Skip to content

WADE ROBSON and JIM MORET Mark the Ninth Anniversary of Michael Jackson’s Death

October 10, 2018

A reader wondered why Wade Robson restarted his ‘molestation’ story this May though his frivolous lawsuits against the Estate and MJ companies were tossed out at the end of last year.

The question doesn’t even require an answer – Robson has nothing else to do but sit on his old bag of lies and has nowhere to go but the media which is always willing to listen to a Michael Jackson detractor even when his lies are so obvious.

So what’s really interesting is why this failed liar is still being invited there and why Robson’s renewed speech occurred at the time it occurred.

As to the timing of the event it is no mystery whatsoever – it has become a time honored tradition to restart allegations about Michael Jackson exactly a month before the anniversary of his death.

This period is a strategic check point in a continued war against Jackson and each year it pursues the same goals – the stories fabricated at this time are meant to obscure Michael Jackson’s full acquittal on June 13th (2005) unwelcome to some people, and overshadow his untimely death on June 25th (2009) still mourned by almost everyone in the world.

These bogus stories are meant to direct public attention elsewhere, refresh old lies about Jackson and add a couple of new ones in order to solidify the image of an ‘abuser’ long created for the poor Michael, and leave it there until the next anniversary arrives – a simple but effective propaganda technique that takes people on a smooth path from the initial rejection of a lie to its complete acceptance and ‘everyone knows it’ stage.

We’ve long noticed the ugly trend of this regular mud-slinging as had to regularly debunk new fakes about Michael Jackson at this time of the year, and now the history of those fabrications can be easily traced back by the posts made on those occasions.

And before we talk about this year’s venture let me remind everyone of previous attempts.

REGULAR EVENT

MAY 2010 was marked by the announcement of a new ground-breaking book about Michael Jackson, meant to ‘humanize’ him and recommended by some university professors for ‘family reading’. The author was a certain Carl Toms, who later turned out to be a convicted pedophile Thomas O’Carroll whose true identity was exposed by Michael’s fans.

Despite the overwhelming protests the book of this criminal was published, though its ultimate goal was to promote the ‘cause’ of this scum of the earth by dragging into the picture the innocent name of Michael Jackson. Here is a series of posts about it, complete with a look at those professors who recommended the pedophilia opus for family reading.

In MAY 2011 a certain Daphne Barak suddenly popped up with a tale about Aaron Carter who allegedly spoke of MJ’s inappropriate behavior towards him. An extensive investigation found the story to be a fabrication and the tape accompanying it a compilation of Carter’s words taken out of a different context.

Carter did indeed talk of some ‘King’ who once freaked him out by sitting on his bed at night, however it was Lou Pearlman, the King of boy bands and Carter’s manager at whose place many of them stayed and who is serving his time in prison now and has a long trail of sex assault accusations by the members of his boy bands. Here are the details of that thriller.

The MAY 2012 post was about Scott Thorson who, fresh from prison and on the eve of the third anniversary of MJ’s death, suddenly decided to improve his finances by alleging that he had once had a ‘secret romance’ with MJ.

Our detailed post debunking the lie ended with a question if Scott Thorson will ever understand that blood money has never done anyone any good. The journalist who happens to know Thorson answered a big NO to this question (so he never will) and was correct. When Thorson’s story subsided its author was incarcerated again for his other offenses which were numerous and varied.

MAY 2013 was a big time for Wade Robson. After testifying about Michael Jackson’s innocence twice and both time under oath – in 1993 to the Grand Jury and at the 2005 trial – he suddenly reentered the picture with an opposite story claiming that he had been ‘sexually abused’.

Robson defended Michael Jackson at the 2005 trial

Trying to explain his previous two decades of standing by Jackson he presented a ridiculous version that he ‘always knew what had been done to him’ only ‘he didn’t realize that it was rape’ (even when he testified to Michael’s innocence at the age of 22), and realized it, poor thing, only when it was explained it to him in a recent therapy session.

This is what British journalist Charles Thomson had to say about it.  And here is Joe Vogel’s take on the same issue.

Throughout the summer of 2013 which was also the time of a grueling court fight between Katherine Jackson and AEG Live, the media salivated over Robson’s news and kept throwing in even more mud.

Beginning with June 2013 a certain James Desborough, a former editor of the defunct News of the World and a freelance journalist now, published in UK tabloids a series of stories about the innumerable millions allegedly paid by MJ to ‘dozens’ of boys no one ever heard of and allegedly listed in some secret FBI files. The story was found to be a big fat lie and if you don’t mind a long and winding investigation here and here are the details.

JUNE 2014 was marked by a CNN interview with Conrad Murray, the doctor who killed Michael Jackson and whose sentence to four years in jail had been cut by half due to overcrowding in prisons. Immediately upon his release the ex-doctor was welcomed on TV to share his valuable views on Jackson – first in an interview and then in a widely publicized documentary. Both events were not only biased, but a horrible insult to justice, truth and simple human decency.

If the media anticipated some ‘dark secrets’ to be disclosed by Murray, they were disappointed – the ex-doctor mostly justified his method of treating Jackson (which led to his death) and only hinted at possible revelations if the media offers were interesting enough. All of it resulted in Conrad Murray writing a book in the summer of 2016 which showed him so malign a narcissist that after the initial agitation the media quickly dropped the matter to avoid further embarrassment. Here is more about that saga. And here too.

In MAY 2015 Robson suffered his first setback. He wanted money from the MJ Estate but the judge didn’t allow his probate creditor’s claim to proceed. The media downplayed the news focusing on the idea that the case was thrown out ‘for technical reasons only’, and was partially correct – at that stage the judge was not even expected to decide on the merits of the case. His sole responsibility was to find if the creditor’s claim could proceed or not, and it naturally couldn’t as all datelines had long expired.

JUNE 2015 was also the 10th anniversary of Michael Jackson’s full acquittal in court, but not a single journalist in the mainstream and tabloid media, except Roger Friedman and Charles Thomson, remembered it. The details are here and here.

A year later, in JUNE 2016 Robson’s other case which was a civil lawsuit against MJ’s companies, was still dragging and to fill the void the media struck afresh with a series of lies published on RadarOnline and other tabloid media that reposted their story.

RadarOnline had been a go-to place for Robson’s lawyers since the inception of his project, but this time the forces supporting Robson surpassed themselves – they meddled with the police documents for the 2005 trial and fabricated the accompanying pictures to imitate porn which was declared to be ‘revealed only now’. The anti-Michael campaign raged all over the media, but the RadarOnline report was so crass and shameless a fake that Michael’s nephews threatened to take legal action against the paper. In the midst of it all Robson suddenly changed his team of lawyers and the matter somehow died, however leaving the unsuspecting public with ripples of suspicions about Jackson. More about it here and here.

That story would not be complete if I didn’t mention the fun fact that a few months after those RadarOnline publications their fakes mysteriously disappeared from the web and can no longer be traced even by archive machines. So even if you know nothing about that case, this disappearance act alone will tell you how big a lie the whole thing was.

When threatened with legal action RadarOnline didn’t want to be held responsible for their fabrication, especially since their goal had been achieved and all the damage to Michael’s name had already been done, so they quietly pulled that material leaving no trace behind them. This hit-and-run RadarOnline operation was revealed in this investigative piece.

Considering all of the above JUNE 2017 was expected by us to be another round of fakes about MJ (our Susannerb even made a post about it), however either because RadarOnline learned its lesson or we missed something in our overview of the battlefield, the eighth anniversary of Michael Jackson’s death seemed to be uneventful in terms of new lies about Jackson (please correct me if I overlooked something).

Moreover, the early summer of 2017 surprised us by a fairly well-made TV movie titled “Michael Jackson: Searching for Neverland” and based on the book “Remember the Time” by two of Jackson’s bodyguards – you can watch it here in minor quality.

However in MAY 2018 the mud slinging resumed. After all his setbacks in court Wade Robson resurfaced again, this time in the court of public opinion, and gave an interview to Jim Moret of Inside Edition – the one who interviewed the Robson family back in 1993 and made a report about them on CNN.  And since it was Jim Moret who provided his public platform to Wade Robson to let him rekindle his lies there, it is he who interests us most.

JIM MORET

Jim Moret. Twitter

Indeed, who is Jim Moret?

Wiki says that he is a journalist and also a lawyer who acted as a legal analyst in covering several celebrity trial cases for various TV and radio channels:

Jim Moret (born December 3, 1956) is the chief correspondent for the syndicated television news magazine Inside Edition. Moret has covered entertainment news and traditional hard news stories for over 25 years. He is a regular guest contributor, legal analyst and guest-host on CNN, HLN, Fox News Channel, Court TV, and MSNBC.

Moret graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles, with a degree in Communication Studies and received a J.D. from Southwestern Law School.

Moret has covered many major California criminal cases including [ ] the O.J. Simpson criminal and civil trials, Scott Peterson double murder trial and the Michael Jackson molestation case, for which he served as the broadcast legal analyst for numerous television and radio networks.

Okay, so since Jim Moret covered the MJ trial in 2005 ‘for numerous TV and radio networks’ as a legal analyst, here comes the next question: How did he cover it?

Describing the way the 2005 trial was reported by the media, several recent articles placed Jim Moret side by side with Diane Dimond as if suggesting that their presentation of the trial was similar or the same.

Steve Knopper, whose two books about the entertainment industry have already been quoted in this blog, spoke to Jim Moret and in his 2016 article made no bones about Moret’s views:

  • “Jim Moret believes Jackson is a child molester. He acknowledges the prosecution made a weak case. But he adds: “Are you asking in my gut, did I feel he was guilty? Yeah, I did.”

Well, first of all, the prosecution case was very strong in terms of the number of con artists of various sorts collected by the prosecution to speak against Jackson and covering more than a decade from early 90s to early 2000s – the period that went well beyond the scope of that particular trial. But as regards the evidence against Jackson their case was indeed weak – there was simply none.

However Jim Moret is apparently the type of a lawyer who doesn’t rely on facts but is guided mostly by his gut feeling, which is enough for him to call a person a criminal. What a remarkable feature for a reporter and legal analyst who is supposed to be analyzing the trial with utmost objectivity! And how fortunate we were to have the 12 jurors who were guided by facts and facts alone!

Here are some excerpts from Steve Knopper’s piece:

Michael Jackson’s 2005 Child-Molestation Trial: Journalists Remember the Public Frenzy, Porn, Hijinks

7/1/2016 by Steve Knopper

Atty. Jim Moret, Network Legal Analyst for Michael Jackson trial [2005]

…Jackson’s trial lasted from the day Tom Sneddon, the Santa Barbara County district attorney, filed charges on December 18, 2003, to the jury’s not-guilty verdict on June 13, 2005.It had extreme moments of drama and spectacle befitting the King of Pop, like the day of his first court appearance, when he jumped on top of a black SUV and performed dance steps to a screaming crowd, or the day he showed up in court in pajamas.(And there was the porn, which prosecutors intended to show as evidence of Jackson’s boy-loving depravity, but, in a twisted way, it established him as a straight male.)Jackson’s trial was similar to those of O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and others, all covered wall-to-wall by cable television and drawing thousands of fans and gawkers. But Judge Rodney Melville closed the courtroom to live media, unlike Simpson’s trial, giving more weight to reporters’ brief daily reports.…Like some reporters who covered the trial, notably Diane Dimond of Hard Copy, Jim Moret of Inside Edition believes Jackson is a child molester. He acknowledges the prosecution made a weak case, particularly in its reliance on the bizarre, finger-snapping testimony of Janet Arvizo, mother of the 10-year-old boy who accused Jackson of molestation. But he adds: “Are you asking in my gut, did I feel he was guilty? Yeah, I did.”Other reporters were dismayed by the openly biased media experts and correspondents who took courtroom seats daily. “There were reporters [at the trial] who had dedicated much of their careers to, for some reason, exposing Michael Jackson as a molester,” says Linda Deutsch, the veteran Associated Press trial reporter who filed regular reports from Santa Maria. “I never understood it. And it was very troubling.”Although Jackson received the best possible verdict, the public ordeal of the lengthy trial visibly took a toll on his health; reporters watched in the courtroom as he struggled to sit down and stand up and occasionally did stretching exercises during breaks. (He died on June 25, 2009.) “It was clear to everyone his health was suffering,” says Peter Bowes, who covered the trial for BBC News. “He became frailer, a lot thinner—almost, I hate to use this phrase, zombie-like, as he walked in and out…. It was tragic to watch.”

There is always something new to learn even from an old story. The above article, for example, made me aware of the importance of live media in the courtroom and of a fundamental difference between MJ’s trial and the trials covered live (O.J.Simpson’s case, for example).

If Michael Jackson’s trial had been broadcast live the media would have had much lesser room for misrepresenting the case. Its outcome would have been the same (full acquittal), but the public would have been convinced of Michael’s innocence in the same way the 12 jurors were convinced of it when they were bringing in a unanimous NOT guilty verdict.

However since there was no live coverage the people had a completely distorted picture of that trial, but still imagine that they can liken Michael Jackson’s not guilty verdict to that in Simpson’s case though in one case they saw all of it with their own eyes and formed their own opinion of it, and in Michael’s case they were guided by other people’s reports that were largely biased, vile and often downright false.

But one thing is a far cry from the other and there can’t be any comparison between the picture you see with your own eyes with a false impression imposed on you by journalistic monsters like Diane Dimond et al. or legal analysts like Jim Moret who value their gut feelings more than facts.

Randy Taraborrelli: “Jim Moret, has been a friend of mine for years; we covered the Michael Jackson trial in Santa Maria together”

A small tip to the TV people – reenact the trial based on its court transcripts and it will open up a wealth of exculpatory information about Jackson and will clear the minds of many.

Another article of the 2005 period puts Jim Moret’s name beside Diane Dimond again and describes the US celebrity show trials as a crime caster industry calling its participants ‘a travelling band of analysts’ most of whom regard it as a way to make a good living for themselves.

To Some, Jackson Trial Is Another Shot at TV

By JOHN M. BRODER APRIL 2, 2005

SANTA MARIA, Calif.

Anne Bremner has taken unpaid time off from her Seattle law practice to sit in the courtroom and offer television commentary on the Michael Jackson trial. The visibility the case has given her, she said, has meant millions of dollars of new business for her firm.

…Drawn by the flame of the klieg lights and the television money that powers them, lawyer-commentators have been a fixture at widely publicized trials at least since William Kennedy Smith was tried and acquitted of rape in Palm Beach, Fla., in 1991. The tribulations of O.J. Simpson, Kobe Bryant, Scott Peterson and now Michael Jackson have brought this traveling band of analysts to the media bivouacs that spring up around America’s celebrity show trials.

Some of the sideline analysts at Mr. Jackson’s trial are familiar from previous spectacles. Jim Moret, who is covering the trial as senior correspondent for the syndicated program “Inside Edition,” was the studio anchor for CNN’s coverage of Mr. Simpson’s trial.

Diane Dimond of Court TV, who is not a lawyer, is among the nation’s foremost experts on Mr. Jackson’s personal and legal issues and is reporting around the clock from a tent pitched in the driveway of the Santa Maria courthouse.

…The Jackson trial has also provided a venue for lesser-known lawyers and courthouse denizens to break into the crimecaster industry.  There a revolving cast of talking heads offers up comment on the proceedings. The video is made available to the networks participating in a pool arrangement, which explains why Ms. Bremner or Mr. Moret, say, may show up on two or three different networks in a single day.

“Trials are like public morality plays,” Ms. Bremner said. “And there’s a public-education aspect to it, in this case more so than in many others.”

She said the Jackson case had provided an occasion to debate a state law on sex crimes cases that allowed the introduction of evidence of past offenses, even if they were not reported or prosecuted. The case has also illumined the vulnerability of a celebrity suspect to possible swindlers or to a prosecutor on a mission, she said.

Some analysts appear to have been hired because of their connections to the prosecution or the defense. NBC has contracted Jim Thomas, the former sheriff of Santa Barbara County, to analyze the trial. Mr. Thomas, who worked closely for years with Thomas W. Sneddon Jr., the Santa Barbara district attorney who is leading the Jackson prosecution, offers insight from the perspective of law enforcement officers and prosecutors.

NBC has also contracted Ronald Richards, who describes himself as a “professional friend” of Thomas A. Mesereau Jr., Mr. Jackson’s chief defense lawyer. Mr. Richards said he tried to be neutral but added that the network hired him because of his expertise on criminal defense issues.

Mr. Richards said no one but a blockhead did legal commentary without being paid. “I don’t understand these lawyers who come up here and do it for free,” he said. “I guess some people are addicted to the camera. It’s like a shot of heroin. If they think it’s good for their legal business, they’re just rationalizing their addiction.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/us/to-some-jackson-trial-is-another-shot-at-tv.html

This was an interesting insight into the trade of legal analysts. So while some of them used MJ’s trial for the promotion of their law firms, the majority of legal analysts did their commentary for money, and Jim Moret was among those who could show up on two or three networks in a single day. Imagine the financial benefits he reaped from that activity.

And not that he didn’t need that money – he needed it very much. Jim Moret left CNN in 2001 and stayed out of work for a while. Eventually his career went back on track, however by then he had already got himself entangled in loans and by 2008 his finances were so bad that he seriously considered committing suicide (all of it is described in his book “The Last Day of My Life” published in 2010). Here is the very short of that story:

Like so many Americans, Moret found himself mired in the problems brought on by the real estate and banking crash of the past year and a half. On the brink of losing everything, Moret – who had spent most of his life as the golden child, the guy to whom everything came easily – found himself obsessing about committing suicide.

When he left CNN in 2001, he was earning nearly $750,000 annually. [ ] With virtually no income, Moret quickly fell deeply in debt trying to keep up with his mortgage and private-school education in Los Angeles for his three children. To cover his costs, Moret ended up taking out a sub-prime loan that saved him in the short-term but eventually made matters far worse. By April 2008, Moret was having a hard time seeing a way out: “… selling the house was no longer a viable option,” he writes. “Because of the market’s precipitous fall, our home was now worth less than the amount we owed on it.”

“The timing of this impending crisis only heightened my sense of despair and hopelessness. My financial meltdown did not hit when I was out of work, but rather several years after my career was already back on track. I had reestablished my career and it was even on an upward swing.” It was then that Moret grew depressed and started wondering if he was better off dead.” 

Apparently, the upward swing in Jim Moret’s career was in close ties with Michael Jackson’s fall from grace in 2004/05. After Moret’s earlier coverage of Jackson he was considered an expert on MJ and during the Arvizo case his services were again in very much demand. His next stroke of luck came when Michael Jackson died in 2009 and Jim Moret found himself in the role of a go-to guy again.

In other words what was Michael’s misfortune was Jim Moret’s bread (and butter too).

Michael Jackson death big business for ‘Inside Edition’ reporter Jim Moret

By RICHARD HUFF | DAILY NEWS TV EDITOR |

AUG 10, 2009 | 10:03 PM

…”I never in a million years thought I’d be the ‘Michael Jackson guy,” said Moret, chief correspondent for “Inside Edition.”

Indeed, since Jackson died, Moret has become that guy and made more than 100 appearances and counting on shows other than “Inside Edition” to talk about the constantly unraveling story behind Jackson.

And with the autopsy results yet to be released, Moret’s extra airtime won’t end soon.

Moret gets the call because besides being a longtime journalist, he’s also a lawyer, which helps because of the various legal twists in the Jackson fallout.

Moret had been covering Jackson since 1984 when he was correspondent in Los Angeles. Then, while at CNN, he was inside the courtroom for Jackson’s first molestation case, and quickly became the go-to guy for other outlets looking for someone to talk celebrity and law.

Now, thanks to Jackson, Moret is everywhere – again.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/michael-jackson-death-big-business-edition-reporter-jim-moret-article-1.398049

To have a feel of Jim Moret’s style of reporting on Jackson here are some specimen of it.

In his 2010 article Moret sounded a little saddened, but not so much by Michael’s death but by the fact that after he died ‘the most questionable’ aspects of his life were ‘almost dismissed’.

“This death has catapulted him to the status of Elvis, in that he’s now a legend. And he was probably worthy of that status even in life. But all of the aspects of his life that were questionable when he was alive, have almost been dismissed in his death.”

And when reporting on the AEG 2013 trial Jim Moret could hardly conceal his frustration that Michael’s reputation and legacy were being resurrected. It even looked like his most ardent desire was to see Michael Jackson’s legacy killed.

Did the AEG Verdict Kill Michael Jackson’s Legacy?

10/02/2013

… For a brief time following Michael Jackson’s death, his reputation seemed resurrected, with millions of fans once again focusing on his music. The documentary This Is It chronicling the buildup and rehearsals for the ill-fated London concert tour cemented Jackson’s reputation as an artistic genius. His records were once again selling in the millions. Jackson’s estate which was estimated to be $400 million in debt at the time of his death, was turned around in dramatic fashion by the deft efforts of the estate’s executors.

Things changed for the worse when the wrongful death claim filed by Jackson’s three children and his eight-three year old mother against AEG finally went to trial earlier this year.

… During the five-month trial, witnesses took the stand and revealed sordid details about Jackson’s alleged molestations, drug addiction and abuse, subjects which Jackson had fought so vigorously during his life to keep out of the headlines.

The jury has spoken in this latest case and found in favor of AEG. Michael Jackson died in June, 2009. When this verdict was announced, I suspect that part of Jackson’s legacy may have died as well.

Now what the hell is that: “witnesses revealed sordid details about Jackson’s alleged molestations”?

Where did he get it?

Those of us who have closely followed the trial were certainly shocked and amazed by this statement. I nearly fell off my chair too. In this blog we analyzed every court transcript page by page and all those testimonies flashed through my mind within seconds, however I still couldn’t remember a single witness to even touch on the ‘molestation’ subject, not to mention ‘reveal sordid details’ of the allegations.

The AEG trial had many ups and downs, its own lies, inconsistencies and flaws, but what they surely didn’t have was the ‘molestation’ issue. I remember it perfectly well because I was even surprised that they didn’t.

So this is the kind of reporting Jim Moret did for his audience? Something that never took place is presented by him as fact?

All of it is beginning to explain why of all people in the world it was Jim Moret of Inside Edition who in May 2018 invited Wade Robson to share his precious lies about Jackson.

These two people are a perfect match for each other – both are not too much bothered about the truth and don’t mind it when it contradicts their stories. Both are driven by an ardent desire to smear Michael Jackson and both seem to benefit from prolonging the hate campaign against MJ and turning lies about him into their profession.

THE TWO INTERVIEWS

Half of Jim Moret’s 2018 interview with Robson is not actually an interview, but the usual voiceover retelling Robson’s allegations and illustrated by the pictures of MJ and young Robson together, Robson now teaching a dance class to his students and Robson sitting here and there with a slightly wistful but top honest look on his face.

Jim Moret interviews the Robsons in 1993

The centerpiece of the current story is Jim Moret’s own interview with Robson as a child when he as a young CNN correspondent spoke to the Robsons in 1993.

The three of them – Wade, his mother Joy and sister Chantal were calm and confident in their support of Jackson. They ruled out the possibility of any abuse on his part and spoke highly of him. The slumber parties were dismissed with a shrug of their shoulders as they were simply party time and were a lot of fun.

Rewatching that old footage now Robson commented on it as follows:

“I remember specifically the days leading up to the interview,” Robson recalled. “The conversation from Michael was they’re saying we did this, that, and the other, disgusting sexual things, and we never did any of that right? And I would just play along and say, ‘That was crazy — never did anything like that.'”

On the face of it his explanation may look feasible, but not until you learn the real timeline of the events. And the real timeline tells us a totally different story proving that MJ could not have coached Robson for his public statements even if he had intended to.

The thing is that first the Robson family was interviewed by police and Robson told them that he had never been touched by Jackson, and only then Joy Robson contacted Norma Staikos who contacted Anthony Pellicano who several days later arranged for Robson and his family to be interviewed by the media.

This timeline follows from Robson’s own Fourth Amended Complaint (yes, the judge allowed him to amend it four times) and shows that there was no need to coach Robson about the innocent things he had already spilled to the police. Especially since Michael was on the Dangerous tour then and Pellicano who would later handle the matter was accompanying him there.

In general Robson’s Fourth Amended complaint describes the succession of those events correctly with the only exception that for reasons of his own Robson shifted the dates from August 21st when all of it really happened to the second half of September.

Here is an excerpt from his Fourth Amended Complaint:

36. On September 14, 1993 […] Jordan Chandler, brought a civil lawsuit against MICHAEL JACKSON, which resulted in the Chandler Investigation identified above. Plaintiff  and his mother were interviewed by the Los Angeles Police Department in connection with the Chandler Investigation. Immediately afterwards, Plaintiffs mother [Joy Robson] called Norma Staikos, who put Plaintiffs mother in contact with Anthony Pellicano, MICHAEL JACKSON’s private investigator. Mr. Pellicano privately interviewed Plaintiff regarding the allegations against MICHAEL JACKSON, and he then arranged for Plaintiff and Plaintiffs mother to be interviewed by the media. Plaintiff was subpoenaed to testify before a Grand Jury in Los Angeles. He was eleven (11) years old at the time. MICHAEL JACKSON selected, hired and paid for counsel who represented Plaintiff in relation to his Grand Jury subpoena, to which Plaintiffs mother refused to let him testify. As a result of Plaintiff s refusal, Judge Lance Ito (the Judge in the O.J. Simpson 1994 criminal case) charged Plaintiff with contempt. A juvenile officer met with Plaintiff and his mother and told them he had to consider Plaintiff a child charged with a crime and possibly take Plaintiff to juvenile incarceration. A compromise was negotiated through MICHAEL JACKSON’s attorneys whereby Plaintiff would testify in a private session, and not before the full Grand Jury panel.

Never mind that September nonsense – the Robson family was interviewed almost a month prior to that. The criminal investigation started on August 17. On Saturday, August 21 the police raided Neverland and then MJ’s condo in Century City. In the meantime Michael’s several child friends were interviewed by police investigators (during the raid one of the boys was staying at Neverland and when questioned by the police fiercely defended Jackson).

On August 22/23 Pellicano interviewed the boys himself and on August 24 he arranged a press-conference with the participation of Robson and Brett Barnes.

On Wednesday, August 25 CNN spoke to Brett Barnes and the next day Robson and his family sat for an interview with Jim Moret.

The correct timing follows from the then press describing the events in their immediate succession and also from Jim Moret’s own original report citing ‘late Thursday’ (August 26) as the time when Robson and his family were introduced to CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37nw8K6H91c

To learn other important details see what the LA Times wrote on September 3, 1993:

Gloves Come Off in Damage Control by Jackson Camp

September 03, 1993|DAVID FERRELL and CHUCK PHILIPS, TIMES STAFF WRITERS

The instant the phone call arrived, Anthony Pellicano knew there was trouble–possibly big trouble. The caller told him there had been a raid. Police had confiscated photos and videotapes from the homes of the private investigator’s top client, pop superstar Michael Jackson.

For Pellicano, who was accompanying the singer on the Asian leg of a world concert tour, the bombshell was sufficiently jarring to prompt his own phone call moments later to Los Angeles, where it was not yet dawn.

“Wake up,” Pellicano told an old ally, criminal attorney Howard Weitzman. [ ] As the Aug. 21 police raid threatened to spill the accusations into the public realm, Pellicano sought to act quickly, enlisting Weitzman’s services before flying from Bangkok, Thailand, to Los Angeles.

…While sifting through the interview requests, Pellicano and Weitzman began dealing privately with the Los Angeles Police Department, providing information that led the LAPD to open an investigation into the alleged extortion attempt.

The private eye also tracked down child friends of Jackson who might help paint a positive image of the singer. Dealing with children is especially tricky because their accounts of events sometimes can change, according to Crutchfield and legal experts. And attacking the credibility of children who are the accusers runs the risk of alienating the public.

In spite of those dangers, Pellicano seemed to score a winner several days after the scandal broke when an Australian youngster appeared on CNN television, some experts said. The child was found by police in one of Jackson’s residences at the time of the raid, and was interviewed by LAPD investigators before he was questioned by Pellicano.

After Pellicano made the child available to CNN, the child talked of sleeping in the same bed with Jackson, but said that the singer never improperly touched him. “I’ll tell you what, he was good,” Crutchfield said. “They couldn’t have picked anybody better.”

[Elizabeth] Taylor arrived by jet in Singapore on Aug. 29, joining Jackson’s concert tour to show her support. The next day, Jackson’s mother and other family members spoke out on his behalf at a news conference. Former teen-age actor Corey Feldman, a star in the film “Stand By Me,” expressed his support for Jackson in an appearance on the television news.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-03/news/mn-31256_1_michael-jackson

If we compare this article with Robson’s Fourth Amended Complaint it becomes clear that Michael’s associate who was contacted by Joy Robson via Norma Staikos after they were interviewed by police was Anthony Pellicano.

An interesting nuance is that Pellicano was unaware of the August 21st police raid and learned about it from a call to Bangkok where he was staying with Jackson. Michael’s legal team didn’t know of it either as the services of criminal attorney Howard Wiezman were enlisted only later, upon hearing the news.

So before the police investigators interviewed Robson and before his mother contacted Norma Staikos there had been absolutely no one to coach the boy – neither MJ, nor anyone as no one simply knew.

And even if the boy who stayed at Neverland and fiercely defended Jackson to the police was not Robson, but Brett Barnes (for example), it won’t change anything as exactly the same succession of events was also described by Robson in his Fourth Amended Complaint – Robson was first questioned by police investigators to whom he spilled the story as it was, in a somewhat naive childish way (yes, we had sleepover parties but nothing happened, why are you asking?) and only then came his interview with CNN.

It’s funny that legal analyst Jim Moret didn’t ask a single question to clarify that point and swallowed that ‘coaching’ story hook, line and sinker.

By the way no one should be surprised that Michael’s child friends stayed at Neverland when he was away. Robson’s mother said that in the entire time they had lived in the US since 1991 she could remember only four occasions in 14 years when they were in Neverland together with Michael. She said: ‘Every other time we’ve been there without him.’

So what are we supposed to make of Robson’s recent explanations? The real timeline says that no matter whether Michael talked or didn’t talk to Robson before the CNN interview it doesn’t change the simple fact that Robson spoke in support of Jackson from the start of and of his own free will too.

Those boys had never been touched and were so sure of what they were saying that Pellicano even sent them to a press-conference and to a questioning on national TV – the risky test which not every grown-up would endure.

And this means that now Robson is lying again. He went on Jim Moret’s program to intentionally mar the anniversary of Michael Jackson’s death (and full acquittal in court) by rekindling his old lies and throwing in a new one. This was probably not his biggest lie as compared with all the rest of them, but as the former FBI director James Comey recently said: ‘Small lies matter.’

SMALL LIES MATTER

Mr. Comey also wrote that ‘little lies point to bigger lies’ and reminded everyone of the standard jury instruction:

And since James Comey anticipated a counter argument that ‘people may forget’ he made another remark which is also fully applicable to our Robson:

F.B.I. agents know time has very little to do with memory. They know every married person remembers the weather on their wedding day, no matter how long ago. Significance drives memory. They also know that little lies point to bigger lies.

Incidentally, the case which Mr. Comey was referring to is that of a certain woman, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Professor of Psychology who recently accused a certain man (Federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh) of a rape attempt she narrowly escaped 36 years ago when both of them were senior school students.

What’s remarkable about that case is that to prove her charges the woman voluntarily took a lie detector test conducted by a FBI expert and for several hours running answered direct questions from all sides in a gruelling questioning broadcast live from the Senate, and they still didn’t believe her.

And Wade Robson first said one thing and then another, broke his oath twice, openly called himself ‘a master of deception’, was never directly questioned about his present story and never took a lie detector test  – and he is still being listened to.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

To see the absurdity of the situation you will have to imagine that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford first defended her abuser for two decades and testified to his innocence as a girl and then as a grown-up woman, but then made a U-turn and now keeps amending her story depending on the circumstances – and the media still invites her and encourages for more.

For Robson to only minimally approach Dr. Christine Ford’s standing and acquire just a scrap of her credibility, he should first undergo a lie detector test, conducted by a professional investigator too, and then subject himself to several hours of direct questioning by lawyers or knowledgeable journalists (not Jim Moret), broadcast live please, and even in that case there will be no guarantee that he will be considered a trusted witness. After all they didn’t believe Dr. Ford though if you put her beside Robson she will tower over him like a pillar of truth.

And until Wade Robson does all of the above we can say an easy farewell to our dear lost friend, same as to those journalists and legal analysts who like fiction more than fact and make reports about innocent people on the basis of their gut feeling and not truth or rational analysis.

20 Comments leave one →
  1. November 11, 2018 6:47 pm

    So Elvis, not Michael was chosen by Trump. Because his base is country.

    Like

  2. Aeric Lee permalink
    November 10, 2018 7:44 am

    Here’s a video describing Michael’s spiritual life:

    Like

  3. November 9, 2018 5:56 pm

    Dear friends, sorry for having been away again. It seems that each time I write a new article my computer is hacked or attacked in some way. I am not exactly a computer expert, so this time had to struggle with the broken Windows. Hope to resume writing soon.

    Like

  4. October 16, 2018 5:56 pm

    The fact that people to this day are able and eager to make money off Michael Jackson just proves how great he was or is.Shame on them; DD and now this Moret.

    Like

  5. Michael J permalink
    October 14, 2018 5:17 pm

    all that said this liar on michael jackson the king of pop he did not win anything everybody know that Michael Jackson was a very kind and helpful man he help all the world the little people the sick people the poor his money was for the poor and sick around the world rest in peace Michael against these viruses like this dog of WADE ROBSON

    Like

  6. October 12, 2018 1:55 pm

    In general Dr. Ford’s case provides a fantastic chance to make people reevaluate their views on Michael Jackson and his accuser. People should see that it won’t do to make an accusation and then walk away leaving the accused to struggle with the consequences.

    The accuser should prove his case and a good public hearing may partially solve the problem. It will at least give people a chance to form their own opinion of what they see. And in case the accused person is not alive and cannot defend himself in court a serious questioning of the accuser may be mandatory. Otherwise there will be a huge disbalance between the two sides – one side can easily tell lies without repercussions for itself, while the other bears all the losses with no chances for defense.

    I’m afraid that Robson cannnot be allowed to get away with what he did. Michael Jackson is too big a phenomenon to be prey to silly jokes. It seems logical to me that Robson should be required to undergo a severe public test – or go to hell.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. William permalink
    October 12, 2018 8:06 am

    @Helena OK, I see your point. I understand what you were trying to get at now.

    Also, I have to apologize because I misread you earlier. You never said the questioning during the lie detector test was grueling; you were referring to the hearing in front of the senate. My mistake.

    As for Robson, you’re right. There’s absolutely no way he’d be able to stand up to the same type of questioning that Dr. Ford underwent. There’s way too much contradictory information out there debunking his claims that he’d have to address — he’s bound to make at least a number of mistakes while trying to reconcile the facts with his lies. It’d be only a matter of when–and not if–he slips up. He clearly wants to avoid a situation like that, He just wants to get in, get the money, and get out as fast as he can. Real victims would not have waited til after his/her abuser died to sue their estate in a civil case. Thank you for your work.

    Like

  8. October 12, 2018 4:24 am

    “If he ends up passing it will only do more damage (potentially irreparable) to Michael’s legacy. Lie detector tests are not an exact science, and a good liar knows all-too-well how to manipulate them.” – William

    Over here I agree. A lie detector can indeed be manipulated and Robson can be easily coached for it. However this was not a suggestion but only a comparison pointing to the difference in public perception of liars talking about MJ and (potential) liars talking about everyone else. In other cases the accusers are required to take tests and undergo harsh questioning, while those who speak against MJ are not even asked to prove anything. This situation is TOTALLY ABNORMAL.

    Speaking hypothetically I would love to see Robson undergo a questioning similar to that of Dr. Ford in the Senate – and see him answer incovenient questions from well-informed experts, broadcast live too. And if it comes in a combination with a live hearing, a lie-detector test made by a FBI agent wouldn’t hurt either. But only in a combination with a public hearing, and only if the test is done by an impartial expert.

    After all Robson resorted to the media to play his case in the court of public opinion and create a nasty show to pressure the Estate into paying him money.

    So he wanted a show? Let it be. SHOW MUST GO ON, only this time at Robson’s expense.

    Like

  9. October 12, 2018 3:57 am

    The evidence points either to her lying, or misremembering events. – William

    My goal is not to analyze Dr. Ford’s case. My idea is to show to people the incredible double standards practised towards Michael and all others.

    In no other case than Michael’s would accusers be allowed to vehemently support a person for twenty years and then change their statements on a whim. In no other case could someone break their oath twice and be considered credible after that. Even a small discrepancy in anyone’s story will make people skeptical while the numerous holes in Robson’s story (for ex. contradictions between his present story and his sister’s testimony at the 2005 trial) for some reason don’t raise a big red flag.

    The comparison with Dr. Ford was made for people to do serious soul-searching and realize that they are incredibly biased when it comes to Michael Jackson. In any other case their reaction would have been totally different.

    To justify their anti-MJ bias some of them will say that there were two more accusers of Michael – Chandler and Arvizo. But as far as I know Dr. Ford’s case was also supported by two more women, and it still didn’t matter.
    As to the Arvizo family they were proven to be liars and even guilty of extortion in an earlier case.
    And Jordan Chandler and his father were afraid of testifying in court like the plague. To make sure of it, it is enough to read Ray Chandler’s book about MJ where Evan Chandler reacts to the news that a criminal trial may come before their civil case (and he will have to testify there) with the words “Jesus Christ”! The fun fact here is that it was Michael Jackson’s lawyers who insisted on a criminal trial coming first, and not the Chandlers. The latter wanted to grab their money and then disappear from public view.
    Where else can you find an accused person who wants to prove his innocence in a criminal trial – except Michael? If we were to (hypothetically) compare it with Dr. Ford’s case it would be equivalent to the accused man insisting on trying his case in a criminal court – the option which is even impossible to imagine considering that he didn’t want even a proper FBI investigation.

    And by the way, Michael Jackson was under FBI’s scrutiny for a very long time, with zero result at that.

    Like

  10. William permalink
    October 11, 2018 7:21 pm

    This brings me to another part of your article I disagreed with: the recommendation that Wade Robson submit to a lie detector test to “prove” his case. In actuality, it’s probably best that he doesn’t since he’s likely to try to seek out coaching and professional advice before agreeing to one. If he ends up passing it will only do more damage (potentially irreparable) to Michael’s legacy. Lie detector tests are not an exact science, and a good liar knows all-too-well how to manipulate them. (There was a case I saw a few weeks ago on Forensic Files where one of the suspects who passed the test ended up being found guilty of murder!). However, I think for him he probably doesn’t want to take the risk either of possibly failing and further weaken his case. I think we should instead trust and let the evidence (or lack thereof) speak for itself.

    Like

  11. William permalink
    October 11, 2018 7:10 pm

    I have to disagree with you comment on Christine Dord. Her polygraph included only 2 question so it was “grueling” by any stretch of imagination. She also had experience with polygraphs and reportedly coached a friend on how to take one. Ford’s case (she claimed she was assaulted around the time Mark Judge was working as working for “Safeway Inc”, however, records show that “Safeway” didn’t exist as a business until 1986) was no stronger than Robson’s. The evidence points either to her lying, or misremembering events.

    Like

  12. susannerb permalink*
    October 11, 2018 10:35 am

    Helena, this is a good compilation of the annual mud-slinging in connection with MJ’s death anniversary. Listing the events this way underlines the regularity behind it and makes the strategy visible.

    In addition, let me remind everybody that Jim Moret was included in Dana Gedrick’s and Barry Shaw’s film “The trials of Michael Jackson” because he had also appeared at the gates of Neverland during the trial 2005 and enraged the fans. He pretended to be interested in the fans’ opinion, but ridiculed them in his reports, and some fans confronted him on it. This is what Myra said in the film about him:

    Myra, fan from the Netherlands, talks at Neverland:
    “After 20 years we still fall for it. Jim Moret (chief correspondent Inside Edition) comes here, pretends to be listening to the fans, win their trust – ‘Oh, we want to listen to your opinion and what is your take on the trial’ – win their trust. As soon as you get their trust, whip up the camera and the microphone and use the fans for a program and make fun of them. I mean, as soon as I saw the camera I left, but they do this every single time. Pretend they’re your friend and then whip up the camera and make fun of you.”

    At Neverland Jim Moret sits in his car and fans discuss his behavior with him.

    Myra: “You just whipped up the camera after everyone was standing around, instead of making your intentions known from the beginning. You came and pretended like you extra cared about our opinion.”

    See here.
    Jim Moret is definitely another one of those whose career was connected with Michael Jackson over decades.

    Excellent conclusion at the end of your post, Helena, comparing Robson and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. October 11, 2018 4:08 am

    “Mj wouldn’t take WR on tour, he said no kids , this time, yet they were upset because he had kids with him” – Nan

    Considering Jordan Chandler’s evolving scandal it is easy to understand why Michael didn’t want any kids to accompany him on that tour. However later he felt so forlorn and abandoned sitting all alone in his hotel room with a ton of allegations on his shoulders that he pleaded for the Cascio brothers to join him. In that situation it must have been a desperate appeal for help.

    In mid-September the Barnes family also joined him for the European part of the tour, probably as a way to support him. But Michael was so distraught that he forgot to arrange tickets for them to his concert. And then was distraught that he had forgotten about it (he said he had so many things on his mind). Mrs. Barnes first expressed her displeasure with that oversight, but when she heard how upset Michael was she wrote him a note of apology – she really didn’t want to add more to the woes he already had. She even offered for the family to leave, only Brett wouldn’t have wanted it. This was discussed at the 2005 trial, see her testimony there.

    CORRECTION: THE BARNES WERE WITH MJ ON THE DANGEROUS TOUR A YEAR EARLIER, IN SEPTEMBER 1992. SORRY FOR THE MEMORY LAPSE.

    As to Robson he was in the process of negotiations for making his first rap album Duo at the time, and he and his mother were much more obsessed with his career than rendering support to Jackson. If they had joined Michael on a tour then, with their (possible) complaints about the excessive media attention to them they would have only added to MJ’s trouble.

    If you come to think of it it was in their interests to distance themselves from Michael at that moment. For sure, Joy Robson would have preferred it that way, however Wade was evidently fully on Michael’s side.

    Like

  14. October 11, 2018 3:36 am

    “Looks like a lot, if not much of this hate campaign is led by actual p’s.” – Laura Guerro

    Sure it is. The campaign has two stages to it – first frame up Michael Jackson to present him as one of them, and then use people’s appreciation of him and his music to justify their actions. Thomas O’Carroll’s book pursued both goals.

    Like

  15. Laura Guerro permalink
    October 10, 2018 4:56 pm

    Damn! Pardon my french, but I never would’ve known about Thomas O’Carroll had you not mentioned him. Looks like a lot, if not much of this hate campaign is led by actual p’s.

    Like

  16. Mjlima permalink
    October 10, 2018 4:43 pm

    9 years and the devils are still at it..
    “My fans are activists, they will fight with you to defend me”
    Michael Jackson

    We will always fight for you Mj
    true love never dies….

    Like

  17. Nan permalink
    October 10, 2018 2:00 pm

    Something else that really bothers me regarding Robson, is that he is never asked to describe MJ from the waist down
    This graphic , salatious stuff was a staple for the Chandlers, even Sneddon asked for a description in court from the Arvizos, when he was aware , they would be no opportunity to compare it to what Chandler said
    So Wade stays away from that because he knows , neither of those descriptions match ..
    After reading Robson testimony, and getting info from the portions of the depositions , on another site, ( think I read them on TE Michael Jackson allegations site )seems pretty obvious, the mom was trying to attach the family to Mj as a shortcut to stardom
    There was one point, where she was upset because , Mj wouldn’t take WR on tour, he said no kids , this time, yet they were upset because he had kids with him
    I think the difference is, that MJ invited friends and relatives on tour, who would go to museums, and tourist attractions with him, not people who wanted to dance next to him every night , to get well known

    Like

  18. Nan permalink
    October 10, 2018 1:50 pm

    I also read testimony in the AEG trial, and you are right , the molestation stuff was brought up , I believe by both sides, and people under oath said words to the effect of it being false , ridiculious..Not ONE person saiid they believed it, but I suppose l that why Robson and some others were dusted off , and used to devalue Mj life
    If Jim was at trial, he knows that too..

    As Inread your article about Mr Moret, it reminded me of an interview he did with Alison Hope Weiner, where he said the MJ had admitted to sleeping in bed with children ..that seemed to be what he was hanging his hat on
    Jim , like Diane has made a career , off of MJ , I doubt anything would make these people swallow their pride and ego, and admit they could be wrong.
    Interesting that Jim also says things came easy to him, and it was when he lost it financially, he thought of taking his life.
    Think of the contrast between him and Mj <who worked his entire life and people made. A Living trying to destroy him, take his earnings , and all that ..Still, when he was behind the 8 ball, he didn’t respond with self pity .i doubt any of the people doing commentary on that case could have withstood what he did during that trial

    Like

  19. Nan permalink
    October 10, 2018 1:39 pm

    Thank you for another insightful article
    Pretty sure the estate was looking to reimbursed for legal fees from Robson after he lost his case , so I’m sure that is an incentive also ,to further smear Mj and put alittle money in his pocket for an interview too

    Like

  20. Asma permalink
    October 10, 2018 3:48 am

    Hello Helena,

    It has been awhile. Always an enlightening pleasure to read your posts. Processing at the moment but I really like how you drew the hypothetical analogy and general comparison between Robson and Dr. Ford. The media cannot be more transparent in its, as you put it, war on Jackson. It is cumbersome and tiresome at this point. They ought to know that they are being seen through when it comes to him, but still insist on playing the same game.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: