Thread by @JuliaBerkowitz1

THREAD: Last year on Inside Edition Wade Robson claimed that "Every time we were together it happened. There was no night that went by that I was with him that he didn't sexually abuse me." #LeavingNeverland

When you read Robson's deposition, it sounds a little bit overboard, how he tries to sneak an abuse story into almost any and every interaction that he had with Jackson for 7 years. #LeavingNeverland

He portrays Jackson as a totally insatiable, reckless abuser who would abuse him even with other people being in the next room, able to walk in on them any time. For example #LeavingNeverland

You have to understand, why he needed these claims from a legal point of view. Robson sued Jackson's companies (you cannot sue a dead natural person). In order to implicate the companies he needed to make them responsible for his alleged abuse. #LeavingNeverland

The way to do that is to suggest that people employed by the companies might have been aware of the abuse and deliberately enabled it. #LeavingNeverland

But this totally contradicts James Safechuck's portrayal of MJ as this extremely cautious, paranoid abuser who would go extreme lengths to avoid being detected, like #LeavingNeverland

Safechuck needed this type of portayal for his own purposes as often family and friend went with him to his Neverland trips and no one ever has seen anything suspicious. So he need an explanation for that. #LeavingNeverland

This, however, resulted in totally contradictory portayal by these men as to how MJ supposedly was as a "molester". #LeavingNeverland

Robson portrays him as a reckless abuser who couldn't resist molesting him whenever they stayed alone just for a couple of minutes, even if other people were dangerously close to detecting them. #LeavingNeverland

Safechuck, on the other hand, portrays him as very, very cautious almost to the point of paranoia. #LeavingNeverland

So which one is it? Probably neither, because both are lying.
I doubt though, that this will be mentioned in that documentary.#LeavingNeverland

Another addition to how Robson portrays MJ as a totally reckless abuser in contrary to Safechuck's portrayal as an extremely cautious one #LeavingNeverland

BTW, the fact that Robson portrays MJ as this insatiable molester also contradicts the fact, that acc. to his own mother's deposition MJ did not actually want to spend that much time with Wade. It was always Joy who pursued him to put Wade in videos. #LeavingNeverland

MJ refused to take Wade on the Dangerous Tour and Joy cut him off for six months because he did not even call Wade from the tour. She also had to be the one who pursued MJ to put Wade in his "Jam" video. #LeavingNeverland

In an 1995 interview (onwiththeshow.com.au/the-inside-sto…) Joy Robson also said that when they move to the USA Jackson spent much of the time away. #LeavingNeverland

Rosbon and Safechuck's portrayal of MJ as a "molester" also differ in that Safechuck describes a many months long "grooming" period, whereas Robson says MJ couldn't wait to molest him right on the first occasion they were alone in a room. No grooming period, nothing.

Mind you, Robson's story changed even since its first telling. For example, in a book draft that he shopped late 2012-early 2013, he wrote that MJ did not molest him right away the first weekend they spent together, but only the next week when his parents weren't around.

By the time he filed his complaint the story changed to MJ molesting him right away. It even prompted the lawyers for MJ's side to ask him if his memories have "evolved"? That is it to put it euphemistically that his story has changed.

More: Safechuck, taking a cue from the Arvizo's story, claims MJ gave him alcohol when he was a child.

Robson, on the other hand, expressed surprise about MJ drinking alcohol when he desribed their last meeting in 2008 in Las Vegas (when both of them were adults, of course). He said it was new to him even then that MJ wanted alcohol!

Contd: Since a dead natural person cannot be sued, Wade Robson had to make a case against MJ's companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures to get the monetary compensation he desired.

For this reason,MJ's companies are a central part of his story. In his lawsuit he portrayes them as "the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization[s] the world has known" that knowingly and deliberately “facilitated” his alleged abuse

However, the 2016 deposition of Wade’s mother, Joy Robson inadvertently proves that this is a lie.

The Robsons, who are originally from Brisbane, Australia, first met Jackson in 1987 when he was on tour in Australia and Wade, who was 5 year old then, won a dance competition at Target store where the prize was to meet Michael Jackson.Wade alleged in his lawsuit:

This portrayal is massively contradicted by his mother's deposition. She testified that the meet-and-greet was not organized by MJ's companies but by Target, Pepsi and CBS. It was an event where a lot of people were present and they only had a couple of minutes with MJ.

Even Wade himself testified that when he was on stage with MJ at the concert he did not spend any time with the star off stage, their only interaction was on the stage.

Their encounter would have ended there, if it was for MJ or his companies. It was Joy Robson who then made further efforts to contact MJ again. She, with her son, delivered a “thank you” note to Jackson’s hotel room and had another meeting with the star, for about 1.5 hours.

Again, this would have been the end of their encounters if for Jackson or his companies. Over the next few years Joy Robson sent Jackson letters and videos about Wade’s progress as a dancer, but they never heard back from the star.

The next time they met or even talked to Jackson again was more than two years later, in 1990, when, once again, it were the Robsons who sought contact with the star, not the other way around.

But let's see first what Wade alleges in his lawsuit about that meeting 2 years later in 1990.

Norma Staikos was Jackson's personal assistant at the time. Robson accuses her of being "a "madam" or "procurer" of child sexual abuse victims for Michael Jackson", but let's see the reality of that meeting as per Joy Robson's deposition.

As we have seen above Joy says in her deposition that between 1987-1990, she sent Jackson several letters about Wade and videos of him, hoping to get in touch with the star again, but all of those remained unanswered.

Before the Robson family traveled to the USA in January 1990, Joy already tried to obtain contact information for MJ, by calling Australian television channels and asking if they had any sort of contact for him. She eventually managed to obtain the phone number of MJJ Porductions

It is absolutely disingenuous from Wade to portray this 1990 meeting in his lawsuit as some sort of plot by Staikos and MJ's companies to acquire him as a victim for MJ.

He knows damn well that it were them, the Robsons who sought contact with MJ again, not the other way around. In an interview several years before his turnaround he even talked about it!

https://twitter.com/hfy_e/status/1084254591758282752

So why does he accuse Norma Staikos of being a "madame" and "procurer of child sexual abuse victims for Michael Jackson" when it was her mother who sought contact with MJ, and it was not Staikos who sought contact with them?

Simple. Because this is the way he could ask for a monetary compensation in his lawsuit. For someone who claims that his allegations aren't about money, but about "the truth", he sure lies a lot in his lawsuit just to try to get to that money.

It is clear that it was Joy Robson who “purposely orchestrated” the meeting, not Staikos, MJJ Productions or MJJ Ventures. That Wade claims otherwise in his lawsuit is a deliberate lie to implicate the MJ companies and Staikos, because that is the way he could sue for money.

Next Robson claims in his lawsuit:

However, according to Joy Robson’s testimony, the idea for the Robsons’ immigration to the USA came from Wade’s father, Dennis. Joy herself too felt they needed to move to the USA to pursue Wade's career.

The role of MJ's companies in all this was that when Joy eventually decided to immigrate in September 1991, the Robsons needed a sponsor and an employer in the USA to be able to stay. Joy asked MJ to help them with that, and MJ instructed his office to do it.

This goes against Wade's narrative that MJ and his companies brought him to the USA "for the explicit purpose of allowing Michael Jackson access to [Robson] for sexual abuse".

Jackson and his companies reacted to the expressed desire of the Robson family to have a career for Wade in dancing and choreography, which could be better pursued in the USA than in Australia.

And as we have already discussed in this thread, when the Robsons moved to the US, MJ did not even spend much time with Wade, Joy rather complained that Wade felt pushed aside.

So the narrative that Jackson moved the Robsons to the USA "for the explicit purpose of allowing Michael Jackson access to [Robson] for sexual abuse" makes little sense when he then hardly wanted to spend time with Wade.

The allegation that MJ's companies were "the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization(s) the world has known" is also risiculous because if that was the case it should have been a regularity for these companies to employ children...

...but Wade's employment was a one-off, and specifically in answer to Joy Robson’s request to help them with their immigration.

In his desperation to implicate the companies (ie. to be able to sue for money) at one point Wade went as far in his deposition as to blame Staikos and MJ's next personal assistant Evvy Tavasci even more than MJ himself!

So on the one hand Michael Jackson was supposed to be this helpless child, on the other hand, however, he was also supposed to be the shrewd mafia boss of the “most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization the world has known”.

In his deposition Wade makes absurd claims like that Staikos should have called the authorities when the Robsons contacted Jackson in January/February 1990.

He also blames Staikos because "[Jackson] didn't know about me again until [Staikos] made the connection”, once again "forgetting" that it was his mother who initiated that connection, not Staikos!

That Norma Staikos is made out to be the main "facilitator" of Wade's alleged abuse instead of his mother, is a big red flag regarding what this case really is about. It has all to do with the fact that this is the way Wade could try to sue Jackson's companies for money.

And the demonstrable lies about the companies are also very problematic for Wade’s credibility, because he claims his coming forward is all about getting out “the truth”. But how are you fighting for "the truth" when your complaint is full of lies?

Some more lies by Robson: Besides the civil lawsuit against MJ's companies Robson also filed a creditor's claim against MJ's Estate - for monetary compensation of course.

A claimant has to file his creditor’s claim no later than 60 days from the date when he first has knowledge of the facts reasonably giving rise to the existence of the claim and the administration of the Estate.

In this case it meant that Robson should have filed his creditor’s claim within 60 days of when he knew both of the following: 1. that he was allegedly sexually abused as a child by Michael Jackson, 2. that Michael Jackson had an Estate.

Robson claimed that he did not understand that he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson as a child until May 8, 2012.

The Court dismissed this argument. Its ruling stated that at least by the time of Jackson’s death, Robson was well aware of both that a sexual relationship between an adult and a minor was a crime and also that a victim does not go to jail for such alleged acts.

In his declaration (so under oath) Robson also claimed that he did not know about the administration of the MJ Estate before March 4, 2013 when he first met his lawyers Gradstein & Marzano.

If this was true it would put Wade within the 60 days requirement, as he filed his creditor's claim on May 1, 2013, within 60 days of obtaining knowledge about the administration of Jackson's Estate.

But this was a lie to get around those statutes of limitations. As it was revealed by Jackson's Estate during discovery, Wade was not only very much aware of the administration of Jackson's Estate years before he filed his creditor's claim, but he even negotiated with them!

In 2011 Wade was eager to work on Cirque du Soleil's Michael Jackson Las Vegas show "ONE", and to discuss it, in early 2011 he made a visit to the office of John Branca, one of the executors of the Michael Jackson Estate.

In other words, Wade, again, lied in his declaration - so under oath. That to get around statutes of limitations. Because this is all about "the truth" and not money, you know.

Moreover, Wade's longtime lawyer and family friend, Helen Yu, who helped him in shopping around his book in 2012-2013, discussed the Michael Jackson Estate in an interview on her law firm's website in 2009.

She mentioned the Estate's executors, John Branca and John McClain, and she talked about how Jackson "will most likely earn more dead than alive" through his Estate.

Wade also tried to twist the requirement and besides claiming that he was not aware of the Estate's administration at all, he also claimed that he was not aware that he could seek a claim.

However, the MJ Estate discovered, that on Sept. 7, 2012 Wade sent out an e-mail in which he shared his allegations with over 30 people. Asking his recipients for discretion, he refers to his allegations as an "extremely sensitive legal matter". From Joy's deposition:

It shows that long before March 4, 2013, at the very least by September 7, 2012, he understood that he had a legal cause of action.

In a ruling by Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff, the Court dismissed Wade Robson's creditor's claim on May 26, 2015. Although immediately after the ruling Wade’s lawyer, Maryann Marzano vowed to appeal, they eventually never did.

I am pretty sure this documentary will spend a significant amount of time on trying to psychologically explain Wade Robson's turnaround. They know that many people would instinctively have a huge problem with someone who until not so long ago defended or even praised MJ...

... testified for him, asked for a job with his Estate, but then turned around and claimed abuse while asking for a monetary compensation when the guy is not here to defend himself.

So you will hear about how it is not rare at all for abuse victims to come out many years, even decades later. You will also hear about how abuse victims sometimes are conflicted and even feel love for their abuser.

You will hear about how shame, the fear of not being believed, thinking they are alone with this problem and other factors may also play a role in keeping their secret for so long.

That is all true and we certainly do not deny the experience of those genuine abuse victims who go through this process. However, in this case there are many reasons to think that we are talking about posers who not only take advantage of MJ, but also of genuine abuse victims.

Some of those reasons we mentioned above. Here is another: Wade's explanation of why he did not come out earlier and why he did not tell "his truth" in 2005 is all over the place. Here is one example:

According to his mother's deposition, when her mother asked him why he didn't tell "his truth" in 2005, he told her because of shame:

However, when Wade was very specifically asked in his deposition if shame played a factor, he denied it did. There he was on his story that until 2012 he didn't know it was wrong, so he "didn't have any perspective on it". (He does mention shame but only in everyday situations)

To further highlight his flip-flopping (ie. lying), here is something he wrote on his blog in July 2018. This is in direct contradiction with what he said in his deposition!

In his depo he specifically denies shame being a factor and the fear of being labelled gay being a factor, but in a blog post where he lectures his audience on misguided definitions of masculinity, he is suddenly again on his initial story that he told his mother about shame.

So which one is it? I will be curious which version it will be in the documentary. I assume the shame version, because that's more relatable. Saying shit like "I didn't have any perspective on it until 2012 when I suddenly realized I was abused" is a much less relatable.

Ultimately this just shows him once again as a liar, who will shamelessly say anything he needs to say in any given situation. In court, for legal reasons, he had to be on on the version of not knowing it was abuse until 2012, so he said that.

But he must have he realized himself that the shame angle doesn't work well with it, so that's not what he claimed in court. In public, however, "I didn't have any perspective on it until 2012" would be difficult to sell, so in public he is on his shame version.

Make no mistake,Wade is well prepared of child abuse stories. He admitted to have read lots of literature about the topic before he filed his lawsuit. So those familiar descriptions of sexual abuse,do not prove he is telling the truth, it just proves he is well read on the topic.

Shame and the fear of being labelled gay is a familiar story in male victims. But as we seen, Wade just uses this story, to explain his turnaround - and he will use a completely condradictory explanation when that is what is required. Doesn't that sound like a cynical liar?

Re. Wade Robson claiming on Inside Edition: "there was no night that [MJ] didn't sexually abuse me". It is an interesting phenomenon how his "memories" evolve.

In his deposition parts of his book draft that he shopped around in 2012 were read. For example, they talked about that first weekend in 1990 when the Robsons stayed at Neverland.

Robson now claims MJ sexually molested him from the get go, including that first weekend. However in his book draft he claimed molesation did not start until the next week when his parents left.

In fact he writes about the previous weekend "I don't believe anything out of the 'ordinary' happened that night." When asked at his deposition if that is consistent with his recollection, he says: "Yeah, I don't really remember." It's worth reading:

Now, all of a sudden he "remembers" that each and every night abuse happened. Moreover in his complaint he gives a detailed description of what allegedly happened that night, quoting MJ verbatim and all.

Remember this is the same night about which in his book draft he wrote that nothing out of the ordinary happened and when asked in his depo if that is his recollection he said he didn't remember.But somehow in his complaint he gives a detailed description of sex abuse about it!

Never trust a guy with an evolving "memory"!

Update: I see this documentary now tries to make something sinister out of innocent faxes MJ sent to Wade. Trying to portray him as obsessively sending "love faxes" to Wade. Compare it to Joy's deposition about the faxes, though! This is the manipulation you see in this doc.

Also director Dan Reed claims Safechuck alleges that MJ made tapes of his abuse of him (destroyed them, of course, so conveniently there is no evidence). This is a new claim as Safechuck never made those allegations in his court complaint. This is how their "memories" evolve.

Update: You know how the media tried to make a big deal out of the so called "secret rooms" at Neverland, tried to paint them as something sinister, even though no previous accuser has ever claimed anything about them?

Wade Robson and James Safechuck however likes to throw everything but the kitchen sink among their allegations, so they made use of the "secret room" tabloid myth and adopted it in their allegations and claimed that MJ used these secret rooms to molest them there.

Now, the thing is the room was so "secret" that MJ actually sent Joy in there to retrieve money from a drawer when he wasn't there! Think about it: he supposedly uses it as this shady place to molest boys in, but he sends the mother of one of his "victims" in there? LOL. OK.