What does the AEG trial have to do with Wade Robson and Blanca Francia?

On May 8 a phenomenal thing happened at the AEG trial. Alif Sankey, the co-producer of the This is it show was giving her testimony and one of her statements came as an answer to the shock of Wade Robson’s accusations which were raging all over the tabloid press the same day. 

She mentioned Michael saying that he heard God speaking to him and those words were so disturbing and were evidently said in such a way that she and Kenny Ortega cried after hearing that: 

Michael Jackson: ‘God keeps talking to me’
By Alan Duke CNN
May 08 2013

… Michael Jackson told his tour director days before he died he was hearing God’s voice, a producer testified Wednesday.
“God keeps talking to me,”Jackson said.
Those words spoken to Kenny Ortega and Jackson’s frail appearance were so disturbing that it caused Ortega and associate producer Alif Sankey to burst into tears at a rehearsal.
Sankey testified that she and Ortega cried together after Jackson left. On her way home, Sankey stopped her car to call Ortega “because I had a very strong feeling that Michael was dying.”

http://www.clickondetroit.com/entertainment/Michael-Jackson-God-keeps-talking-to-me/-/1718940/20068188/-/view/print/-/aqarjl/-/index.html

In fact Michael said that he could not understand why God was talking to him, so his words were devoid of any exaltation or elation on his part:

Jackson believed God was talking to him, producer testifies

By Corina Knoll and Jeff Gottlieb

May 8, 2013, 

Michael Jackson’s behavior and gaunt figure were so troublesome to a producer that she told the director of the “This Is It” concert series that she believed the singer was dying and should be immediately taken to a hospital.

Alif Sankey also testified Wednesday that the director for the concerts told her Jackson believed God was talking with him.

Sankey recalled that on her way home from rehearsal one night, she pulled her car over and called Kenny Ortega, who was directing what was to be Jackson’s comeback tour. It was only days before Jackson’s first concert was to take place.

 “I said, ‘He needs to be put in the hospital now,’ ” Sankey said. “He kept listening to me because I kept going. I kept saying, ‘Michael’s dying, he’s dying.’”

Sankey, who was emotional and paused during her testimony, said she begged Ortega to do something.

“Please, please. I kept saying that. I asked him, ‘Why is no one seeing what I’m seeing?’ ”

Sankey testified that the previous night, Jackson had been at rehearsal for a costume fitting but was sent home because he “was not looking good or feeling good.”

Afterward, Sankey said that Ortega was worried about Jackson, who mentioned God was speaking to him. Both became emotional after discussing their concern for Jackson.

“[Michael] didn’t understand why God was speaking to him. We were both crying. We were crying because he seemed — he was not speaking normally to Kenny.”

A few Jackson fans in the courtroom sniffled throughout Sankey’s testimony.

The civil suit was filed by Jackson’s family who allege that concert promoter AEG was responsible for hiring and controlling Dr. Conrad Murray, who administered the fatal dose of propofol to Jackson in 2009.

Sankey said after being copied on an email from an AEG executive about Murray that she had believed the doctor was paid by AEG.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-jackson-god-20130508,0,5711980.story

So Michael said he didn’t understand why God was speaking to him…….

At that moment of immense trouble over Wade Robson’s sudden claims this news from the AEG trial immediately set my mind at peace. Who else but Him could arrange things in such a miraculous way that exactly at the time when so much dirt was streaming from every tabloid we suddenly heard a word from a producer about God speaking to Michael and him being incredulous that he was hearing him? 

With so much craziness around Robson now  it is like hearing a calm and peaceful voice which says to all of us – stay quiet. They are doing their best to distract attention from themselves. They want you to get stuck in all this dirt while the real truth is here, at this trial which will be neglected if you stray and don’t pay attention. This is actually the sole purpose of it all and what they want most.

They have thrown a huge stink bomb into the crowd and are making us terribly busy with it. I myself spent full several days looking through the dirty news and rereading all those testimonies, and I am really sorry that I lost so much valuable time and now have to catch up with the news from the trial.

However since Wade Robson’s and Blanca Francia’s testimonies were re-examined I still need to turn them into a post just to remind you of what Robson and Francia said in 2005 adding a couple of my thoughts on the way. 

But this will be it. The AEG trial is going on and it is the main thing we need to focus our attention on without any further distraction. It is there that the truth is being told and since they so terribly don’t want us to hear it, it is all the more reason to go there and listen to it.  

WADE ROBSON’S CLAIMS

For some reason I never liked the expression of his face

Wade Robson’s “molestation” story came as a big shock but on the other hand there was also a feeling that something of the kind could be on the way.

Since the AEG trial started they have already thrown the first few heavy stones into Michael Jackson, and even warned us that the trial would be about “ugly stuff”, so we could expect much dirt and and it was only the extent to which they were ready to go that we didn’t know of.

Now we realize that they can go really far. What was done to Wade Robson and how much money already exchanged hands we can only guess at but by the way his story is developing it looks like Robson is indeed …hmm….doing a big favor to the party opposing the Jacksons family.

The timing is telling it all. Wade Robson waited for full eight years after he testified at the 2005 trial and suddenly broke his claim for money to the Estate when all time limits for making any claims had already expired and did it just a couple of days after the first testimonies in court (the first witnesses in the AEG case testified on April 29 and Robson’s lawyers filed their claim on May 1).

To say that it is suspicious is to say nothing at all – the timing is blatantly clear and transparent. The idea of it was to make a preemtory nuclear attack against those who had the gall to raise their feeble voices against a powerful corporation, ask them questions and make them answer some of these questions in court.

The lawyers for the Estate as well as Thomas Mesereau, Michael’s attorney at the 2005 trial, had the following to say about Wade Robson’s “case”:

Wade Robson SLAMMED By Michael Jackson Attorneys Over Molestation Claims

by Free Britney at May 8, 2013 9:35 am.  Updated at May 8, 2013 9:38 am.

Wade Robson is blatantly lying in claiming Michael Jackson molested him as a child, according to past and present attorneys for the late King of Pop.

Robson, a 30-year-old choreographer, knew Jackson well as a young boy, and says in a just-filed legal claim that the King of Pop sexually abused him.

In response, Howard Weitzman, the attorney for Jackson’s estate, hit back hard, telling TMZ that “Mr. Robson’s claim is outrageous and pathetic.”

“This is a young man who has testified at least twice under oath and said in numerous interviews that Michael never did anything inappropriate to him or with him.”

Wade Robson did in fact testify in Jackson’s 2005 molestation trial that Michael did not abuse him. The singer was famously acquitted of all charges.

“Only now, nearly four years after Michael has passed away, this sad and less than credible claim has been made,” Weitzman added, incredulously.

“We are confident that the court will see this for what it is.”

Wade is asking a judge for the green light to seek compensation from Jackson’s estate, even though the time frame for filing such grievances has expired.

Sources say Robson is claiming he suffered from “repressed memory” and that’s why he didn’t file his creditor’s claim against the estate on time.

Tom Mesereau, the attorney who successfully defended MJ in the 2005 trial, also criticized Robson, saying such a belated claim “must be just about money.”

Mesereau says Robson was strong and unwavering in his testimony that Jackson never touched him, and never cracked during intense cross-examination.

Robson admitted he slept in Michael’s bed as a child, when he was a frequent Neverland Ranch guest from age 7-14. However, he defended the singer.

Michael was affectionate and would often kiss him on the cheek, Wade said, but never touched him in a sexual manner or behaved suggestively.

In fact, while Robson was on the stand describing this, he passionately told the court more than once, “I’m telling you that nothing ever happened.”

Mesereau reiterated, “Michael never touched Robson inappropriately in any way” and scoffed at the notion that he suffers from any repressed memory.

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2013/05/wade-robson-slammed-by-michael-jackson-attorneys-over-child-mole/

In fact Thomas Mesereau used even some stronger expressions:

MJ MOLESTATION LAWYER
AEG Might Be Behind
New Molestation Claims

“AEG might be behind new molestation claims” Thomas Mesereau calls TMZ

Tom called in to “TMZ Live” moments ago, claiming the timing of Wade’s accusations is extremely suspicious — considering the legal battle currently raging between Katherine and AEG … the concert promoters behind MJ’s 2009 “This Is It Tour.”

Katherine and Michael’s children are suing AEG, claiming the company is responsible for MJ’s death by negligently hiring Conrad Murray to care for the singer … and potentially BILLIONS of dollars are at stake.

Mesereau insinuates Wade’s accusations are motivated by money … specifically a payoff from AEG, which is currently on a mission to trash Michael’s reputation.

We reached out to AEG for comment — so far no word back.

http://www.tmz.com/2013/05/08/michael-jackson-wade-robson-aeg-tom-mesereau-katherine-jackson/

The AEG lawyers sort of feigned surprise that Robson’s allegations are tied to their case. Indeed what can they have in common?

What I found very interesting is that on the one hand Robson wanted the documents sealed, but on the other hand his lawyer Gradstein suddenly started going about spreading horrendous rumors about Michael. He called him a “monster” and said that every “normal person” knows that this is the case. This is not the way respectable lawyers behave even if they have to speak for their clients. Generally such loud statements require proof and lawyers usually keep themselves within civil limits and even adhere to the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” unless the opposite is proven.  

On Michael Jackson Podcast where Thomas Mesereau gave a 40 minutes long interview to the “Positively Michael” team  http://www.blubrry.com/positivelymichael/1753102/michael-jackson-podcast-by-positivelymichael-tom-mesereau-interview-about-wade-robson-claims/ and said that Robson’s lawyer made a “ridiculous” statement.

No matter how “sure” this lawyer is of his case, I personally will believe nothing but the photographs (if they have them) as after so many years of allegations against Michael Jackson and their research all other “proof” can be taken from the Internet now, up to the most intimate details unfortunately – so no more stories or fake descriptions, please.

In the Positively Michael interview Thomas Mesereau once again emphasized that the time for filing a creditor’s note had expired so the judge may very well refuse Robson to proceed. Mesereau says that the Estate has tremendous evidence to defeat the case and this evidence includes Robson’s depositions in 1994 and his adamant testimony at the 2005 trial, as well as his numerous public statements.

In this article Thomas Mesereau also notes that the case will most probably go nowhere:

The details of the new allegation are sealed by the Los Angeles probate court where Robson’s lawyer filed the claim last week, according to a court document obtained Tuesday by CNN. The deadline has long passed for creditors to file claims against Jackson’s estate, but Robson is asking the probate court to allow him to file a late creditor’s claim. The sealed documents include an affidavit from Dr. David Arrendondo, a San Francisco-based child psychiatrist, the filing said.

“It’s absurd,” Tom Mesereau told CNN Tuesday. “He was one of the strongest witnesses for the defense at Michael Jackson’s criminal trial in 2005. He was adamant under oath that he had never been molested at any time. He withstood very aggressive cross-examination by the prosecutor. He stood his ground and never wavered in saying Michael Jackson had done absolutely nothing improper to him.”

In fact, while Robson was on the stand he passionately told the court:

“I’m telling you that nothing ever happened.”

Mesereau said Robson was strong and unwavering in his testimony – adamant that Michael Jackson never touched him.

Mesereau added that it was “suspicious timing” for the claim to be filed at the start of the trial of the Michael Jackson wrongful death case, in which Jackson’s mother and children are suing concert promoter AEG Live for a lot of money. He thinks such a belated claim “must be just about money”. And Mesereau scoffs at any notion that Robson suffered from repressed memory and is only coming forward now.

Back in 2005 Joy Robson, the mother of Wade Robson, testified when called as a prosecution witness.

“I’ve known Michael for a long time. I’ve spent many hours talking to him about everything. I trust him. I trust him with my children.”

A spokesman for the Jackson estate said the executors may issue a statement later.

Source: MJFC / CNN / TMZ http://www.mjfanclub.net/home/index.php?view=article&catid=85%3Alatest-news&id=5962%3Amesereau-comments-on-robson-changing-his-story&tmpl=component&layout=default&page=&option=com_content&Itemid=82

So the evidence against Robson’s current statements is ample and the claim practically has no chance – but if there is little chance to win the case what is the point of filing any creditor’s claim at all then?

My understanding of it is that winning it is probably absolutely not the purpose of this horrendous campaign. Its main idea from the start of it was most probably to hit and run leaving a long and dirty trail of innuendoes behind it.

The goal is to trash Jackson’s name, guarantee to the public an ugly spectacle for all the time while AEG is on trial, distract people’s attention from the truth being  told there, set the public and the jury against Jackson and – of course – force everyone into thinking that if he was indeed a “child molester” no matter how terribly AEG treated him it only served him right and the corporation actually did us a big favor by ridding the world of this man. The task will be accomplished.

But if this is a big favor done to AEG then it most probably means that some money has already exchanged hands. People seldom go for hopeless projects unless they know that it will repay them in some way, so I will not be surprised  if Robson received or was promised a generous present for keeping attention away from the AEG trial. The word for the phenomenon is bribery and this bribery may be blatant or stealthy – both in the form of money, big money or very big money, or  in the form of lucrative contracts, new interesting projects, promise of a great job and rejuvenating his career.

Think whatever you like of me but if I were in the place of Michael Jackson’s fans I would follow Wade Robson’s spending habits now. His situation prior to the scandal was already known to us – Robson was broke and going through a messy divorce, so if he suddenly buys a yacht we will immediately know when, why and what kind of a wonderful fairy made him the generous present.

In fact the family has already started talking about the “substantial savings” he has though they admit he is not making any money now and there were lots of reports that he failed several jobs:

As for his motivation … Robson family sources tell TMZ … although he’s not making any money, he has “substantial savings.”
http://www.tmz.com/2013/05/09/wade-robson-nervous-breakdown-triggered-molestation-memories-michael-jackson-child-sexual-abuse-lawsuit-choreographer/#ixzz2Snu4v7oK 

Why do I consider Robson’s case a horrendous LIE? Because claiming that he had “repressed memories” for 20 years does not only go against everything we know about science and psychology but it is simply complete crap which may pass solely in some comedy or horror movies. If we resort to Robson’s own lawyer’s terminology no normal person will ever believe that someone can forget of “molestation” while he has been constantly talking about its total absence for the past 20 years. 

“REPRESSED MEMORIES”

If you want to know how this type of “evidence” is obtained by some “therapists” or, to be more exact, is actually implanted into people’s minds, please look up this source:  http://innocencelegalteam.com/criminal-accusations/molestation/false-memory-syndrome-2/#

You will learn that the process goes through several stages and is very much like brainwashing, controlling people’s minds and manipulating them into a zombie-like state.

It isn’t that the repressed memories are totally impossible – no they are, but in absolutely different cases. This may be the case of very small children who didn’t understand what was being done to them by criminal adults (they realize it only when they understand what’s what when they are grown-ups themselves) or it may be the case when children were assaulted and their brain dulled the shock of it by blocking the painful memories and this way helped them to survive. But what Robson is saying is complete crap.

The theory of repressed memories simply cannot apply to someone who constantly volunteered information about Michael’s innocence, gave depositions and testimonies under oath and even underwent the harshest possible cross-examination at the 2005 trial.

Over there Robson actually not only refuted all the accusations but was unwavering, confident, relaxed and even funny when he made a joke when leafing through adult magazines, “I never thought I’d have a room of people watching me do this”. This type of behavior is not typical of the guy “intimidated” into giving evidence in favor of someone or doing it for money for the person he is speaking up for.

If you reread Robson’s testimony at the trial you will indeed be impressed. He was forthright, adamant and insisting and this is indeed the way people speak the truth. This type of manner is also typical of a confident man whose career is flourishing (at the time when Michael’s absolutely wasn’t) and pointing to someone who is actually the master of the situation and absolutely no slave to it.

However later Robson’s fortunes changed, he experienced several setbacks and was reduced to a state when the only job he had was for the Cirque du Soleil Michael Jackson show which I hear he also lost. He spoke about that project in 2011 and looked decidedly different from his previous former self. Though he did mention his 20 years of friendship with Michael this time his words sounded reserved and not quite sincere. 

Does it mean anything bad for MJ? No, absolutely not. All it means is that Robson grew nervous, uncomfortable, began experiencing problems, envying Michael’s fame and money, and already in 2011 was most probably already making plans to extort the Estate for money which he so badly needed.

In short the sight of him speaking about Michael in 2011 is actually a picture of him lying about his true attitude to Michael.

But if this is how he looks when he knows that he is harboring ill intentions towards Michael and is actually lying, it means that back in 2005 when his manner was totally different – confident, adamant and even slightly arrogant or condescending – he was telling the truth and did not have a single doubt of what he was saying.

If he had lied then he would have looked exactly like he is looking now – in this video of July 2011 (see below). The opening of the video shows him nervous and unsure of himself, the end is all about Cirque du Soleil job being his only hope now, and at 2:50 you see his strained looks when he is talking about MJ.

Why strained? Because he already knows what he is going to do quite soon and is already feeling uncomfortable about it, or is probably feeling sort of resentment towards his former mentor (people generally tend to blame others for their own problems in life): 

Thomas Mesereau was right when he said to “Positively Michael” that at the 2005 trial that Robson was telling the truth. Robson’s confident manner at the trial is the best proof of it. Now his confidence is gone but the amnesia version is absolutely no explanation for it. The real reason is that he is broke, unsure of himself, envious of Michael’s posthmous success and is resentful of the fact that Michael’s estate is on a sure road to full recovery while he is not. His personal life also crashed and moments like these are not easy for any of us either.

DOES THE GOOD PAY?

Robson may also be tired of the stigma he had to carry his whole life due to a mere friendship with Michael. Though Michael did him no harm for Robson all this talk about various allegations is still a big sore point. His whole life – same as the life of other Michael’s friends – was indeed ruined by the accusations thrown at Michael and left their ruthless stigma on their careers and ugly scars on their souls.

It was none of Michael’s doing but the damage is still there, only it was inflicted not by Michael, but the media, prosecution and the public. What looked like a fairy-tale when they were children turned into a lifelong horror story with a trail of mockery following them throughout their whole life. No matter where they go everyone points a finger at them – “Here goes another of Michael Jackson’s boys”.

I am sorry but even in the face of the current Robson/MJ tragedy I can’t help sympathizing with Michael’s younger friends. His misfortunes turned into their misfortunes, and despite all the good Michael was teaching them their own personal experience taught them that good and honesty do not pay. It is dishonesty and wickedness which make you rich, successful and carefree. It is lies and foul play which are expected of you and applauded to, leaving you with pockets full of millions and no need to work for the rest of your life as the example of Jordan Chandler shows it.

And the Arvizos’ case is no different. They cooperated with the authorities, told convenient lies and see how well they are taken care of now – the prosecutors whose job is to stand on the guard of law and the media whose job is to keep people informed are absolutely not minding their own business but are taking care of the former accusers as if they were their own children. They support and help them, proudly speak of their success and are the accusers’ best friends though technically these people were proven in court to be liars and con artists and do not deserve even a fraction of the all the attention and support they are receiving now.

Is this justice? 

I am abhorred by what Wade Robson is doing now but am also perfectly aware of why this is happening. He and the others were indeed living under too much strain of all this injustice and I am every much surprised that these boys did not go insane much much earlier. This is what is probably happening to Robson now and in the place of the Estate I would send him to a good sanatorium for several months to recover. However the Estate may disagree and probably think that suing Robson for slander will be more effective. 

Indeed, no matter what hard circumstances people find themselves in they still have a choice between the truth and its opposite. And everything in our life depends on the choices we make. It seems that Wade Robson has made his and now the terrible lie told will forever after determine his fate.

WADE ROBSON’S TESTIMONY AT THE 2005 TRIAL

As Thomas Mesereau said Wade Robson’s testimony was one of the strongest at the trial, and after rereading it I fully agree with Mesereau. Robson refuted every single prosecutor’s attack with the ease and calmness which come only with the truth.  Here are the highlights of Robson’s testimony, so if now he says something different you will know where he is lying:

ZONEN: 18 Q. Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever molest

19 you at any time?

20 A. Absolutely not.

21 Q. Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever touch

22 you in a sexual way?

23 A. Never, no.

24 Q. Mr. Robson, has Mr. Jackson ever

25 inappropriately touched any part of your body at any

26 time?

27 A. No 

He stayed in Michael’s room approximately 15-20 times including times when Michael was not there. When he was they spent their time the way teenagers do it:

3 A. Yeah. We’d watch — same thing. We’d watch

4 movies, we’d play video games, you know, we’d have a

5 pillow fight every now and then. We’d talk. Hang

6 out.

7 Q. How many times do you think you’ve stayed in

8 Mr. Jackson’s room at Neverland?

9 A. Same amount of times as I’ve been there.

10 Well, no, that’s not true, I’m sorry. I’ve been

11 there a bunch of times without Michael, just with

12 other friends and family traveling there. But, I

13 don’t know, maybe 15 to 20.

14 Q. And at no time has any sexual contact ever

15 occurred between you and Mr. Jackson, right?

16 A. Never.

17 Q. Have you ever taken a shower with Mr.

18 Jackson?

19 A. No.

So he NEVER took a shower with Michael Jackson, and let us make a mental note of it. He and his sister went into Jacuzzi with MJ but MJ was wearing swimming shorts. Zonen again raises the shower point but Robson is unperturbed and does not allow him to lead him astray:

3 Q. Do you recall what Mr. Jackson was wearing

4 in the Jacuzzi?

5 A. From my recollection, he was wearing shorts.

6 You know, like swimming shorts. And that was it.

7 Q. Did anything inappropriate ever happen in

8 that Jacuzzi?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Has anything inappropriate ever happened in

11 any shower with you and Mr. Jackson?

12 A. No. Never been in a shower with him.

He says a word about June Chandler which I cannot resist mentioning:

23 THE WITNESS: I remember her, you know,

24 ordering food, that sort of thing, from maids or

25 chefs, or whatever.

26 And, you know, the thing I sort of noticed

27 was she was always sort of — you know, she would

28 sort of act like the place was hers, you know. Sort 9103

1 of order people around a bit.

2 And, you know, I guess I noticed it because

3 my mother, when we went there, she always made it

4 really clear that this was Michael Jackson’s house.

They insinuate that he is telling lies and he firmly says that he is telling the truth:

13 Q. Is everything you’ve said the complete and

14 honest truth?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever do anything wrong with

17 you?

18 A. No.

His sister slept in the same bed with Michael during the first time they stayed in Neverland:

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. 

Robson explains why those slumber parties took place at all. When you are small you always want to stay with your best friend:

20 When it was time to go bed, I asked Michael

21 if I could stay with him in his room. And then

22 Michael and I went to — mom was staying in a guest

23 room. We went to her room and I asked her. Michael

24 asked her if that was okay. And she said yes.

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.

They danced together but there was never any crotch grabbing:

18 A…. we would mess around and dance

19 a little bit in the studio every now and then, yes.

20 Q. Was there ever an occasion where you were on

21 the dance floor with Mr. Jackson and he was showing

22 you a routine and he grabbed your crotch in a manner

23 similar to how he would grab his own crotch while

24 doing those performances?

25 A. No, that’s not true.

26 Q. You have no recollection of that?

27 A. No.

28 Q. That didn’t happen? 9112

1 A. No.

He gave his first deposition when he was 11 (in 1993), gave it under oath and it was  attended and observed by two prosecutors and one attorney:

11 Q. All right. By age 11, you were asked to

12 give a deposition, were you not?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And you actually did give testimony under

15 oath in the presence of two prosecutors from Los

16 Angeles; is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. There was also an attorney present who

19 represented you; is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

Zonen is pressing Robson “to come clean”, but Robson is brushing off his pressure with easiness, confidence and even slight irony:

16 Q. You’re telling us nothing happened; is that

17 right?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. All right. What you’re really telling us is

20 nothing happened while you were awake; isn’t that

21 true?

22 A. I’m telling you that nothing ever happened.

23 Q. Mr. Robson, when you were asleep, you

24 wouldn’t have known what had happened, particularly

25 at age seven, would you have?

26 A. I would think something like that would wake

27 me up.

Their days with Jackson were busy as there was a lot to do at Neverland:

4 Q. All right. There was a lot to do at

5 Neverland; is that right?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And on some days you were actually working

8 out heavily with the defendant, engaged in dance

9 routines, weren’t you?

10 A. Yeah.

11 Q. And on other occasions you would be playing

12 very actively. There’s just a host of things that a

13 seven-year-old can do and have fun with; is that

14 right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And you can play — all manner of video

17 games that exist anywhere in the world can be found

18 at Neverland; is that right?

19 A. Yeah.

20 Q. And there’s video games, there’s movies,

21 there’s a zoo, there’s all kinds of parks, and the

22 trains. You’re very active during the entire day;

23 is that right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And at night you’d go back to his room and

26 you’d play more video games or you’d watch

27 television; is that right?

28 A. Yes. 9117

1 Q. And there’s movies of any kind that you can

2 see with Mr. Jackson?

3 A. Yes.

Robson did shower in Michael’s suite but did it only by himself:

12 Q. Was there, in fact, a shower at Neverland in

13 the suite, the bedroom suite?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. But you didn’t use it?

16 A. I used it by myself.

17 Q. Was he in the room while you were using it?

18 A. In the bedroom, not in the shower room,

19 which had its own door.

20 Q. You were seven years old when you started

21 using that shower; is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

Robson did not change the manner of his dress when he met Michael, he always dressed like him:

24 Q. Did you start to dress like him?

25 A. I always did before I met him.

7 Q. Did he ever give you hats similar to the

8 type of hats that he wears?

9 A. Because I would ask for them.

Sometimes there were other kids in his room. They all stayed in one room and slept wherever they were:

11 Q. Now, were there other boys that you knew

12 about who were sleeping with Michael Jackson during

13 that time?

14 A. No, not that I knew of. I mean, the only

15 other time I was around other boys, other kids at

16 the ranch, I think once or twice, and, you know,

17 we’d all stay in the room and we’d kind of fall

18 asleep on couches, beds, cots, wherever they were.

12 Q. And did you spend the night with Jordie?

13 A. Yeah, we all stayed in Michael’s room.

14 Q. You say “we all stayed.” Were there other

15 people there besides Jordie?

16 A. Yeah, Macaulay Culkin was there and his

17 brother Kieran Culkin.

16 Q. Now, did either one of you actually spend

17 the night in Mr. Jackson’s bed with Mr. Jackson?

18 A. No. I think — from I can remember — I can

19 only remember one night in particular, and I

20 remember myself and Kieran Culkin, I think, slept on

21 Michael’s bed, and Michael slept on a cot, or

22 something, on the side of us, and I don’t know,

23 Macaulay fell asleep on a couch or something.

Michael talked about trust, but he talked about trusting people in general (Michael was right in always giving people the benefit of the doubt,  but what does trust do to people in this world of vultures?):

14 A. Yeah, we’d talk about trust in, you know,

15 other people, and that sort of thing.

16 Q. But he encouraged you particularly to trust

17 in him, did he not?

18 A. No, there was no particular emphasis on it 

Michael never touched him, just hugged like everyone else. There were no kisses except on the cheek:

5 Q. Mr. Jackson would periodically kiss you,

6 would he not?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Periodically hug you?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Touch you?

11 A. Hug me. That would be —

12 Q. Put his hands through your hair?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Touch you about the head and the face?

15 A. Yeah.

16 Q. Did he ever kiss you on the cheek?

17 A. Yeah.

18 Q. Did he ever kiss you on the lips?

19 A. No.

Michael regarded the Robsons as his family:

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.

3 Did you consider yourself to be part of Mr.

4 Jackson’s family?

5 A. Yeah, I mean, in a friendship sort of way.

6 Because we were that close. It was like family.

Other children:

6 Q. Have you seen Mr. Jackson kiss children at

7 Neverland?

8 A. On the cheek, yes. Or on the head, or on

9 the top of the head, something like that.

10 Q. Ever seen kids kiss Mr. Jackson?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Any of that ever look inappropriate to you?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Have you seen lots of children visit

15 Neverland on occasion?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And what do you mean?

18 A. I think we were there once when he had one

19 of his gatherings, like a Heal the World Foundation

20 thing where he had a bunch of kids come up there

21 and — you know, and have the day there.

22 Q. And how many kids are you talking about, do

23 you think?

24 A. Probably about 100 or 50. 75 to 100,

25 something like that.

26 Q. Were there adults with those children?

27 A. Yes.

9 Q. Did you see Mr. Jackson do anything

10 inappropriate at any of these locations?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Ever seen Mr. Jackson touch any child in a

13 sexual way at any of these locations?

14 A. Never.

15 Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever touch you

16 inappropriately in any of these locations?

17 A. No.

About books and magazines:

14 Jackson had ten years’ worth of Hustler, Playboy,

15 Penthouse – okay? – magazines, heterosexual-type

16 magazines, and let’s assume that — have you ever

17 seen Mr. Jackson’s library?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. How many books do you think are in there?

20 A. Thousands.

21 Q. And let’s suppose in the middle of all those

22 books you found, “A Sexual Study of Man, Illustrated

23 With Photographs and Art Prints,” okay?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Putting all this together, would being in

26 bed with Mr. Jackson concern you?

27 A. No.

Robson knew that Michael had a sexual interest in women:

3 Mr. Robson, are you concerned about a man

4 possessing these seven books being in bed with a

5 12-year-old boy?

6 A. If it was a man I didn’t know, maybe. But

7 not Michael.

8 Q. Is that because you view Mr. Jackson as

9 being, for the most part, asexual?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Because you believe that he doesn’t really

12 have a sexual interest?

13 A. I believe that he has a sexual interest in

14 women.

23 THE WITNESS: I believe that he has a sexual

24 interest in women.

25 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: In women?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. These books don’t suggest otherwise?

28 A. Not necessarily.

Among all this crap there were some fun moments too:

20 A. I never thought I’d have a room of people

21 watching me do this.

No sexual material was ever shown to him:

1 When you were a young child, did Michael

2 Jackson ever show you any sexually explicit

3 material?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Did you ever see Michael Jackson show

6 sexually explicit material to any child?

7 A. No.

In fact Robson looked surprised when he saw some magazines which is the best proof that it was the first time he heard and saw that Michael possessed them. He had never shown them anything of the kind:

23 Q. Mr. Robson, when did you first learn that

24 Michael Jackson possessed material of the nature

25 that’s before you right now?

26 A. Right now I did.

4 A. Assuming it does, this is the first I know.

5 Q. All right. And you had never, ever known

6 that Mr. Jackson collected sexually explicit

7 material?

8 A. No.

9 Q. This is something new that you’re learning

10 just today; is that right?

11 A. Yes.

Never, God forbid, was there any child pornography there and nothing suggesting ped-lia:

24 Q. Okay. Have you seen one book that depicts

25 child pornography in that group?

26 A. No.

13 Q. When you were at Neverland, did you ever see

14 anything that suggested pedophilia?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Ever see any magazine or poster that

17 suggested pedophilia?

18 A. Never.

Mesereau sums it up:

11 Q. You actually saw kids sleeping in his room

12 from time to time, correct?

13 A. Yeah. When he was present as well, yeah.

14 Q. And Macaulay Culkin was there as well,

15 correct?

16 A. Yeah.

17 Q. Never saw anything inappropriate happen,

18 right?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Has anything this prosecutor for the

21 government has said to you changed your opinion of

22 Michael Jackson?

23 A. Not at all.

24 Q. Does it change your opinion as to whether or

25 not he ever did anything inappropriate with a child?

26 A. Not at all.

Now you more or less have the idea of Robson’s testimony but it cannot be left alone without comparing it with the testimony of Michael’s maid Blanca Franca. This woman alleged that she saw a shadow in Michael’s shower and  assumed that 1) it was a boy and 2) this boy was Wade Robson.

You’ve seen Robson saying that he had never been in a shower with MJ.

BLANCA FRANCIA’S TESTIMONY

From Mary Fischer’s article “Was Michael Jackson framed?” we learn that the program that changed a lot in Michael’s life was the TV Hard Copy by Diane Dimond where she extracted from Blanca an incredible amount of lies for $20,000. It was probably because of all those lies that Blanca herself never watched the program as she said at the trial. The interview aired on December 15, 1993 which was a month prior to Blanca Francia’s official depositionin January 1994 when she spoke to Michael’s lawyers Johnny Cochran and Howard Weitzman in the presence of Larry Feldman. 

Mary Fischer says:

On December 15, Hard Copy presented “The Bedroom Maid’s Painful Secret.” Blanca Francia told Dimond and other reporters that she had seen a naked Jackson taking showers and Jacuzzi baths with young boys. She also told Dimond that she had witnessed her own son in compromising positions with Jackson — an allegation that the grand juries apparently never found credible.

A copy of Francia’s sworn testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000, and had Dimond checked out the woman’s claims, she would have found them to be false. Under deposition by a Jackson attorney, Francia admitted she had never actually see Jackson shower with anyone nor had she seen him naked with boys in his Jacuzzi. They always had their swimming trunks on, she acknowledged.

The coverage, says Michael Levine, a Jackson press representative, “followed a proctologist’s view of the world. Hard Copy was loathsome. The vicious and vile treatment of this man in the media was for selfish reasons. [Even] if you have never bought a Michael Jackson record in your life, you should be very concerned. Society is built on very few pillars. One of them is truth. When you abandon that, it’s a slippery slope.”

Unfortunately we do not have a transcript of the program but we know that it turned into the main source of “classical” lies told about Jackson– by asking leading questions Diana Dimond created the impression that he took baths naked with boys (though they simply bathed in jacuzzi and always in bathing trunks), that Blanca allegedly saw Wade Robson naked in the shower (though all she saw was the silhouette of MJ and assumed there was someone else there), that Blanca had to quit “in disgust” (though she was fired for stealing) and that he rubbed himself against children and this is how Rubba came into being, and many more similar lies.

This is how the story about Rubba looked in the press:

MORE revealing and disturbing was the “special name” he now gave his young friends. To Michael they were all “Rubba”. Why Rubba? From “rubbing boy against his body”, Francia surmised. “He had boys sitting in his lap, rubbing them.” Quindoy reached the same conclusion: “He called them Rubba because he was always rubbing up against them.” http://www.plussizedresses.com.au/plus-size-dresses-articles/1995/1/22/jacko-sad-mad-or-bad/

Let me explain what Rubba means. Roger Friedman talked to the sources and found the way the word was coined in a most innocent way. Actually it did not mean anything :

Jacko Pal: TV’s Webster Coined ‘Rubbaheads’
Monday, May 03, 2004
By Roger Friedman

Yesterday’s news reports about Michael Jackson’s unearthed personal belongings were long on innuendo and short on fact. They’d also been reported earlier in People and The National Enquirer, but that’s another story.

Much has been made of some kind of secret club Jackson may have had called the “Rubbaheads,” which had typed rules and regulations. A note to other Rubbaheads was found in the Jackson family storage bin purchased by a man in New Jersey. There’s an implication that because Jackson called some boys “Rubbas,” it connotes any number of unseemly things.

So I asked one of the boys, now grown, about the alleged Rubbahead Club of 10 years ago, when all this happened. He says when he heard about all this a few weeks ago and again yesterday, he was stymied.

“First of all, there was no Rubbahead Club. Rubba was a name Emmanuel Lewis, who played Webster, came up with,” he explained. “Everyone called everyone Rubba. It didn’t mean anything. What we did have was the Applehead Club, and that was from ‘The Three Stooges.’ Everyone was an Applehead because Michael loved ‘The Three Stooges.’”

This was 10 years ago, when a number of well-known 13-year-old boys were coming and going from Neverland. They included Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson, Lewis, the young man I spoke with and the young man from the Jackson case 10 years ago.

“It’s nothing sexual,” my source continued. “Michael even called one of the younger kids Baby Rubba. It didn’t mean anything.”

So what about the typed list of rules found in the storage bin? They included requiring members to be “idiots and act crazy at all times”; be vegetarians who fast on Sundays and avoid drugs; watch two episodes of “The Three Stooges” daily; know the Peter Pan story by heart; and when seeing another member, “give the peace sign, and then half of it.”

In fact, insists my source, “there were no rules at Neverland. The whole thing was about not having rules and having a good time. It was all from Peter Pan. There was no club, no initiation, and I never heard of a ‘club kit’ or anything else.”

What’s clear about all this is that, when witnesses are called in the Jackson trial next winter, many things will be left to interpretation. What may seem prurient to the public on first impression may turn out to be completely innocent. It will be up to Jackson’s lawyers to help a jury understand that.

Ironically, there was a serious misinterpretation in yesterday’s reports about the meaning of a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow called “The Children’s Hour.” In the poem, the narrator addresses three little girls, not little boys, which was the impression given in the reports.

I say “ironically” because a play called “The Children’s Hour” by Lillian Hellman, inspired by the poem, was about two female teachers whose lives are ruined because of unfounded gossip that they are secretly lovers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118795,00.html

Though this is not the subject of the present post let me take the opportunity and say that the real rules of the Applehead club had nothing to do with those cited  by Michael’s haters. They were funny and innocent:

1) “idiots and act crazy at all times”;
2 ) be vegetarians who fast on Sundays
3) avoid drugs;
4) watch two episodes of “The Three Stooges” daily;
5) know the Peter Pan story by heart;
6) when seeing another member, “give the peace sign, and then half of it”

The same six rules were retold by Gutierrez in his book in his own inimitable pedophilia-oriented manner:

1) no to wenches, bitches, heifers or hoes (whores).
2) never give up your “bliss” (sex acts).
3) live with me in Neverland forever.
4) no conditioning.
5) never grow up.
6) be better than best friends forever (lovers)

I had to mention Rubba in much detail because when Blanca Francia took a deposition on December 15th, a month after the Hard Copy interview, and then another one on January 11, 1994,   the lawyers from both sides Howard Wietzman, Jonny Cochran and Larry Feldman seemed to use Dimond’s TV program as a road map for their questions. They went over all the main points of it so this alone shows how deeply the program gripped the minds of people and what huge damage it did.

In fact the Hard Copy story is a story of its own. On the right side of this post you will find some clips from the papers of that period quoting the horrendous lies told by Blanca Francia and Diane Dimond for the $20,000 that exchanged hands between them.

These lies survived for the next ten years and at the 2005 trial one of these lies concerning “Rubba” was discussed in full earnest. The result of the discussion was that Rubba, Doo-doo and Appleheads were nothing but nicknames used by Michael for almost everyone in the house. The quote from Francia’s deposition (on the right) will tell you that Michael gave the name of Doo-doo even to Francia herself:

An excerpt from Blanca Francia’s deposition published in July/August 1994 issue of the Spy magazine:
Feldman: Did he (Jackson) ever call himself “doo-doo head”?
Francia: Yeah. An he will tell me sometimes “doo-doo head” too.
He’d call you “doo-doo head”?
Yeah.
How about “apple head”?
No, I never hear that.
Was it a term – do you know what, like, a term, an endearment is? Would be affectionaly use that term “doo-doo head,” or would be use it to criticize somebody?
I’m trying to get a sense of …. (for continuation see the next clip)

13 Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did you ever hear Mr. Jackson

14 call your son by a name other than Jason, his real

15 name?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. What name was that?

18 A. “Rubba.”

19 Q. “Rubba,” R-u-b-b-a, do you think?

20 A. I think.

21 Q. Is that what it sounds like?

22 A. Yeah.

23 Q. Did you ever hear him call other kids

24 “Rubba”?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. Did he call Wade Robeson “Rubba”?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. Did he call Macaulay Culkin “Rubba”? 5047

1 A. Yeah.

20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Now, the prosecutor

21 asked you about the nickname “Rubba,” okay?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. “Rubba” is short for “Rubber Head,” right?

24 A. I don’t know.

25 Q. You never heard that?

26 A. I don’t know.

27 Q. Okay.

28 A. I never hear that before. 5122

1 Q. And Mr. Jackson used to call his cousins,

2 Levon and Elijah, “Rubba,” right?

3 A. He call the kids “Rubba,” yeah.

4 Q. He also called kids “Rubber Head,” or

5 “Rubba,” right?

6 A. Yeah.

7 Q. He’d also use “Apple Head,” right?

…how you would use the term “doo-doo head”.
Yeah, like – like he will say, “Oh, I’m hungry and I don’t know what to eat. Maybe some doo-doo”. He will say that and – or he said to me, “This is doo-doo”.
Feldman: When you’d see them (Jackson and an unnamed boy) together – forget what you’ve already told us about seeing them in bed in stuff, but when you’d see them together , would you see (the boy) on Michael Jackson’s lap?
Francia: No.
Would you see them hugging or holding hands?
Francia: Holding hands.
Were you uncomfortable wth that when you’d see it?
Cochran: I don’t think that’s relevant material, but go ahead. Go ahead.”
[So Michael called even Francia “a doo-doo head” and it didn’t really mean anything. Even something to eat could also be “doo-doo”]

8 A. I don’t know.

9 Q. He’d use “Doo-Doo Head,” right?

10 A. Yeah. I think I hear that one time.

11 Q. Okay. But it’s certainly a term that he

12 used quite often, isn’t it?

13 A. “Rubba,” yeah.

14 Q. He used it on lots — he used it for lots of

15 children, including his own cousins, didn’t he?

16 A. Yeah.

As you know now the Hard Copy came a month before the first deposition in December 1993 (and actually determined all the questions there this way). We can imagine what harm was done to Michael during that month and even after it – the deposition was not disclosed to anyone while the Hard Copy lies have been living a successful life of their own ever since the public was smitten by them:

28 Q. So the interview with Hard Copy was before 5085

1 the deposition —

2 A. Yes.

I was especially impressed by Blanca Francia saying that Hard Copy was NOT HONEST with her. So Diane Dimond managed to deceive Francia too:  

28 Q. How much money did they represent from Hard 5044

1 Copy — how much money did they represent that they

2 would give you for an interview?

3 A. How much money they gave me?

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. $20,000.

24 Q. In your deposition, you said the people from

25 Hard Copy are not honest, right?

26 A. Yeah.

She says she was upset with Dimond’s questions. She thought she would be asking her about her work, but instead she was asked about “boys”:

ZONEN: 17 Q. Did you know in advance what the questions

18 were going to be?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Were you surprised by what the questions

21 were?

22 A. Yeah. Yes.

23 Q. Did you know it was going to be about

24 Michael Jackson?

25 A. No. I thought it was going to be about me

26 working there.

HERE IS DIANE DIMOND’S STORY reflected in the paper dated December 14, 1994 and spreading the Hard Copy LIES (click to enlarge).
According to Francia’s own deposition in 1994 she NEVER SAW what they are claiming here.

27 Q. All right. That was the part that surprised

28 you?

1 A. Yeah.

2 Q. Were you upset about it?

3 A. Yeah, because then I start to answer, and I

4 felt like I was just there, you know, answering

5 questions that I didn’t know they were going to ask

6 me.

7 Q. Okay. Did it upset you?

8 A. Yeah.

9 Q. Did you tell them you were upset about that?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Were you truthful in your answers?

12 A. Yeah.

We find that Blanca never mentioned either Wade Robson or Macauley Culkin in that Hard Copy interview. She says she spoke only of the children and MJ playing in Jacuzzi and in the bathtub:

THIS IS DIANE DIMOND’S STORY. An excerpt from Milliwaukee Sentinel, December 14, 1993 tells another of their LIES. Blanca Francia had to leave because she was found stealing and she NEVER saw any “naked boys” with MJ. The fact that she lied for $20,000 paid to her by Hard Copy will be established only in a deposition. However since there was a gag order on the depositions even when the truth was out the public still did not know it and kept to Diane Dimond’s Hard Copy false version.

13 Q. Mr. Mesereau asked you if it was true that

14 you told Diane Dimond in this interview that you

15 never saw Michael Jackson molest a child; is that

16 correct?

17 A. Yeah.

18 Q. What else did you tell Diane Dimond in the

19 interview?

20 A. I don’t remember.

21 Q. Did you tell Diane Dimond about seeing him

22 sleeping with boys?

23 A. Yeah.

4 Q. Was there any conversation with Diane Dimond

5 regarding the testimony you’ve given today about any

6 of those boys? You testified about Wade Robeson.

7 You testified about Macaulay Culkin. Did you

8 discuss either of those boys with Diane Dimond?

9 A. No, I said — I think the only — that I say

10 that I see him is sleeping with the kids and being

11 in the bathtub with them, playing.

12 Q. And you told Diane Dimond that?

13 A. Yeah, I think I did

14 Q. Now, this is the bathtub or this is the

15 shower?

16 A. I don’t remember if I told her about the

17 shower. But I remember that I told him about the

18 bathtub and the Jacuzzi, I think.

19 Q. I’m sorry?

20 A. I told her about the Jacuzzi and the

21 bathtub, I think.

22 Q. And being there with boys?

23 A. Being with boys. Yeah, that I will clean up

24 their — you know, their toys in the bathtub.

After the interview Blanca called Diana Dimond several times as Dimond had lied to her, but she did not return her calls. Blanca explains that the lie concerned some pictures though it could easily be something different too:

THIS IS DIANE DIMOND’S STORY repeated by Prescott Courier on December 16, 1993. It says that “as a matter of policy, “Hard Copy” producer Cheir Browalce would not disclose how much money Francia was paid for the interview”. Indeed the lie itself and how much was paid for it was established only during Blanca Francia’s deposition or otherwise we would never know. 
The article also quotes a man who worked as a security guard at Jackson’s ranch for six months in 1989. He was so outraged by all those lies that he called a news conference in Olympia, Washington and said that Jackson would never abuse children.
“This man did nothing but help those children,” Lary Glenn Anderson said, explaining the singer acted like a doting older brother.
“He’s shy, he doesn’t undress in front of boys,” Anderson said.
Anderson said he turned down money from tabloid newspapers to give a negative account of his time at the ranch.

2 Q. Okay. Now, at some point, you called Diane

3 Dimond and she didn’t return your calls, right?

4 A. Yeah.

5 Q. You called her because you thought she had

6 lied, right?

7 A. She had lied?

8 Q. Yes.

9 A. I didn’t like — I thought that — that Hard

10 Copy interview thing was going to be shown on Hard

11 Copy, and then I see my pictures everywhere, and

12 even in The National Enquirer, and that’s what I

13 thought that it was. You know, I didn’t know that

14 they can sell the story to someone else. That’s how

15 I felt.

There were NEVER any naked boys in the jacuzzi. And he never touched anyone inappropriately. And she never saw anything suggestive of inappropriate contacts in Michael’s behavior:

8 Q. You’ve seen him playing in his Jacuzzi,

9 correct?

10 A. Yeah.

11 Q. You’ve never seen him molesting anyone in

12 his Jacuzzi, right?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Let me just make sure that’s phrased

15 properly. You’ve never seen Mr. Jackson improperly

16 touch anyone in his Jacuzzi?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Never saw that, right?

19 A. No.

4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Okay. Do you

5 remember in your deposition saying you had never

6 seen Mr. Jackson touch anyone improperly?

7 A. Yeah, I —

8 Q. Do you remember saying you never saw him

9 touch anyone?

10 A. Yeah.

11 Q. You did say that, didn’t you?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Okay. And in that deposition, you told the

14 truth, right?

15 A. As — as I recall it at that time, yeah.

16 Q. You told the truth at that time, right?

17 A. As I remember it.

18 Q. Yes. And you were under oath, right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. And you said that you had never seen

21 Michael Jackson touch anyone in a sexual way, right?

22 A. Yeah.

23 Q. Okay. And you said at no time while you

24 worked for Michael Jackson did you ever see him have

25 sexual contact with anyone, right?

26 A. When I say “sexual,” I mean sexual.

27 Q. But you did say under oath that you had

28 never saw Mr. Jackson have sexual contact with 5072

1 anyone, right?

2 A. No. No.

And here finally comes the SHOWER POINT. To Zonen the maid says that “they were in the shower” and MJ was there “with little Wade”, and that she saw some underwear on the floor.

However what she says now is totally unimportant – what is important is what she said in her DEPOSITIONS back in December 1993/January 1994.

And here we find out very interesting things. First of all we learn that she saw ONLY ONE SHADOW. To this she adds that she heard two voices:

MESEREAU:

23 Q. Okay. Okay. Now, the prosecutor asked you

24 questions about what you said in the deposition

25 about what you could see in the shower, right?

26 A. Yeah.

27 Q. And in the deposition you said under oath

28 that all you could see was a shadow, right? 5123

1 A. Yeah.

2 Q. Was that the truth?

3 A. A shadow, an image, yeah.

4 Q. That’s all you could see —

5 A. Yeah.

6 Q. — in the shower, correct?

7 A. I hear two voices.

8 Q. You heard giggling and laughing, right?

9 A. Yeah.

10 Q. And all you could see was a shadow through

11 the glass?

12 A. The glass, yes.

13 Q. And that’s because the glass was fogged up,

14 right?

15 A. Yeah.

16 Q. Okay. You only saw one person in the

17 shower, right?

18 A. I saw him in the shower and the little kid.

19 Q. But in your deposition you said you could

20 only see one person, but you heard giggling, right?

21 A. Yeah, but I hear two people —

22 Q. You heard two people. You could only see

23 one through the glass, right?

24 A. Mostly, yeah. Mostly.

 Then we learn from her earlier depositions of 1993/94 that she actually heard NO ONE ELSE BUT MICHAEL giggling.

When asked “Did you hear anything else other than Michael laughing? she said “NO”:

25 Q. Do you remember you were asked in your

26 deposition, “Did you hear anything else other than

27 Michael laughing?” And you said, “No”?

28 A. Yeah.

1 Q. Was that the truth?

2 A. Yes.

In her earlier depositions she said that SHE SAW NO ONE ELSE BUT JACKSON. Now she thinks differently. It is indeed interesting  to see how her memory improves and becomes clearer ten years later, though with all other people it is the other way about.

After refreshing her memory of the first deposition she recalls that there was indeed only one person in the shower:

3 Q. Do you remember in the deposition saying you

4 never saw anyone else in the shower but Mr. Jackson?

5 A. I don’t think I say that.

6 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show

7 you the transcript?

8 A. Okay.

9 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?

10 THE COURT: Yes.

11 MR. ZONEN: Page?

12 MR. MESEREAU: 401.

13 Q. Have you had a chance to look at that page

14 of the deposition?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Does it refresh your memory about what you

17 said about the shower?

18 A. Yeah.

19 Q. You saw one person, Mr. Jackson, right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Or it looked like him through the glass,

22 right?

23 A. Yes.

However on the matter of laughter she now says she heard two voices. Only a minute ago she said that she heard only Jackson’s laugher, and it was fixed in her earlier deposition, but now – ten years later – her memory is much better and now she even remembers things she could not recall ten years earlier:

24 Q. And the only voice you really heard was Mr.

25 Jackson, correct?

26 A. No.

27 Q. That wasn’t correct?

28 A. I hear two — two. 5125

1 Q. You heard laughter?

2 A. Laughing and —

3 Q. And that was at Neverland, right?

4 A. Yes.

Now it is Zonen’s time to get nervous because now Blanca is no longer sure that she saw two persons, but says she only BELIEVES that there was a second image:

12 Q. At the time that you looked through the

13 glass into the shower, were you able to see a second

14 person in there?

15 A. I want to say yeah, but I don’t — you know,

16 I hear the laughing and the talking and, you know,

17 playing, and I — I didn’t see the actual person,

18 but it was moving, you know, with him.

19 Q. Do you believe that you saw the image of a

20 second person?

21 A. Yeah.

22 Q. But not as clearly as Mr. Jackson?

23 A. Not as clearly, no.

24 Q. Did you hear one voice or two?

25 A. Two.

26 Q. And were you clear about that?

27 A. Yes.

Mesereau reminds her that in the earlier depositions they specifically asked her about Wade Robson and she said that she did not SEE Wade Robson in the shower. The only thing she said was that she BELIEVED that he was there – in other words she THOUGHT that way:

23 Q. All right. Did they ask you about Wade

24 Robeson?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. Did they ask you if in fact you had seen

27 them in the shower together?

28 A. Yes.

1 Q. Do you remember the answers that you gave to

2 those questions?

3 A. Kind of.

4 Q. Did you tell one of the attorneys that you

5 did not see Wade Robeson in the shower?

6 A. Yeah, I probably did.

7 Q. All right. Was that accurate?

8 A. Well, at that time I guess I was tired and

9 nervous, I guess.

10 Q. Did you tell them that you believed Wade

11 Robeson was in the shower?

12 A. Yes, I told them that.

26 Q. And you think you saw Mr. Jackson in a

27 shower with Mr. Robeson one time, right?

28 A. Yes.

1 Q. But you said the shower was fogged up and

2 you couldn’t really see, right?

3 A. I saw the figure.

4 Q. You saw the figure. And you heard a lot of

5 laughing, right?

6 A. Yeah.

7 Q. And you thought they were playing, right?

8 A. Yes.

Well, if you thought that the groundbreaking news was still coming, let me disappoint you – this is all there is to it.

So the story of “Wade Robson’s shower” actually boils down to the following – the maid saw the fogged image of one person only (MJ) , she definitely heard only MJ’s laughter, she did not see the second person and only assumed that he was there.

Let me stress once again that in the 1993/94 depositions she said that she heard the laughter of one person only – that of Michael Jackson, but ten years later she suddenly began to think that she had heard two voices.

The testimony finishes with Zonen asking her to explain where the shower and Jacuzzi are on the pictures.We find that they were right across from each other. As to the shower what we can see is the door frame only:

15 A. That’s the Jacuzzi.

16 Q. I’m sorry?

17 A. The Jacuzzi.

18 Q. First floor?

19 A. In the bathroom.

20 Q. Okay. And can you see where the shower is

21 in that photograph?

22 A. I can just see the — right here, the frame,

23 the door frame.

18 But in this photograph, which is No. 788,

19 can you see both the Jacuzzi and the room that has

20 the shower in it?

21 A. Yes. Right across from each other.

22 And this, I think, is 787. And what is

23 that?

24 A. That’s the shower.

25 Q. All right. Is that the same door that you

26 recall?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. All right. And that’s the shower that you

1 gave testimony to.

2 And the last one, please. Two more.

3 788. And this is 788. Is that the same

4 bathroom downstairs?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. All right. Do you have a better view of the

7 room that has the shower?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Show us where that is, with the laser.

10 A. Right here.

11 Q. Okay. That’s the toilet that you can see?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And on the other side of the toilet is the

14 shower?

15 A. Uh-huh. Right next to it.

16 Q. All right. Can you show us now where you

17 were standing? Can you put the laser on where your

18 feet were at the time you were standing?

19 A. Probably right here. Right here on this

20 corner.

Jacuzzi was to the right of the big bathroom just outside Michael’s suite. The doors are opening into the garden.

Okay, so after we heard all of it let us look at the pictures too.

The Jacuzzi is at one end of the huge bathroom (this point needs correction, see the update to the post ***), with the glass doors opening into to the garden. This is where she said she was going to when she came out of the bedroom proper.

It was “on the way there” to the right that she “peeked” into what was actually on the left of her.

The shower room was to the left of the Jacuzzi. Sorry for the mess (it was made by the police during the raid of Michael’s home)

And on the left side of this hall we see the mess left by the police after raiding Michael’s house. The mess leads us to the door into the shower and toilet room which is almost wide open here. Behind the door we see the glass door frame of the shower.

To our surprise we notice that even though the door is wide open all we can see is a small fragment of the shower. So even if she stood at the every door this narrow piece of glass would be all she could see – all the rest of the shower is behind the wall to the left of the door and is actually even closed from view by it.

Frankly I doubt that the door was even THAT wide open. Why I doubt it is that in some earlier stories I read that it was half open only, and if it was half open NO shower at all could have been seen.

Another reason why I think her story is extremely contradictory and possibly even fictional is because she says that the glass of it was FOGGED. But it can be fogged only in case the door is closed, or has a very narrow opening. This is sheer physics – fog accumulates only if there is no fresh air coming into the shower as otherwise there is no fog.

If the door is wide open the glass door will remain transparent  – this I’ve checked up in my own bathroom when taking a shower with the door wide open. The mirror in my bathroom did not fog though when the door is closed it usually does (you can make this experiment yourself).

So if the glass was fogged as Blanca says, then the door should have been closed, but if it was closed Francia could not see anything at all.

The alternative to it is that the glass door was not fogged and it means that the door was open, and then she should have seen everyone and everything there very clearly (which she didn’t).

So both variants don’t corroborate Blanca’s story.

In general it would have been very strange for Michael to take a shower with the door wide open. Anyone could enter the bathroom from the bedroom or the garden, so discarding all privacy and even security was not in his character. However I do not rule out that some kids did not indeed open the door and talked to him while he was taking a shower. Anything is possible.

But I really doubt that Francia saw anything at all. What she heard we will never know – it could easily be Michael’s laughter from behind the closed or half-closed door him singing to the music playing and what not. And it was probably after hearing all that that her wild imagination must have painted her some wild pictures.

But wild or not wild the simple thing is that the actual picture she described to the police was hardly possible at all.

*  *  *

CORRECTION:

Elona Lee who is a complete expert on Neverland (her fantastic site is here http://enolalee.blogspot.ru/ has a big correction to make to this post –  it turns out that the jacuzzi is not in the same bathroom as the shower I provided a picture of, and is actually in the bathroom on the opposite side of Michael’s suite. This correction is crucial as this means that Francia was describing a different shower.

Okay, then let us look at the plan of Michael’s suite then:

The floorplan of Michael Jackson’s suite. Yellow arrow shows the Bedroom Downstairs and leads to the Master Bathroom, and the darker arrow shows the Bedroom Upstairs and the Gents’ bathroom and shower. The bathroom near Jacuzzi has a partition between the toilet and the shower.

To visualize it better here are the pictures to accompany the floorplan.

Miko Brando, Michael’s friend is showing to a CNN correspondent Michael’s suite. We see the glass door opening into the garden and a big glass window. Please compare it with the floor plan above:

At the far right end of the suite there is a door leading to the master bathroom. When you enter it now you see a wall on the left over the basin with some wire hanging there – this is where some lamps and a mirror must have been before.

On the right there are three doors – the first may be a closet, the second is the toilet/shower and the last glass door is opening into the garden

On the right side of the master bathroom there are three doors.

One must be taking us to a closet (?), the second takes us the toilet and a shower right across it and the third is a glass door opening into the garden.

Another photo of the same bathroom shows the door to the toilet half open, and at this point we find that there is also a window right behind the toilet.

The shower is not seen (at least from this angle).

The door to the bathroom is half open. We see the toilet and a window behind it.

Well, what are your impressions, guys?

My first impression is that the space is too open for anyone to hide any “activity” there. There are glass windows all around you and anyone can peek in or enter the bathroom through the glass door at any time.

The second thing is that there is a window looking right into the bathroom, and if the window is open anyone standing outside the bathroom can look and even TALK to anyone taking a shower there.

The third point I notice is that if you stand by the door and it is half open the way it is in the picture you can see only the toilet but not the shower.

And the last point which is crucial here is that the floor plan has a partition between the toilet and the shower, and in this case the view of the shower was impossible at all. The shower could be seen only in case the partition had been pulled down ( if anyone has been to Neverland and seen it please advise), but otherwise it could not. 

And with a window in the bathroom the point about the “steam” is becoming all the more problematic – if the door and the window were half open then no steam could have ever accumulated there. And if there had been no steam the glass door would have been transparent and Francia would have seen everything clearly, of course only if 1) the door had been wide open and 2) there had been no partition to fully block the view of the shower.

But with so many “ifs” I don’t know what Francia was talking about at all. 

Well, when you come to think of it she even said she had not seen anything.  She only heard something and it was some laughter and the radio.

Why are all dirty minds so much alike and so extremely boring?

Well, let us put two and two together again:

If the door is open, there is no steam and you see everything clearly (but Francia did not).

For the glass door to become steamy the door to the bathroom should be closed, but then there is no chance to see anything.

All you can do is hear. And Francia indeed did not see anything. She only thought she heard some voices through the laughter and the radio playing.

But someone could be talking to Michael from behind the window and he could be laughing. Considering the radio they must have been shouting so this is why she heard it at all.

And this is all there is to it.

* * *

SUPPLEMENT

Here is information about the way “repressed memories” are actually implanted into people’s minds. It comes from a legal team which says that this “method” is a latest fad among therapists.  It is putting the blame for things never done on countless of innocent people:

The information is coming from here: http://innocencelegalteam.com/criminal-accusations/molestation/false-memory-syndrome-2/ . Should the Estate contact the Innocence Legal Team? Or should it be Chernoff again? Or both?

Question: Is there research supporting that an entire memory of molestation can be implanted?  

Repressed memories are the latest fad among therapists?

Their unorthodox methodology is used to revive memories of childhood incest in order to explain away adult problems. Thousands of women who have made allegations of sexual abuse against their parents as a result of recovered memory therapy may have been victims of a dangerous fad. Their memories may have been created through suggestion and invasive therapy techniques. Especially if there is no corroborating evidence of abuse. The results are often devastating to the patient’s family who may not only lose contact with their child, but can be civilly sued and criminally charged for acts that they did not commit.

Starting in the late 1980′s the mental health profession embraced a new miracle cure called “repressed memory therapy”. These less than well trained therapists claim that the majority of American women have been molested as children and that most of them have repressed the memories of these acts.

They believe that it is the molestation and it’s repression that is a key to the emotional and physical ills of these patients. They recommend that when the therapist enables a patient to recover these memories of abuse the patient can then overcome her problems. Advocates of these ideas have written books and articles and speak at self help conferences and actively encourage these questionable and unprofessional techniques for the recovery of childhood memories of sexual abuse.

As a result of this repressed memory therapy thousands of women, women who previously had no memories or suspicions of abuse before, came to believe that they were victims of molestation. The abusers are the patient’s own fathers, mothers, brothers, uncles or other relatives and friends. Almost 20% of these women have also recovered memories of satanic ritual abuse and all of its horrors, baby sacrifices, murder, multi-generational abuse and mutilation.

Some have even reported memories of abuse in past lives and during alien space abductions. This is true!

Writers and therapists who advocate repressed memory therapy cloak themselves in scientific rhetoric and misuse legitimate psychological concerns in order to give their beliefs credibility. Repression, disassociation, post traumatic stress disorder, multiple personality disorder and a pseudo-scientific phenomena called body memories, are all part of the grab bag of terms that they use to convince patients that they show symptoms of abuse even if they have no memory of such acts.

Proponents of repressed memory therapy claim that memory acts like a video camera. It records a persons experience even those in the womb so indelibly that later experience or interpretation cannot change these images. They consider these internal video memories factual and pristine. This is the basis for the movement and any technique used in therapy to gain access to these pictures is seen as justifiable. Advocates ignore the possibility that their techniques not only distort memories, but actually create pseudo-memories as well.

Typically, repressed memory therapy encompasses several stages. In the first stage the therapist employ a list of symptoms that are used as proof that there are repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse.These symptoms number in the hundreds and include headaches, vaginal infections, sleep disturbance, stomach aches, dizziness, eating disorders, fear of eating foods, such as banana or tapioca pudding. Problems in maintaining stable relationships, a pennant for wearing baggy clothes, obesity, depression or low self esteem.

It is a rare individual who hasn’t displayed or experienced of these symptoms during his or her life. Yet proponents of repressed memory movement acknowledge only one cause, repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse.

The next phase of therapy is designed to convince the patient that she was abused whether or not she can remember it. She is told that only by believing in the sexual abuse and recovering the memories of abuse can she heal. Most patients who enter therapy are emotionally vulnerable and so the therapist, in a position of authority and trust, can easily accomplish indoctrination.

Should the client be reluctant to believe in the abuse the therapist explains that she is in denial and can use pop-psychology books like the Courage to Heal, a guide for women survivors of childhood sexual abuse, to support their theories of repressed memories. Authors of this book Ellen Bass and Laura Davis write “if you think you were abused and your life shows the symptoms, then you were and if you don’t remember your abuse, you’re not alone, many don’t have memories, this doesn’t mean they weren’t abused”.

In another such book, Secret Survivors, uncovering incest and its after effects in women, E. Sue Bloom supports Bass and Davis when she states that “incest is easily the greatest single underlying reason why women seek therapy or other treatment.” She goes on to say “many if not most incest survivors do not know that the abuse has even occurred.”

It is important to keep in mind that there is no scientifically proven list of typical symptoms of sexual abuse. Symptoms displayed by actual abuse victims are the kinds of symptoms that also result from other emotional or physical trauma, such as a divorce, moving, illness in the family, accidents, loss of family members, new marriages, even changes of employment. But it seems that the repressed memory folks don’t understand this.

Once the patient is convinced that her problems can be cured by remembering the childhood sexual abuse, the third phase begins. The patient is encouraged to uncover molestation experience by imagination or hypnotic trance. Some repressed memory therapists even use Sodium Penethal as a truth serum in an effort to verify memories recovered during hypnosis.

Other highly questionable methods incorporated into this therapy are guided imagery, age regression, inter child work, relaxation therapy, channeling, trance writing, re-birthing and even crystal reading. Therapists often place patients in incest survivor support groups where new victims are surrounded by other women who have either recovered their own abuse memories or in the process of recovering them. There the patient is encouraged and sometimes even pressured by group members to remember and verbally describe incidents of sexual abuse.

The final step in repressed memory healing is designed to enable the patient to believe in any and all recovered memories. Again, if patients are reluctant or doubt the details of their memories, therapists can call on publication likes the Courage to Heal, the Courage to Heal Workbook, or Secret Survivors, where incest survivors are taught how to believe their flashbacks, body memories, recollections of abuse, no matter how bizarre the details may be.

These patients are told that there is no need for corroboration or proof because what is recalled is historically accurate and unalterable. Their memory they are told acts as a video tape of their lives. These therapists remove themselves from the professional responsibility of examining statements or looking for corroboration by explaining they are neither police nor investigators. They say they are merely facilitators to help women become whole and healthy.

Once patients believe in these recovered memories they are told that it is then possible to begin the healing process. Patients are encouraged to severe their relationship with the abuser and any family member or friend who does not believe in the allegation. There are other support groups to attend that often incorporate primal scream therapy or physical violence to help work out the anger that patients feel about their recovered memories. These patients are often told that they may sue the alleged abuser in order to gain control of their lives and with the act become survivors.

How do other members of the mental health community and law enforcement regard this new method.

First of all many point to the troubling disregard for scientific research that is available to all mental health professionals. Dr. Richard Ofshe, professor at the University of California at Berkeley and a nationally recognized expert in suggestibility and brainwashing techniques writes “even if well intentioned the therapist in this movement are like the physicians who once bled patients in order to cure them, but unlike those physicians who are limited by the primitive state of medical knowledge of their time, the promoters of repressed memory therapy ignore reliable research, misuse their authority and techniques and damage the lives of their clients and their client’s families.”

The best example of the movements unwillingness to use scientific and verifiable findings is it’s perception of memory, the cornerstone of their philosophy and therapy techniques.While proponents believe that memory records experiences accurately and cannot be corrupted or changed later in life, the overwhelming fact is that memory is indeed malleable and false memories it can easily implanted. That conclusion came from over 100 years of research and experience.

Perhaps the best proof of how memory can be manipulated is revealed in a study done by Elizabeth Loftus, pre-eminent scholar on the subject. She points to over 20 years of research that clearly shows that ones recall of events can be easily influenced by fictitious descriptive details inserted characters and fictitious plot elaborations.

To prove this Dr. Loftus’ researchers enlisted the brother of a 14 year old boy named Chris. The other brother wrote a short account of Chris having been lost in a nearby mall when he was 5 and then being found by an older man. It was an event that never happened. Within two days of reading the brief narrative, Chris said that he remembered being afraid that he would never see his family again. Two days after that he remembered the man’s flannel shirt, a conversation with him and eventually remembered that the man was bald and wore glasses. Even after being told that the event never happened Chris clung to his beliefs. He was so positive that he had been lost in the mall that he even remembered his mother coming up and telling him never to do that again.

Dr. Loftus has replicated this kind of study again and again on adolescents, adults and senior citizens. All easily induced to believe in false memory. This body of research has been borne out repeatedly in other studies and countless hours of scientific research.

This research into the malleability of human memory is accepted by the leading mental health practitioners and professional organizations throughout the United States. The California therapist, a magazine for the association of marriage, family and child counselors has stated “some therapists contribute to the problem of recovered memories by among other things inappropriately helping patients remember sexual and other abuse, sometimes satanic ritual abuse when it may never have happened. One must exercise caution when utilizing hypnosis and repressed memory and related cases because of the power of suggestion under hypnosis”.

The board of trustees of the American psychiatric association has warned that “it is not known how to distinguish with complete accuracy memories based upon true events from those derived from other sources. Memories also can be significantly influenced by a trusted person, i.e. therapist or parent involved in a child custody dispute, who suggest abuse as an explanation for symptoms, problems, despite initial lack of memory of such abuse. It has been shown that repeated questioning may lead individuals to report memories of events that never occurred.”

The board continues by saying that corroborating evidence is necessary for an accurate assessment of sexual abuse and that psychiatrists should maintain a neutral stance towards reported memories of such abuse. In light of reputable research and the admonitions of nationally recognized scholars, researchers and professional organizations it is difficult to understand the reason that some mental health processionals continue to believe in a highly suspect kind of therapy and use techniques that have been described as damaging.

One answer is suggested by Kenneth Laning at the behavioral science unit at the FBI academy in Quantico. He wrote“therapists are probably in the best position to influence the allegations of adult survivors. The accuracy and reliability of the account of adult survivors who have been hypnotized during therapy is certainly open to question. Satanic and occult crime and ritual abuse of children has become a growth industry, speaking fees, books, video and audio tapes, prevention materials, television and radio appearances, all bring egotistic and financial reward.”

The implication of repressed memory therapy is frightening. Left in it’s wake are thousands of family members who have been and who are currently being sued for alleged molestation of daughters, sisters, nieces, grandchildren. This movement has divided families and in some cases has even led to criminal prosecution.

For those children who actually are abused, this therapy diverts time, attention and money from legitimate programs and projects. True incidents of abuse are being diluted by a course of insecure adults who claim they too are victims. As a result each year thousands of children die from neglect or abuse or suffer from molestation.

For mental health practitioners as a whole such therapy brings into question the ethical duty and integrity of the entire profession. Dr. Paul McHugh, chair of the psychiatry department Johns Hopkins university summed up such implications for his field when he wrote, “to treat for repressed memories without any effort at external validation is malpractice, pure and simple, malpractice on the basis of the standard of care that has developed out of our history of psychiatric service and malpractice because of misdirection of therapy will injure the patient and the family.”

Then why does this type of therapy continue.

It is because mental health professionals do not appropriately sanction their members. They do not hold these repressed memory therapists accountable for their actions. Margaret Singer who is now deceased is a nationally known research psychologist who urged patients to exercise their own rights when therapists practice suggestive and invasive techniques of recovered memory therapy. Only when irresponsible therapists are sued for the abuse of their patients and the patients family will this dangerous fad end. Margaret Singer has written that“perhaps the most serious danger is that true accusations of child sexual abuse will be trivialized or discredited”.

As the nationally known social psychologist Carol Tavers puts it, “the reality of victimization of children is diluted by a course of insecure adults clambering that they are victims too.”

In our office we see countless numbers of innocent families falsely accused because of repressed memory therapy. For this reason we are grateful for our professional relationships with Dr. Loftus, Professor Singer, Dr. Tavers and other scientifically based mental health professionals in our work to help our clients.

http://innocencelegalteam.com/criminal-accusations/molestation/false-memory-syndrome-2/

Here is the opinion of prominent scientists about the “repressed memories” junk science:

“Repressed Memory” – Debunked

 …. Dr. Richard J. McNally is the Professor and Director of Clinical Training in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. As one of the world’s leading experts in the field of memory, he has 250 publications to his credit, including the heralded 2003 book, Remembering Trauma.

In a 2005 letter to the California Supreme Court, which was handling a case in which “repressed memory” was debated, Dr. McNally asserted:

• “The notion that traumatic events can be repressed and later recovered is the most pernicious bit of folklore ever to infect psychology and psychiatry. It has provided the theoretical basis for ‘recovered memory therapy’ — the worst catastrophe to befall the mental health field since the lobotomy era.”

Many other prominent experts agree. “Repressed memory” is simply bogus.

Dr. Grant Devilly, from the Psychological Health research unit at Griffith University, agrees with Dr. McNally. Devilly says that memories of terrifying experiences work in the opposite manner of repressed memory theory. People rather wish they could forget their traumatic experiences.

• “It’s the opposite. They wish they couldn’t think about it,” says Devilly.

Then there is Dr. James McGaugh from the University of California, Irvine. His expertise in the area of memory was once profiled on CBS’ 60 Minutes program. Regarding the issue of “repressed memory,” Dr. McGaugh said in a 2010 book,

• “I do not believe there’s such a thing as repressed memory. I haven’t seen a single instance in which a memory was completely repressed and popped up again.
• “I go on science, not fads. And there’s absolutely no proof that it can happen. Zero. None. Niente. Nada. All my research says that strong emotional experiences leave emotionally strong memories. Being sexually molested would certainly qualify.”

In addition:

• “Recovered-memory therapy will come to be recognized as the quackery of the 20th century.” – Dr. Richard Ofshe, a social psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley (Leon Jaroff and Jeanne McDowell, “Repressed-Memory Therapy: Lies of the Mind,” Time, November 29, 1993);
• “If penis envy made us look dumb, this will make us look totally gullible.” – Dr. Paul McHugh, chairman of the psychiatry department at Johns Hopkins University (Leon Jaroff and Jeanne McDowell, “Repressed-Memory Therapy: Lies of the Mind,” Time, November 29, 1993);
• “You can’t be raped for 10 years and not remember it. Yet, according to the repression aficionados, anything’s possible.” – Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, professor of psychology at the University of California Irvine (Sasha Abramsky, “Memory and Manipulation: The trials of Elizabeth Loftus, defender of the wrongly accused,” LA Weekly, August 19, 2004).

…One final note: It is important to know that in the rare moments that “repressed memory” is challenged in the media, victim advocates will vehemently and vocally complain to writers and editors who dare to challenge the bogus theory. Such attackers will falsely claim that there is a legitimate “other side” to this issue. There isn’t. The public should be very aware of this.

To repeat the words of Dr. McNally, “repressed memory therapy” is indeed “the worst catastrophe to befall the mental health field since the lobotomy era.”

http://www.themediareport.com/hot-topics/repressed-memory-debunked/