a result the major part of the public is not even aware that Robson wants money from Michael Jackson’s Estate and that he demands more than a billion and a half.
A TEST OF MEDIA OBJECTIVITY
The reason why the media keep mum about it is that the $1.62 billion demand will shed a good deal of light on the nature of Robson’s claim and this is what the media don’t want.
I mean they don’t want people to know that this case is pure extortion. And their telling silence about the financial side of the matter betrays their true attitude towards Michael Jackson more than any words would.
Exactly the same thing can be said about their anti-Katherine screams, only in the reverse. The constant media rubbing in of the false $40 billion story is also extremely tale-telling as it shows how ‘unbiased’ the media are and where their true interests lie.
These two cases put together are actually a good testing ground for the media’s so-called objectivity and a test which the media absolutely do not stand. On the contrary, if the media coverage of these two civil cases is put side by side, it betrays the media deep affection for defendant AEG and huge animosity for plaintiff Katherine Jackson, and vice versa – their big support for plaintiff Wade Robson and total lack of any for MJ and his Estate as the defendant.
The common denominator of both cases is Michael Jackson of course and this makes it easy to conclude that the essence and circumstances of the case are not the point – the one who is against Michael Jackson is automatically a big media friend, and vice versa. And it does not matter whether Michael Jackson is a plaintiff or a defendant – it is always he who is to blame. We have long noticed that Michael is a sort of a universal whipping boy for all times…
An extra bonus of our comparison is learning that the AEG-friendly media incidentally happens to be also Robson-friendly, and this establishes a certain bond between the two. And it doesn’t matter if it is common hate or common interests that bring them together – whichever it is, it’s clear that this two and even three-side cooperation (including the media) is a mighty force which is very much on a war path against Michael Jackson.
ONE MORE FIGURE
There is one more sum that needs to be mentioned here and it is the correct amount of money claimed by Katherine Jackson in her lawsuit against AEG. It would be very interesting to know how this sum was reported by the press and how many people know it.
The sum really claimed by Katherine Jackson’s lawsuit was $1.5 billion. This was the projected sum of the economic losses to which $85 million to every child and $35 million to Michael’s mother were supposed to be added (all in all $1.79 billion if my calculations are correct).
These figures are listed here:
Michael Jackson verdict: Family gets no money in huge AEG victory
October 02, 2013|By Jeff Gottlieb, Ruben Vives, Victoria Kim
Entertainment giant AEG Live scored a major win in the Michael Jackson case after a Los Angeles jury unanimously decided that the concert promoter was not liable in the singer’s death.
The jury — which found that AEG hired Dr. Conrad Murray and that he was a competent doctor — did not award any money to the singer’s mother Katherine Jackson or his three children. They had been seeking damages of more than $1 billion.
It took only three days for the jury to reach the verdict after a five-month trial that included dozens of witnesses.
Jackson’s mother and three children brought the lawsuit, saying AEG Live hired and supervised Murray, who gave Jackson the fatal dose of the anesthetic propofol.
The family’s attorney painted a picture of a cold, calculating entertainment enterprise that failed to notice that Murray was financially desperate and then pushed the physician to get Jackson ready to tour even though the singer was in frail health and was crippled by fear.
“They’re going to kill me, they’re going to kill me,‘” Jackson’s eldest son, Prince, testified, recalling the singer’s words in one his final conversations with his father.
The Jackson family’s legal team asked jurors to award $85 million to each of the pop star’s children and another $35 million to his mother.
In addition, lawyers suggested AEG be asked to pay as much as $1.5 billion in economic losses.
You will agree that $1.5 or $1.79 billion is a huge sum but it is still a far cry from the fictional $40 billion the media were so hysterical about. So how did the media report this real claim by Katherine Jackson?
Despite the fact that we already know the answer (they didn’t report it) let us conduct an experiment which will present a purely scientific picture of the media bias, distortion and silencing the truth regarding Michael Jackson and the methods they are employing to do it.
MEASURING THE MEDIA BIAS
Let us google search the three sums discussed here and see the result it will bring us.
I’ve chosen the following wording for the search:
- $40 billion claim by Katherine Jackson
- $1.5 billion claim by Katherine Jackson
- $1.62 billion claim by Wade Robson
1. The search for the untrue sum of $40 billion has brought us 136,000 results. The story was promoted for at least several months and is still the first thing that comes up if you look for the sum claimed in Katherine Jackson’s lawsuit.
The wrong figure is glaring at us from every headline. Some headlines openly call Katherine ‘greedy’.
Considering that the majority of people look at headlines first and only later open the links, most people learn the news from scanning the headlines and only in case they are further interested in the subject look for some details.
So you can imagine the effect the sum of $40 billion in every headline had on the public and what amount of harm this unverified and biased reporting did to Katherine Jackson (and possibly to the future outcome of her case against AEG). I can bet on whatever you like that though the sum is untrue even now almost everyone still thinks that Katherine Jackson wanted it.
The texts in smaller print are dominated by ideas that “the claim is preposterous and based on speculation”.
2. The next google search was made for $1.5 billion which was the correct sum claimed by Katherine Jackson.
This search brought a bigger number of news results (258,000) but only because the main subject of the news was the fact that Katherine lost her case to AEG.
So the media waited until the end of the trial to report on the true sum of the claim though it was known from the very beginning of it (and possibly earlier), however at that time it wasn’t in their interests to cover it.
The desired negative effect could have been lost and people may have even begun asking questions why they had been fed with wrong numbers for so long. So the true sum was saved until the end of the trial when it was finally drowned in the news that the case was lost.
The correct sum came in small print only and was mentioned in passing somewhere in the text.
The primary news was “Katherine loses”, “AEG not liable” and even “MJ family meets to discuss how to divide up the $40 BILLION they expect to win from AEG” – thus naming the untrue sum again and in capital letters too (you can see the full headline if you open the link).
In fact none of the headlines state the reason why the claim was declined – the jury agreed that AEG was responsible for hiring Conrad Murray but the doctor whose patient died due to his gross negligence looked ‘competent’ to them for some reason, and hence the result.
What’s very important is that in contrast to the previous figure of $40 billion, the correct sum of Katherine’s claim is not in the headlines. Actually even at this stage some headlines continue to state the wrong sum while the true figure is lost somewhere in the depth of the text thus minimizing the effect of true information.
The text itself is dominated by words “denied”, “rejected”, “loses” and the AEG attorney again says that “$1,5 billion in damages for Jackson’s death is ‘ridiculous’.
Funny. So no matter what sum Katherine is asking for it is always ‘ridiculous’ as if by default.
3. The final google search was made for $1.62 billion demanded by Robson. Needless to say that the result was totally unsurprising.
The number of news results was 84,600 and none of the headlines stated the amount. The word ‘ridiculous’ was never used, same as the word ‘greedy’.
The sum is mentioned only in small print and somewhere deep in the text. As we already know this is done intentionally as the headline will inevitably sink in while the text in smaller print can easily go unnoticed. Especially if the headline conveys a different message than the text.
And what message do the headlines for Wade Robson’s claim convey? Oh, there are absolutely no surprises here. The message of every single piece of news is focusing on words ‘pedophilia’, ‘rape’ and ‘molestation’.
Nevermind that the claim is absurd, the sum is exorbitant, the man is greedy and his story is fiction. The headlines will nevertheless not report any of it as the ever-present goal of their reporting about MJ is focusing on the fantasy genre and not the reality.
Summing up the results of the experiment we can state that:
- The media report false information about matters relating to Michael Jackson much more readily than the truth.
- The scale of reporting false information is incomparably bigger that the coverage of true and positive Michael Jackson facts.
- The truth about MJ almost never finds itself in the headlines but is published in smaller print to minimize its effect on the public.
- When the facts speaking in favor of MJ are unavoidable and have to be reported, the media diverts public attention from them by focusing on something negative instead (like “molest” instead of the $1.62 billion sum).
- The media is used as a tool of heavy information manipulation regarding Jackson.
- The media happens to be both AEG and Wade Robson friendly which is an interesting phenomenon irrespective of the fact whether the two are in cahoots with each other or not. What’s important is that with the help of the heavily biased media they are a really mighty force.
You can repeat the experiment yourselves using a different wording but I can guarantee you that the result will be the same.
So here is all the proof we needed of the media’s “objectivity, high standards of reporting and lack of bias”– at least in respect of Michael Jackson.
For the sake of fairness I need to note that the media in the country I happen to live in employs exactly the same methods (if not worse) even when reporting on political matters, and I hope that one day they will answer for what they do – however it doesn’t make the situation with reports on Michael Jackson in the US press any better.
What they are doing to Michael shows the media’s despicable and true worth and it still remains to be seen whose media was the first to start on this horrible road.
MORE ARITHMETIC AND MORE CONCLUSIONS
When I learned of the $1.62 billion sum demanded by Robson my first reaction was incredulity and laugh. Both stemmed from the stark similarity between the sum claimed by Katherine Jackson and the amount Wade Robson decided he needed sometime after the AEG trial.
The $1.62 billion demanded by Robson is indeed very close to the sum of $1.5 billion asked by Katherine Jackson. In fact it is so close in value and timing that it produces the impression of the AEG symmetrical reply to Katherine and taking revenge on her and the Estate (who gave her a $6 million loan, probably for the trial).
My impression of a certain scheme behind this claim was enforced by some other figures that emerged in the middle of the AEG trial from a totally unexpected side – the IRS which is the US government agency responsible for collecting taxes.
The IRS made a claim against the Michael Jackson Estate concerning their alleged mistake in paying taxes for Michael Jackson’s “likeness” and demanded the sum of $702 million in repayment of the debt and a penalty for the alleged cheat. Recently an additional $29 million was added to the sum thus bringing it to a total of $731 million.
This prompted me to do some more arithmetic to find out how much money would be left for the Estate if they were to pay everything that is demanded of them now.
Forbes says that during his lifetime Michael made $1.1 billion (which is equivalent to $2 billion nowadays accounting for inflation). However this money is not in the possession of the Estate as some was spent by Michael during his lifetime and some was used on acquiring and building up his music catalog.
The Sony/ATV catalog is now valued at $2 billion of which the MJ Estate has a half – $1 billion. The Estate has also generated a lot of money since Michael’s death and is now $600 million net worth according to this source.
So if we operate in these figures only (without going into the estimation of Michael Jackson ‘likeness’ or the value of MJ own songs) the end result will be $1.6 billion.
Surprisingly, this is the exact sum Wade Robson wants. This sum is more than the money earned by Michael by very hard work and is actually almost everything the Estate has and is able to raise if they sell their half of the Sony/ATV catalog.
Add to it the $731 million demanded by the IRS now and you will realize that the catalog of MJ songs will probably have to go too. At least this is the way it looks to me as a lay person and a total outsider operating in formal figures only.
What does all of it mean?
It means that someone wants to grab all the money the Michael Jackson Estate has.
It also means that these forces are very much assisted by a person named Wade Robson who is currently acting as their main tool in the project.
And if all of it is not an attempt to ruin Michael Jackson and his Estate, then I don’t know what it is.
Are the media involved in the plan? At least some of them definitely are. The ‘unbiased’ way they are reporting on MJ matters has proven it to us. In fact some media sources are already gloating over the fact that to be able to settle the IRS claim the Estate will probably have to sell part of their assets or otherwise pay back the debt for 15 years to come.
And how do we know that Robson is also part of the project? We know it from small signs like his ‘coincidental’ filing of the suit immediately after the start of the AEG trial and from the preferential way he is treated by the media.
With very few exceptions the media have already proven themselves to be no friend of Michael Jackson and evidently regard the enemy of their enemy as their friend, so hence their love affair with Wade Robson. This enables the Robson camp to silence the crucial fact of $1.62 billion unfavorable to his image and showing him a greedy liar he is.
The sum itself is another reason why we know that Robson is part of the anti-Michael project. If he were asking for $10, 50 or even 100 million for example, the claim would still be a huge one but it wouldn’t point to Robson’s intention to ruin the MJ Estate. But since he is demanding $1.62 billion it means that he wants practically everything the Estate has which means ruining Michael and leaving his children with nothing.
In fact this is what they always wanted to do to Michael. And this is why they were on a constant hunt for him. What’s happening today is simply a continuation of their long-established policies towards Jackson. Why they are doing it is a mystery of its own, but one day it will surely become known too.
See how much some figures can tell us?
The sum of $1.62 billion was intentionally placed in the headline in order to slightly balance the totally inadequate scope of its media reporting.
Since readers insist that I answer the question “why we should believe that Robson demands $1,62 bln” let me give two replies for you to choose from:
1) You don’t have to believe it. The sum of $1,62 bln is the same type of news as the $40 bln reported by the media about Katherine Jackson (only the silenced variant of it). But those sceptics who don’t believe Robson’s demand now should have been similarly sceptical about Katherine’s demands too. Sceptics should always be sceptics, shouldn’t they?
However my suspicion is that those who don’t believe Robson’s $1,62 bln demand now are exactly the same people who fully believed the $40 bln demand by Katherine Jackson. Many of you have also noted this strange paradox. So the short answer to these sceptics will actually start with questions:
Did you believe media reports that Katherine wanted $40b? Then why don’t you believe similar reports that Robson demands $1,62b? Why this hypocrisy? So before you even start voicing your opinion on this matter first admit that you and the media lied about Katherine Jackson – otherwise your present scepticism over Robson’s sum will not be accepted either and will be regarded as a horrible double standard.
2) The second answer to the question is that the sum of damages is seldom (if ever) worded by the plaintiff. It is the job of the lawyers to calculate the damages and is done solely by them. Mr. Panish stressed it several times during the trial. What happened in Katherine’s case was that the sum of $40 bln was calculated by her lawyers and as a draft became known to AEG, who immediately took this sum to the media to massacre Katherine there.
Similarly we can imagine that the sum of Robson’s claim is also a draft, however the difference here is that it was communicated to the media not by the opposing side as in Katherine’s case, but by Robson’s own lawyers who shared it with Radaronline and other sources (the Daily Mail, for example). And since the time the sum was printed not a single person disclaimed it. And there is no massacre seen either – all is very quiet as if $1,62 billion is requested in civil suits every day. And this is where the whole difference in the attitude is.
Actually a very short answer here is – if Robson’s sum were untrue at least some lawyers would have spoken up and disclaimed it, either from one or the other side.
“Don’t look for a black cat in a dark room, especially if it is not there…”
This short post was first made as a reply to a reader’s comment, but since the subject is top important I decided to place it here as a point for a separate discussion.
The comment came from Judy and concerned Wade Robson (and Jimmy Safechuck) who decided to get some $1,62 billion from Michael Jackson’s Estate on the charges they suddenly thought of several years after Michael’s death:
“I believe them when they went to court and testified that Michael did nothing to them. No matter what their reasoning is, Wade and Safechuck are, committing a crime, lies, fraud, defamation of character. They aren’t even credible.”
Of course they are not.
Just to clarify one point – as far as I remember Safechuck wasn’t summoned by the prosecution or the defense in 2005. In 1993 he was interviewed by the police same as all other children who were around Michael at the time and said that nothing inappropriate had ever taken place. As to Robson he was supposed to be summoned by the prosecution in 2005 but turned out to be a witness for the defense as he vehemently defended Michael and said that he had never been as much as touched by him.
So no matter what they claim now these people are not credible for a simple reason that they are contradicting their own prior testimony. And Wade Robson actually spoke in the defense of Michael twice and the second time he was a grown-up man and it was a testimony under oath.
If we assume now that both times he lied, it means that lying is an inherent feature of his character. And those who tell a lie at least once and so confidently too – like Robson did – are able to lie again and again, and many times over.
For cases like that we have a very good English proverb: “If someone deceives you once, shame on him. If someone deceives you twice, shame on you”. So if we assume that we were deceived by Robson at least once, we should take extra care not to allow him to deceive us again.
Now Robson will probably tell us a heart-wrenching story about the way he was “molested”, and in horrible detail too. And he may even sound genuine when describing it – because, in the first place, he has heard enough detail from the real victims he is associating with now on a site he specially created for the purpose and secondly, because Wade Robson could indeed be molested at some moment of his life.
This I don’t rule out. What if he was indeed molested, only by someone different? For example, by his father who later committed suicide? Or by his agent who took care of his career when he was already in the US? We remember the ways of some Hollywood producers who deal in young talents, don’t we?
But the problem is that a suit against the agent will bring no money, while a suit against Michael’s Estate will. And this is what makes all the difference in the world for Robson. Especially since a suit against the Estate will also help him to take his revenge on its lawyers for their refusal to hire him for their MJ-related projects.
Can anyone guarantee to you that when telling his story Robson will not talk about the abuse suffered by him from another person? No one can guarantee you that. And if he lied once, he can lie again. And he will look quite genuine in his testimony too – because he will actually be describing his real experience. Only it won’t be about Jackson but will be about another person.
This is a method that helps people cheat on a lie detector. If they want to produce a negative emotion when asked about an innocent guy, all they need to do is focus on their real offender and answer about him and this will build up their emotions and create a corresponding physical reaction registered by the machine.
This is how they cheat on the machine. And this is how they cheat on human beings too (even to a greater degree).
But what allows us to think that Robson is now telling another of his lies and not the truth?
It is our own assumption that on two previous occasions he lied. The logic is very simple – if he lied once he will easily lie again, and the person who lied twice, and under so serious circumstances too, cannot be credible in principle.
Imagine a witness who falsely testified on two occasions and now wishes to give another testimony. Will this third testimony hold if the jury knows for sure that he previously lied twice? No, it won’t. Actually a witness like that will probably not be even summoned by the court for fear that he will discredit the whole case.
That is why I can’t even understand what the judge is thinking about and why he seems to be hesitating. If he believes Robson now it means that Robson lied then, and if Robson is a proven liar his suit should have been thrown out the moment it was filed.
However in contrast to Robson’s supporters I am sure that he did NOT lie then and that he is not so big a liar as they think him to be (what a paradox!). For all thirty years until recently he was telling the truth.
He was NOT molested. At least not by Michael Jackson.
Robson’s present supporters will naturally try to fool you by saying that they are ready to close their eyes on his previous testimonies and thirty years of support for Jackson because it is “typical” of child abuse victims not to tell on their offenders until they reach the age of 30 or more.
Not quite so, guys. It is typical of child abuse victims to keep silence about their offenders, never speak about their abuse with anyone, never touch on the subject and – naturally – never talk in the defense of their abusers.
In fact they are the exact opposites of each other.
Those who were abused in their childhood dream of a possibility to rid themselves of the haunting images of the abuse. The abuse is their dark secret lying on them like a gravestone. And the secrecy of it and the feeling of being so terribly different from others and having to forever keep it to themselves is what makes it so much worse for them.
They want to take it off their chest and see their abuser answer for what he did. They want to see him weak, helpless and humiliated – the way they felt during the time of his overwhelming power over them and their silent suffering many years after that.
And the criminal proceedings already taking place against their abuser give them a fantastic chance to speak up and throw this burden off their shoulders. They jump at the chance as it gives them enormous relief after which they can start their life anew. And if the criminal trial is followed by a civil one, they can also get millions to somewhat compensate them for their sufferings.
However Robson wants us to believe that he not only refused to get the secret off his shoulders (when his alleged offender was already on trial), but he also took upon himself the extra burden of lying in favor of his abuser and going against the crowd which expected exactly the opposite of him? And that instead of justice for himself he decided to valiantly defend his alleged abuser in the face of the public, media and prosecution that was examining him really hard?
Besides all of it being extremely illogical and totally contrary to human character and nature of this type of abuse, could anyone also explain to me what for Robson would do it?
For the money that MJ could theoretically pay to him for speaking in his defense? But we have already made our calculations and agreed that he could have got much more money if he had spoken against Michael. This abstract pay-out could have been only minimal considering Michael’s then circumstances, while a civil trial that would have invariably taken place in case of a guilty verdict would have brought him millions as the whole MJ property would have gone on sale.
So whichever way you look at this story (including its craziest details) it still produces the impression of a highly artificial mental construct which has nothing to do with reality. Nothing fits in and the main character cannot even explain why his current version presents his own past actions in so a ridiculous way – lacking any logic, reason and motive.
But if all of us agree that this story is just a theater of the absurd how much longer will people pretend that the story of Robson (and his assistant) has any subject for discussion at all? How long will they be looking for a black cat in a dark room, especially if the cat is not there?
Isn’t it much more worthy to look into why Robson suddenly made his U-turn and why it so conveniently coincided with Katherine Jackson’s civil suit against AEG and a wave of new media disinformation about MJ? This is a much more interesting subject to investigate. At least over here the perspective is promising us all the necessary elements Robson’s story is lacking – the logic, reason and motive for slandering Jackson.
Dear friends, I am very thankful to you for coming to the blog even though I haven’t contributed to it lately. You should believe me that my abandoning it for so long could happen only due to exceptional circumstances. And the circumstances were exceptional indeed.
My country has started a war against a brotherly Ukrainian nation and doesn’t admit it defying all logic and evidence. My fellow citizens have fallen into a delirium, and don’t realize or notice it. The ruling regime breaks every law, but the majority of the population seems to be still in support of it and is ready to endure any hardship, thinking that the ones to blame for all the trouble are – you will never guess who – Americans (of all people).
The regime is tightening its grip over those who disagree and calls them ‘national traitors’ and very soon there will be a time when the ‘patriots’ will be given free hand to do away with those in dissent (the ‘fifth column’). So it seems that for some of us trouble is only starting here.
When the campaign against Ukrainians – some of whom are actually ethnic Russians – only began, it already cost me an accusation by a Russian MJ fan that I want our country to be destroyed by the US (!). I wondered how the US comes into this and whether Americans know that they are allegedly to blame for the whole thing?
I also wondered how a fan of Michael Jackson could be in support of a war. War, aggression and belligerence had nothing in common with a man like Michael whose very essence was peace, love and compassion.
Well, if this delirium goes on being friends with Americans will be a somewhat fishy business. The Russian regime expects its subjects to be anti-American, you know. However the paradox is that it is exactly now that I want to be critical of Americans least of all.
WHEN THE MAJORITY IS WRONG
Now that millions of my compatriots have fallen victim to the absurdest kind of lies I am no longer surprised or resentful that millions of Americans were also led to believe the nastiest lies about Michael Jackson. Previously I could not understand it. Now I do and even know which emotional strings were pulled in people’s hearts to make them turn on an innocent person as an enemy and villain.
Someone extremely cynical skillfully brainwashed and manipulated the public into hatred and ridicule of Michael taking advantage of the best feeling people have – their natural instinct to protect children. This basic protective function of all normal adults was taken advantage of and used as a tool to incite a witch-hunt against an innocent person while real abusers continued to commit crimes against children walking about unnoticed. The devilish organizers of the game simply nominated Michael for the role and cynically directed the public rage against the man who never deserved it.
In the same way our regime nominated Ukranians for the role of ‘fascists’ and raised a tide of noble anger among my compatriots who now sincerely think that our ‘heroic volunteers are liberating the neighboring country from the grips of neo-nazism’. And the majority is really imagining that they are only protecting the innocent. No joking – they really imagine it, and the genuineness of the feeling is where the whole problem is.
But is it possible to channel the fury of millions of people into a direction which is totally false?
Possible and very much so. All it needs is: 1) the idea 2) conductors of the orchestra 3) willing participants (media and others) to play the ‘right’ tune and beat it into people’s heads with a deafening noise. The success of the operation depends on the concerted effort of all players.
So yes, the hatred campaign against Michael Jackson was also an orchestrated effort, because only the unity of action on the part of all players can produce the desired unanimity effect on the targeted audience. Otherwise it won’t work.
Now that the same brainwashing campaign is raging in my country and it took just several months to turn the views of many people into their opposite, I can assert that the key factors to the ‘success’ of the operation is the totality and force of lies. When lies, half-truths and half-lies pour from every media outlet on a daily basis they are able to stamp out the last traces of doubt even if you were initially convinced of something different. As a result public opinion reaches a stage when everyone relies on all others thinking that “all of them can’t be wrong”.
In fact this is one of the favorite arguments of Michael’s haters, as if the opinion of the majority can be equivalent to proof of anyone’s guilt. So what if the majority doubted Michael’s innocence? The only thing it proves is that the majority was successfully led to believe lies about Jackson through an unprecedented campaign of slander, hate and disinformation.
Now we know that lots of allegations against Michael were obvious lies, often unrivaled in their absurdity – look, for example, at Tom Sneddon’s official timeline of Arvizo’s ‘molestation’ which claimed that the abuse took place after Bashir’s documentary with all its innuendoes. Tom Sneddon wanted us to believe that Michael Jackson, in his fear of being accused of child abuse, decided to commit the act right at the time when Neverland was in the center of everyone’s attention, including the media, police, D.A. Sneddon and Department for Family and Children Services? Nothing could be more idiotic and illogical, however it took the court half a year to finally understand the absurdity of the claim.
So the big question is – how does it happen that people start believing obvious lies? How can they fall into a mass delirium over things which are false to the point of being absurd?
Driven by my own motivation (amazement with my compatriots’ gullibility) I looked into the subject and came across a very interesting experiment conducted by an American psychologist in the 1950s among the students of American universities. The experiment provided irrefutable proof that under some circumstances 75% of the population side with a lie, though they know the truth, and their own eyes tell them that what they are saying is wrong.
SOLOMON ASCH’S EXPERIMENT
The text from http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html explains it all:
In 1951 social psychologist Solomon Asch devised an experiment to examine the extent to which pressure from other people could affect one’s perceptions.
He told them he was studying visual perception and that their task was to decide which of the bars on the right was the same length as the one on the left.
As you can see, the task is simple, and the correct answer is obvious.
Asch asked the students to give their answers aloud. He repeated the procedure with 18 sets of bars.
Only one student in each group was a real subject. All the others were confederates (i.e. actors) who had been instructed to give two correct answers and incorrect answers on the remaining ‘staged’ trials.
The first two answers were meant to put the subject of the experiment at ease and the experiment actually started with the third question when the confederates were instructed to give their first wrong answer. This was the beginning of a ‘staged’ trial.
Asch arranged for the real subject to be the next-to-the-last person in each group to announce his answer so that he would hear most of the confederates incorrect responses before giving his own.
Would he go along with the crowd?
To Asch’s surprise, 37 of the 50 subjects conformed themselves to the ‘obviously erroneous’ answers given by the other group members at least once.
So 75% of the subjects of the experiment sided with the majority though the answer they were giving was obviously erroneous. 25% of the subjects stood their ground, answered honestly and disagreed with the rest – but that was only one person out of four.
Asch was disturbed by these results:
“The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct.”
Why did the subjects conform so readily?
When they were interviewed after the experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought “peculiar.”
Some of the subjects indicated afterward that they assumed the rest of the people were correct and that their own perceptions were wrong.
Others knew they were correct but didn’t want to be different from the rest of the group.
Some even insisted they saw the line lengths as the majority claimed to see them.
Asch conducted a revised version of his experiment. When the subjects were permitted to write down their answers after hearing the answers of others, their level of conformity declined to about one third what it had been in the original experiment.
Apparently, people conform for two main reasons: because they want to be liked by the group and because they believe the group is better informed than they are.
The results of the experiment are astounding.
Three-fourths of all people (75%) are ready to support the erroneous opinion even when their own eyes tell them that the answer is wrong.
Incredible as it sounds, but in a situation of social pressure these people prefer not to believe their own eyes but agree with other people instead.
The result is indeed incredible but it does explain why people side with a lie – when everyone around them is of the same opinion, they want to conform, even though the view they support is obviously wrong.
The desire to conform is actually not that bad as it helps the society to maintain peace despite difference of opinion, but when it is done at the expense of the truth, conformity becomes a danger. It allows lies and force to dominate. And those who have access to manipulation of information and a possibility to exert pressure on the public, take advantage of people’s tendency to conform and thus turn themselves into the ones who are always right.
This is how the ‘majority’ can be artificially formed and the beauty of the method is that after people are subjected to massive brainwashing, even those of them who know the truth, voluntarily choose lies – just out of conformity with others. And the organizers of the show can say with a clear conscience that ‘the people decided on their own’.
So in respect of Michael Jackson it is now safe to conclude that the opinion of three-fourths of the population was formed by the unprecedented media lies spread for very many years by all media outlets and it was only the amount, pressure and ferocity of lies that differed depending on the media source.
In very many cases the audience went along with the lies even though their own observations of MJ did not support what they heard from others. Hundreds of people witnessed Michael’s interaction with children and never saw him do anything inappropriate to a child, but they thought that their knowledge was just a separate instance and they ‘didn’t know the whole truth’, so even despite their own positive experience some of them sided with the negative opinion of others.
“I haven’t seen anything myself, but I wasn’t there round-the-clock…” We heard it about Jackson a thousand times and instead of paying attention to the fact that thousands of people never saw anything bad, we were led to believe that their experience was inadequate because just several liars claimed something different and all the media talked about them only.
The impression that other people are ‘better informed’ if they are definite in their answer was actually one of the explanations given by the subjects of Asch’s experiment. Let us recall what other explanations were given by these people in justification of their lies.
EXCUSES FOR SIDING WITH LIES
1) Some said that they were not sure their perception was correct. If it isn’t another of their lies, this answer means that these people are not sure of themselves and even in the easiest of cases will doubt their ability to make correct judgment. In a dispute of two opponents they will side with each concurrently and will stay with the one who has the last say in the dispute. In a situation of choice between truth and lies these people will probably be hopeless.
2) Some honestly admitted that they knew the correct answer but didn’t want to look different or peculiar and were afraid that they would be ridiculed by the majority. These people do know the truth ‘in private’ but will not stand up for it in public. The comfort of being part of the social group is more important to them than the truth. The fact that they are able to give a correct answer in writing (when others don’t see what they say) shows that they side with a lie to save themselves from the embarrassment or fear to look ‘different’. This is a cowardly feature but typical of many of us, alas.
The word ‘peculiar’ for these conformists was surely a decisive factor in the case of Michael Jackson. Most humans don’t want to be regarded as peculiar and Michael did look that way. He turned from black to white, had plastic surgery and his nose raised so many questions that when these people were incited by the media to ridicule Jackson it was easy for them to go over from a relatively neutral word ‘peculiar’ to a totally shameless ‘wacko freak’. After all, if journalists allow themselves so insulting a language in their official papers, why should ordinary conformists check their tongues in private conversations?
Mind you that none of those journalists ever apologized for their language about Jackson, and all of them got away with their lies. And most of them were even rewarded for it. This prompts people to believe that lies are an innocent business and can be freely practiced – a horrible conclusion corrupting many souls.
3) As you also know some of the subjects taking part in Asch’s experiment conformed to the lies as they thought others to be ‘better informed’. Well, how can anyone be better informed about the length of three bars? If it is short it is short, if it is long it is long, and the third is a medium size and that’s it.
But if these conformists hesitated even in an easy case like that, how much more insolvable to them was the situation around Michael? Indeed, so many lies were told about him that to be able to learn some grain of truth one had to be doing individual research on a constant basis for 20 years or so. Of course it was much easier to go with the rest of the crowd and rely on those who were ‘better informed’. And the ‘better informed’ took their information from the media. And the media was mostly represented by characters like Diane Dimond and Nancy Grace – hence the public delirium around Michael as a result of all these factors.
4) But the most amazing finding of Asch’s experiment is that some subjects may be so stubborn that they insist that their answer was correct even when they are told that they were deliberately misinformed and the idea of the whole experiment was to test their ability to resist lies under the pressure of public opinion.
These people are evidently incapable of accepting their mistakes in principle. If they are right, they are right – even when they are wrong. They are probably so proud that when the experiment is over they will still never accept it as fact that they agreed to lie because of their cowardice and fear of rejection by the group. In their pride (or fear to be ridiculed) they will continue to call white black and vice versa even when it becomes completely ridiculous to deny the obvious.
Unfortunately it is exactly this bunch of people who are totally incapable of leaving Michael Jackson alone. No matter what facts of Michael’s innocence will be provided they will better ‘work’ on the facts and twist them inside out rather than admit that they were wrong. Truth is of no significance to these people – their boosted ego (or mental condition) demands that they should always be right, and in reaching this goal they will persist in any kind of lie.
HUMAN NATURE HOPELESS?
When Asch’s experiments continued and were made more elaborate, all of them confirmed the initial results. Now they are considered classic for the study of human conformity. Human nature does not change much and the opinion of different people in every new generation is generally formed along the same lines. Of course these days the requirements for conformity are not so strict as they were in the 1950s and freedom of thought has changed people’s reactions (in neutral situations).
However when we find ourselves under much public pressure or fear it is still difficult for people to decide whether to conform or stand up for the truth – should we support the colleague who speaks out against the boss’s obvious injustice or someone fighting the wrong done by the authorities? Especially when we are afraid that we may suffer for the truth told?
It is obvious that dilemmas like the above arise most often in a social environment with many wrongs (and many lies). Asch’s experiment has proven that when people are pressured by a mass of lies and many start repeating them, even in a situation of no danger for themselves 75% of the public will decide to conform. And when the fear factor also adds to it the number of conformists will invariably increase (incidentally, the number of conformists in my country is currently 85%).
So the higher the pressure is, the fewer are the doubters, and the bigger is the number of conformists, and the higher is the price of telling the truth – which by the way is very much true of the situation around Michael Jackson. The media pressure was enormous and only the staunchest of Michael’s supporters were able to resist. All the rest agreed with the ‘wrong’ answers and fell for the worst of lies, finding comfortable excuses for themselves – like ‘they were not fully informed’, for example.
As a result we have a huge trail of lies following Jackson and the restoration of truth is a very big job, which is also difficult as besides the sheer volume of work not every conformist will be ready to admit that he was wrong (see Asch’s results about it).
But if human nature is so weak and so susceptible to conformity, does truth have any chance to stand up to lies, especially when the pressure of lies is huge? Is there a hope?
It is amazing but Asch’s experiment is giving an answer to this question too.
THE CHANCES OF TRUTH
At some point Asch changed the rules of the experiment and permitted one of the confederates (i.e. actors) in the group to give correct answers to the questions. The correct answer was to be given before the turn of the real subject of the experiment to voice his opinion.
And it was found that this lone correct answer gave the real subjects of the experiment so much encouragement that the number of conformists among them fell by three-fourths. After hearing the truthful version from just one person, three people out of four began to give truthful answers and only one still agreed with the wrong opinion of the majority.
In other words when everyone lies the person feels so much pressure on himself that only the courageous few will stand by the truth, but if at least one person in a group says what he really thinks, the desire of others to conform decreases several times over. So what is extremely difficult for one person becomes much easier for the two of them.
When one other person in the group gave a different answer from the others, and the group answer was not unanimous, conformity dropped. Asch found that even the presence of just one confederate that goes against the majority choice can reduce conformity as much as 80%.
The subjects conformed much less if they had an “ally”. In some of his experiments, Asch instructed one of the confederates to give correct answers. In the presence of this nonconformist, the real subjects conformed only one fourth as much as they did in the original experiment.
There were several reasons: First, the real subject observed that the majority did not ridicule the dissenter for his answers. Second, the dissenter’s answers made the subject more certain that the majority was wrong. Third, the real subject now experienced social pressure from the dissenter as well as from the majority.
Many of the real subjects later reported that they wanted to be like their nonconformist partner (the similarity principle again).
Apparently, it is difficult to be a minority of one but not so difficult to be part of a minority of two.
Asch concluded that it is difficult to maintain that you see something when no one else does. The group pressure implied by the expressed opinion of other people can lead to modification and distortion effectively making you see almost anything.”
What a ‘fine’ conclusion which explains so many strange phenomena.
So if the pressure of lies is big enough, it is able to make people see almost anything. And they will readily conform with any kind of lie. And some of them with even believe that the lie imposed on them was actually true. And some will even insist on it – even when confronted by the real truth.
However the truthful position of just one person can crucially change the whole thing. And start a new chain reaction followed by many other similar chain reactions. And this is where the chances for the truth are.
All of it can be seen in the acted version of the experiment that was done in the 1970s. I highly recommend it – it is an interesting sight.
ASCH’S CONFORMITY EXPERIMENT
A WORD OF SUPPORT FOR TRUTH-SEEKERS
I hope that all of us understand that in a situation when so many people are ready to conform to even the craziest of lies, the voice of every truth-seeker is as precious as gold.
The first of them breaks the wall of lies and makes it much easier for the second, and the two of them are already a big force – they alone are capable to reduce the desire of others to comply with lies by as much as 80%. And every new truth-seeker starts a chain reaction of his own and this is probably how miracles happen.
Asch’s findings also give an exhaustive answer to a question whether it is necessary to speak up for Michael Jackson when we talk to complete liars. Liars will certainly not change their views – they actually have none as they just repeat what they are told, but the arguments of truth-seekers made in a public dispute (private discussion with a liar is a waste of time) will enormously help those who are observing the discussion from aside.
It doesn’t mean that these people will necessarily agree with the truth, but the pressure of lies on them will dramatically decrease and they will be able to at least think on their own.
Can the above study help us in the current situation with con artists like Robson and Safechuck who want to make a billion out of a new slander campaign against MJ? I think it can, as Asch’s research discloses a deep psychological discrepancy in their stories, making them even stranger than they are.
First of all Asch’s study helps us to understand why Robson needs Safechuck at all. Not only does he want to bolster his shaky case, but he also hopes for a chain reaction described above and wants to inspire others to play the role of ‘victims’ (for a good prize). So his search of allies is nothing unusual – without them his case would not stand a single chance, and this is why he hopes to recruit more scoundrels to take part in his enterprise.
What is totally unusual though is the timing of his ‘revelations’. Asch’s experiment on conformity in human behavior would suggest something totally different, and would even help to find the moment when Robson was telling the truth.
WHEN DID ROBSON TELL THE TRUTH?
We know from Asch’s classic study that when there is a wall of silence over the truth and everyone is telling lies, the one who wants to reveal the truth will be under so much pressure that in 75% cases he will not be able to disclose it. And if he is also afraid of having to pay for it in some way, the number of conformists (the ones who will put up with the obvious wrong) may probably increase to 100%.
In other words, in a situation when the victim of abuse has to go against the whole crowd and thinks that no one will believe him, and that he will only suffer more as a result of the revelation, most victims will keep their mouth shut (turning into conformists this way). This is actually what happened to victims of real abusers like Jimmy Savile. All of them were silent as it was easier for them to put up with the injury than overcome their fear and break the wall of social resistance they were facing.
And now imagine that there is no wall of resistance. And your offender is very vulnerable at the moment. He is actually on trial now and exactly on the same charge. The public is outraged and the media and prosecution are looking for every possibility to put the offender behind bars. Almost everyone is dreaming of locking him up for life and is in search of proof of his ‘crimes’ – so your revelations will be met with nothing less than an enthusiastic applause.
In a situation like this, when there is no pressure to keep silence and there is an opposite pressure – to speak up, even if you are the shyest of people you will take the opportunity to bring your offender to justice.
Especially since everyone is already looking at you and encourages you to talk, thinking that you are his victim anyway - whether you admit it or not. In the opinion of many it is an established fact, so it is not use denying and keeping it a secret any more.
Actually from the very start of it the authorities and media were beating into everyone’s heads that the man was a criminal – irrespective of what the future verdict said.
And if you are a real victim, how will you react to this open public invitation?
You will heave a sigh of relief, get the secret off your chest, turn over a new leaf in your life … and fall into the embrace of the grateful public. Every TV channel will aspire to your interview and Hollywood producers will compete for a chance to screen your life story. In your declining years you will write a book on “How you saved the nation from a predator” and at the final hour your name will find its place in the Hall of fame.
This was more or less the atmosphere of the Michael Jackson 2005 trial which made it the ideal time for Robson and Safechuck to speak out against Jackson. Both were grown-up people by then (in their mid-twenties) and if their silence and support for Michael in 1993 could be explained by the public by their young age, this time everyone was really waiting for them to contribute.
Needless to say that both were absolutely in no position of real child abuse victims who only by the age of thirty sometimes manage to summon enough courage to speak against their offenders – prosperous, famous, mighty, highly respectable and never doubted by the public or police.
And Robson didn’t even need to overcome the shame and indecision typical for the real victims as his ‘molestation’ was a matter of open discussion and no one would have been in the least surprised had he confirmed it.
As to Michael, he wasn’t powerful or respected at all. He was utterly humiliated and almost crushed by the two years of non-stop harassment that started after Bashir’s film. The court of public opinion had already sentenced him to be burnt in hell, so now the only thing that remained to be done was the final verdict which at the time was regarded by many as a mere formality.
You will agree that nothing could have been easier for Robson to tell his story then – especially since he says that he always remembered his ‘abuse’ and now insists that any talk of the repressed memory is out of the question.
But what did Robson do in 2005 instead of taking the matter off his chest?
From the point of view of Asch’s conformity studies he did an incredible thing – he went against the tide and testified about Michael’s innocence, getting a wail of disappointment from the public and bringing a lot of criticism upon his head. The public was still incredulous about what he and the other witnesses (Brett Barnes and McCaulay Culkin) said, and all the three were ostracized and made fun of for their friendship with Michael and the slumber parties they had.
Why was there so much ridicule? Because these three guys didn’t conform to people’s expectations. What they actually did was a totally non-conformist action as they voluntarily put themselves in a position of confrontation with the public, media and establishment.
And when now Robson claims that he was ‘coached’ by MJ he wants us to believe that he not only decided to speak for his ‘abuser’, but he also decided to confront the whole world and to his own detriment in the first place? Wasn’t it too much of a sacrifice – and what for???
And remember, when people have real inner conflicts to fight they don’t look so easy and relaxed as Robson did during the trial. If you read his testimony you will see that Robson was able to crack jokes and even express surprise at seeing some adult magazines in Michael’s possession. Genuine surprise, by the way.
Considering all these inner strings of human psychology we can assert in full confidence that if Robson had been a real victim, he would have testified against Jackson in 2005. If he had really had that secret, he would have surely taken the chance to relieve himself of the burden, especially since going with the tide was exceptionally easy and convenient for him at that moment. The establishment, media and crowd would have put him on a pedestal for ‘helping the justice’ and would have turned him into a hero ‘saving the planet from a terrible villain’.
However Robson chose the hardest of roads and told the innocent truth. He behaved like those rare non-conformists unwilling to side with the lie even despite the utmost pressure, and was brave enough to say ‘no’ in the face of the crowd which was prompting him in chorus to say ‘yes’.
Moreover, using the terms of Asch’s experiment, by sticking to the unpopular truth Robson, Barnes and Culkin put themselves in the danger of ‘falling out of the social group’ and looking ‘peculiar’ in the eyes of the majority.
So it was quite a feat on their part. And such a feat is possible only when people are sure of what they say and are ready to part even with all their conformity in order to fight for the truth. And this is a very rare occurrence as you remember.
Even when people have nothing to lose, in a situation of heavy public pressure they usually go along with the majority even though they know that it is wrong. And these three guys had a lot to lose by speaking in support of Jackson, in terms of their reputation, comfort and peace of mind – and nothing to acquire (except the ridicule of disbelieving public).
Imagine yourself in their place and you will understand that only those who were absolutely sure of Michael’s innocence were capable of so non-conformist an action.
This makes the words of support for Michael from Culkin, Barnes and Robson really precious and unique. And true too, because they passed the test of going against the trend and did it at a moment when telling the truth was hard (and telling a lie was easy). If you look for the analogy they behaved like that bespectacled guy in Solomon Asch’s experiment who gave correct answers in all the tests irrespective of what others said, insisting that “he has to call them as he sees them“.
What happened to Wade Robson afterwards is a different story. It is quite possible that he didn’t cope with the consequences of his then decision and could not withstand the repercussions that followed. I don’t know which form these repercussions took, but I do know that the society doesn’t like those who go against the trend because it makes it feel so much inferior to them. Look at the disgraceful way they are still treating McCaulay Culkin and you will realize that the lying majority is envious of the courageous few who are able to stand for the truth, and always looks for a way to sting them.
However even they might one day feel that lies are already becoming a life-threatening phenomenon – too many people see lies as a necessity now and teach others to conform, and this makes the society cynical and corrupt. In moments like these truth becomes an especially precious commodity.
So let us not lose heart and let’s keep going, and hope that one day truth will prevail over lies.
And now that we know that every new truth-seeker is able to start a chain reaction of cleaning the social environment, it does give some encorougement, doesn’t it?
Each of us counts!
Happy New Year, guys.
Dear readers, you didn’t read as much as usual from us on this blog this year, and we want to apologize for it. But before the year ends I would like to find a few words about what happened during the year, what kind of résumé could be drawn from all the events and which impact they have on us, at least from my point of view and also in the name of Helena, who hopefully will be able to come back to us and continue her valuable work.
The world in turmoil
When we look at the situation the world is in, we realize that this was a terrible year in many parts of the planet. We’ve had and still have new wars, new crises and conflicts, much hate and intolerance and inhumanity spread in many countries.
We had another war in Gaza between Israel and the Hamas in which more than 2,200 people were killed within 7 weeks, the vast majority of them Palestinians, and probably more than 500 of them children.
There is the horrible war the ISIS is waging on innocent people, controlling territories in Iraq and Syria, even killing women and children without the slightest qualm, based on a religion they claim to be Islamic, but which is a completely inhuman ideology. – However, it should not be forgotten that this situation was created to a large extent by a war that was brought to Iraq from the West – an unjustified war based on lies following 9/11 that led in its consequence to an outbreak of Islamic extremism in this area.
The Middle East and parts of Africa are burning; the poor people in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries cannot find a moment of peace.
There are re-inflamed racial tensions in the United States resulting from several killings of young black men by white police officers who were never indicted.
There are millions of refugees fleeing from their precarious situations all over the world, immigration problems burden many countries and xenophobia and racism is increasing.
There is a completely underestimated war going on in Eastern Europe between Ukraine and rebels in Eastern Ukraine, who are very obviously supported by Russian troops and military equipment. It was even admitted by a Russian military leader that he was sent to Ukraine to start the war. According to an UNHCR estimation more than 1 million people in Eastern Ukraine had to leave their homes, the number of people killed is not clear, but must be above 2,000 meanwhile, including the noninvolved passengers of a Malaysian Airlines flight. It led to a new crisis between the West and the East and already induced a new cold war. Our own blog is affected by this crisis because Helena was and still is occupied with a disastrous development in her country and even in danger to get disconnected from us.
There are many more political and economic problems in the world as well as many threatening natural disasters due to climate change and global warming, which mankind is not able or willing to turn around. Let’s not forget the Ebola crisis with more than 6,000 victims so far that caused fear and insecurity not only in Africa.
We have many fundamentalist, ultranational, racist, extreme groups who try to manipulate and force dissenters or just regular people to live according to their views, or who feel they have the right to oppress others. We have criminal corrupt systems and state violence like in Mexico where a long series of murders recently peaked in the sudden disappearance of 43 students who seem to be killed by drug gangs in cooperation with police.
To me it sometimes seems that in many places our progress in civilization, democracy, tolerance, empathy and understanding is getting lost and we are straight on our way back to the Middle Ages. The year 2014 definitely brought us a big step backwards.
MJ legacy under fire
In addition, in the MJ world we learned this year that nothing can stop some people from continuing to drag a good soul through the mud even after his death.
We had the questionable, untruthful autopsy program aired in the first days of January in Great Britain and repeatedly shown since on several TV channels.
We saw the despicable actions of Conrad Murray, like his interview with CNN on the fifth anniversary of Michael’s death.
The Robson and Safechuck cases are still pending. We have seen several court documents which show that the accusers go to extremes to manifest their intentions, even to the point of absurdity. Some allegations are so implausible that I wonder who they expect to believe them. Do they really want to make us believe that the violent sexual acts they describe (like anal rape) would not be recognized by a young boy as abuse, as a crime – a crime that inevitably leads to immediate physical and psychological injuries at this age? Injuries that a mother had to have noticed. A crime that is so painful and humiliating for a child that it would never be able to take it as an act of love and would avoid any further situation of being alone with this guy again, let alone taking his own family later to this guy’s house for a barbecue. And don’t forget, Robson denied that it is repressed memory, he said he didn’t forget it, but just didn’t perceive it as abuse because he was brainwashed.
This sounds so ridiculous that I doubt the common sense of any judge in the US if this case goes forward.
We also had new defaming articles written by Stacy Brown who uses any chance to spread lies about Michael Jackson and the Jackson family and who seems to have pleasure in wallowing in his own dirt he creates about people he obviously is obsessed with. His style and his attitude so blatantly show that his intention is not to inform, but to slander, that he is no person of integrity and should not write in any newspaper. Tabloid style of the worst kind!
The same obsession we saw again with Diane Dimond who used Tom Sneddon’s death to remind everybody of her friendship (and cooperation) with the DA, whom she called on her FB site “a man of integrity”, claiming Sneddon “had the courage to do the right thing even though law enforcement knew for years about Mr. Jackson and his misbehavior with young boys.” With this she publicly stated the allegations again as fact, although Jackson was acquitted of all charges. This is nothing else but character assassination. She also calls it “a testament to the facts” that “five young men have now come forward to claim they were molested at the hands of Michael Jackson when they were young boys. Five. Five. I’m betting there are more.”
(Oh my God, what an overwhelming number compared to real child molesters – and not fictional ones like MJ.)
This way she construes her own reality which doesn’t include that three of these five young men were refuted in court long ago (Jordan Chandler, who never wanted to be a witness and refused to present any accusations to the court; Gavin Arvizo, who was caught in lies in court and showed himself to be much more angry at Michael for avoiding him than about any “molestation”; and Jason Francia, who only talked about “tickling” and was laughed out of the courtroom because he couldn’t be taken seriously).
And the other two (new) accusers – Robson and Safechuck – denied molestation for years and now changed their mind after the “molester” is dead and left an Estate worth billions of dollars behind. They have not yet proven their case (and will not be able to), and still Dimond calls their accusations “fact”. So she gives them the benefit of the doubt she never gave to Michael Jackson? This makes her a highly immoral, biased person who doesn’t care for civil and human rights, at least not in the case of Michael Jackson.
She also calls MJ’s supporters “childish and ill-informed”, only to distract from her own twisted reality and disinformation.
This shows again how tabloid journalists try to manipulate public opinion and use their position for personal agendas.
For this reason, I now want to remind everybody that Diane Dimond clearly has no interest to pursue real pedophiles (where is her investigation of Rodney Allen or her decrial of all the other convicted or suspected pedophiles?) and even cooperated with a suspected pedophile – Victor Gutierrez – , who has a connection to NAMBLA and of whom she doesn’t want to hear today (if you mention him as her collaborator you are blocked). This again makes her a highly immoral person.
You can find a lot of information about all of this on this blog.
To remind you, please also see this link about the connection between Sneddon, Dimond, Gutierrez and Allen.
We also saw how the usual haters tried to strengthen their forces to support Robson and Safechuck and to destroy Jackson’s legacy and undermine the success of the MJ Estate.
I want to recommend again Raven’s series of posts on the Allforlove Blog on the actions of these haters and how all of them are connected: Part 1, part 2, part 3.
MJ legacy on the advance
But I don’t want to dwell on all this negativity, instead I wish to point to some positive events and developments which show us that MJ’s legacy is not really in danger on a worldwide basis.
The good thing is that all of this could not damage Michael Jackson’s posthumous success.
We had some positive events and publications about Michael this year and it turned out that all the mean efforts of his few haters didn’t influence the general public or find much attention in the mainstream media.
The Immortal World Tour of Cirque du Soleil was a major success. With 501 shows in 27 countries it became the 7th highest grossing tour of all time. It ended in August in the US.
In May we saw the release of “Xscape”. Whether you liked the album or not, it was quite a success and became number 1 in 52 countries.
Of course, like with all posthumous releases of MJ, the fan base was divided about it, and other controversies followed, like the Hologram controversy and the sale of Neverland controversy.
But this was primarily within the fan base, the general public saw Michael Jackson mostly as number 1 of the top earning dead celebrities (according to Forbes) with one of the most successful Estates.
This year also brought us a couple of positive new books about Michael that again divided the fan base, but I think the fans should more often see such books from the public’s point of view. In my opinion all of them contributed to a better understanding of Michael and his life. Even if we have to assume that they are mainly read by fans, there is a possibility that more people learn more about MJ and may change their mind.
“Michael Jackson Inc.” by Zack O’Malley contributed to the fact that MJ was a savvy and farsighted businessman who was in charge of his work, a musical genius who reached his success and wealth by talent, cleverness, endurance, discipline and hard work for decades.
“Remember the Time” by B. Whitfield and J. Beard presented Michael as a human being, a great father and a man interested in women. It contributed to the fact that the trial of 2005 brought him into a terrible situation with all its consequences of financial, social and psychological troubles. From this book we can see how Michael tried to keep his empire together to make a new start, but lost overview and influence on his own assets as a result of this trial and ended in the hands of a ruthless company like AEG who used this situation for themselves.
In addition, the co-author of the book, Tanner Colby, wrote a great article here.
“Michael Jackson’s Dangerous” by Dr. Susan Fast contributed to the fact that MJ was an intelligent and “incredibly versatile” artist who had a lot to say, but was very misunderstood and had to fight against prejudice and a white-dominated entertainment industry that undervalued his genius and at the same time saw him as a threat.
“Otherness and Power: Michael Jackson and His Media Critics” by Susan Woodward contributed to the fact that Michael was regarded too powerful by his critics and so was portrayed as a threat to the world. Woodward describes how media critics reacted to the perceived power and otherness of MJ and what they are projecting onto him.
A quote from her recent conversation on “Dancing with the elephant”:
“[…] let me just note that none of the writers that I analyzed in my book were tabloid writers. It’s shocking that so much hatred was spewed at him from people who write as if they were offering good reporting and thoughtful analysis. And it is disappointing that so much of the public accepted lies and distortions as the truth.”
(The latter two books I have not yet read, but read reviews on them.)
Michael Jackson ONE, which premiered in Las Vegas on June 29, 2013, became “the latest piece of a postmortem empire”, as Zack O’Malley called it. A Las Vegas show like that can become a lucrative permanent source of income for the Estate for years and provide Michael’s children a secure future.
I know there are different opinions about all of these Estate efforts among Michael’s supporters and some steps might be in fact disputable, but it is a clear fact that the efforts of Michael’s detractors since his death could not really damage his legacy and the financial success of his Estate, which is probably their intention. They try hard to ruin the Estate, and the Robson/Safechuck case is a real challenge for the Estate, so I support the petition to hire Tom Mesereau and Susan Yu in case it goes forward, but what is obvious is that the general public is not following these cases much. On the contrary, we can read many comments that show that the public is tired of these accusations, which are always only allegations and never proven and illogical at that. Simply allegations of the same kind as those of several women who claimed he had fathered their children. People now respect Michael more than 10 years ago and rather want to have good memories of him than hear all this new garbage. They are no longer interested in it.
Michael is celebrated and honored in school events, sports events, music events, dance events, casting shows, symposia, in university studies, cultural studies, academic publications. As we can see from many YT videos, he still inspires kids and young people, and even CEOs like this one.
Just have a look here on Joe Vogel’s list of Michael Jackson studies.
So there is one thing at least that struck me as a positive outcome of this year: I very strongly could ascertain for myself that Michael Jackson’s legacy will survive all the malicious attempts of his haters to damage it. I always feared it could take decades to be sure of it, but you already can see it now. It became clear that the group of haters is small, they may be well-organized and use the effective methods of propaganda, but they don’t reach the influence they wish to have. They should learn the lesson that hate does not pay off.
This does not mean that we can stop our vindication work and our efforts to inform and tell the truth. We hope to be able to continue writing on this blog whenever it is necessary to respond to lies, half-truths, vilifications and misrepresentations about Michael.
What can we learn otherwise from this year?
The condition of the world shows us that it is more than ever in need of the messages of an artist and human being like Michael Jackson. This means, of extraordinary people – visionaries – who are able to approach the world’s problems and conflicts and misunderstandings with a completely different attitude than it is usually the case in politics, economics and society. With an attitude that is composed of honesty, sincerity, empathy, love and understanding, but also courage to speak the truth.
It seems people begin to realize Michael’s significance.
During the recent protests in the US, after Grand Juries declined to indict white police officers for killing unarmed black men, we could see how people began to remember Michael’s messages. Several articles appeared that talked about Michael Jackson’s songs and their relevance to the current situation.
In an article published in the Baltimore Sun, in which he laments the inactivity of black celebrities, D. B. Anderson wrote:
“Michael Jackson was never afraid to put himself out there for the truth as he saw it. We could always count on Jackson to be the global leader of the band, to give voice to everything we were feeling. His adult catalog is a trove of social activism. Starvation. AIDS. War. Gang violence. Race relations. The environment. It was Jackson who put on concerts for war-torn Sarajevo. It was Jackson who put together a group charity song and concert after 9/11. It was Jackson who used every ounce of his global celebrity to make a difference. He was there.
What happened to Jackson for his politics was so much worse than losing sales. For in speaking truth to power, Jackson made himself a target, and he took a pounding. The worst shots at him were taken by a white district attorney in California who pursued him relentlessly for 12 years and charged him with heinous crimes that were utterly disproved at trial.
No one ever seems to connect the dots: A very vocal, very influential, very wealthy black man was taken down by a white prosecutor on trumped-up charges.”
It is amazing that this was allowed to be published in a major US newspaper.
In an article on “Parents United for Public Education” a mother talks about her 9 year old son’s favorite song “They don’t care about us” and the meaning of its lyrics today and says:
“My son will never look at ‘Michael Jackson: The Experience’ the same again. He will be reminded every time he hears the song about our conversation in the kitchen. He will be reminded of his fear of the “they.” He will be reminded of the images that he continues to see play on the television screen. He will come to understand that the lyrics were written to be heard not just danced to.”
In his article “What needs to happen after Eric Garner” Mike Muse analyses the situation on the basis of MJ’s “Black or White”.
D.B. Anderson closes his article in the Baltimore Sun with the words:
“On Twitter, #TheyDontCareAboutUs is a hashtag. In Ferguson, they blasted the Michael Jackson song through car windows. In New York City and Berkeley last weekend, it was sung and performed by protesters. And In Baltimore, there was a magical moment when the Morgan State University choir answered protests with a rendition of Jackson’s ‘Heal The World.’
The price has already been paid, but the check was never cashed. Maybe we just need to finally listen to Michael Jackson.”
Yes, we finally should listen to Michael Jackson, not only in the US, but all over the world.
As most of the conflicts worldwide are based on lies and propaganda, we first need to evaluate the reality honestly, find out the truth and expose the lies. When the lies are exposed, most of the reasons for the conflicts are removed. People would realize that they were angry at their alleged adversaries for wrong reasons, and a mutual understanding could begin. By studying Michael’s life we already learned how the system of lies works, and the same happens in politics and conflicts between nations and religions.
I know we can’t change the whole world and we can’t change people who have no interest in this mutual understanding and just care about their own benefit. But we ourselves, who wish to make a difference, can make our contribution and do our part so that the world despite all the terror is still a world worth living in. We can do that in our own small environment and we can do it in the worldwide web with its great chances to make our voices heard.
We need to establish a balance to the actions of those who spread negativity and falsehood, and we shouldn’t stop. Michael is gone and other greats are gone who had visions for a better world, so we have to take over and become the visionaries inspired by them.
I now wish everybody a Merry Christmas and – despite all pessimistic prospects – a better year 2015. I wish it especially for our Helena who urgently needs our encouragement that better times will come back and human rights, truth and democracy will be re-established. Let’s simply visualize it, even if it might take years.
I also wish it for our African-American brothers and sisters in the US who are still defending their equal rights against white predominance. And of course I wish it for all nations, groups and religions that are oppressed and persecuted. So let’s pray for peace on earth particularly at this Christmas 2014.
Peace – Friede – paix – paz – світ – мир – שלום – سلام