Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Lawsuit against Michael Jackson’s companies revived

23 replies

WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 11:21

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/michael-jackson-lawsuits-alleging-sexual-abuse-against-boys-revived-by-appeals-court-12942833

Wade Robson and James Safechuck previously tried to sue companies owned by Michael Jackson claiming they should have protected them as boys. But a few years ago a judge dismissed the case, stating these corporations didn’t have safeguarding responsibilities to children.

However a higher court has overturned that decision and they are now able to sue MJJ Ventures and MJJ Productions.

This is an excellent decision not just for these two victims and Jackson’s other victims who were let down by everone but for children in general. These companies knew MJ had these disturbing and nefarious relations with little boys and yet facilitated these children going on tours, being in MJ’s constant company and turned a blind eye to dodgy as fuck behaviour including sharing a bed with him and being physically inappropriate.

It’s about time EVERYONE who comes into contact with children has a duty to protect them. Jackson will never pay for what he did but there are people who knew and did nothing and it’s about time they took accountability for pandering to an evil man’s sick fantasies over protecting children.

Michael Jackson lawsuits alleging sexual abuse against boys revived by appeals court

Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who say Michael Jackson abused them over years when they were boys, detailed their allegations in the documentary Leaving Neverland. Lawyers for the late singer argue his innocence and say claims against him are motivat...

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/michael-jackson-lawsuits-alleging-sexual-abuse-against-boys-revived-by-appeals-court-12942833

OP posts:
JazzyBBG · 19/08/2023 11:46

Hmmm... I'd like to see Robson and Safechuck's parents on trial for neglect as well in that case...

Who the fuck lets their 9/10 year old go off on a plane and on holidays with someone they don't know? They were pimping their kids out in the hope of fame and didn't give a shit about safeguarding. Yet in the TV documentaries neither of the victims or the parents acknowledged the risk created by the parents.

I don't know if MJ did anything or not and of course if there are victims they deserve justice. The problem with this whole case is it's always been influenced by money and not justice. If the case had been outside of the US it would have played out very differently.

WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 11:58

The problem with this whole case is it's always been influenced by money and not justice

How so? What have Robson, Safechuck and other victims bar Jordan Chandler gained financially from being harassed, doubted and abused by telling their stories?

To say that the parents were neglectful then to cast doubt on the guilt of MJ is kind of contradictory. If he wasn’t a pedophile what is wrong with having children round him?

I will never understand people who think he was innocent. Just because they are a fan - if this was Barry from Asda behaving this way no one would go “Hmmm I’m not sure”. Why does MJ get a free pass on such obvious paedophilic behaviour ?

OP posts:
WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 11:59

But watching the mothers in Leaving Neverland - James Safechuck’s mum fully accepts she fucked uo and that she was caught up in the game. I fully believe Robson’s mum is a total narcissist who, whilst I think she believes her son, thinks it was probably all worth the fame, glitz glamour and ‘momager’ lifestyke she led. I think she thinks her sons suffering was worth the perks. Awful woman.

OP posts:
WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 12:00

*fame not game

OP posts:
JazzyBBG · 19/08/2023 12:08

WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 11:58

The problem with this whole case is it's always been influenced by money and not justice

How so? What have Robson, Safechuck and other victims bar Jordan Chandler gained financially from being harassed, doubted and abused by telling their stories?

To say that the parents were neglectful then to cast doubt on the guilt of MJ is kind of contradictory. If he wasn’t a pedophile what is wrong with having children round him?

I will never understand people who think he was innocent. Just because they are a fan - if this was Barry from Asda behaving this way no one would go “Hmmm I’m not sure”. Why does MJ get a free pass on such obvious paedophilic behaviour ?

I'm sure they have gained financially from their numerous interviews plus let's not forget the one guy has gained from an career set up by MJ introducing him to people.
The point yes anyone could be a paedophile - that's why you don't let your kids off with them! Doesn't matter if they are a famous pop star or not. It's like Saville being given free reign of a children's ward - just why?!
As I said I don't know if he did it or not and we will never know because the US system is only concerned with suing people and not finding out the truth.

WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 12:10

JazzyBBG · 19/08/2023 12:08

I'm sure they have gained financially from their numerous interviews plus let's not forget the one guy has gained from an career set up by MJ introducing him to people.
The point yes anyone could be a paedophile - that's why you don't let your kids off with them! Doesn't matter if they are a famous pop star or not. It's like Saville being given free reign of a children's ward - just why?!
As I said I don't know if he did it or not and we will never know because the US system is only concerned with suing people and not finding out the truth.

Why shouldn’t they gain financially? Would you object to Saville’s victim’s making money off interviews?

Wade Robson is an incredibly talented dancer and yes MJ introduced him to people to progress his career but at the expense of being sexually abused. FFS does that make it OK to abuse him because he’s done well in his career?

OP posts:
JazzyBBG · 19/08/2023 12:11

That's not what I'm saying and you know it. The point is we will never know because of the US system. Should people make money out of being abused? Well that's a whole other question.

WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 12:15

The point yes anyone could be a paedophile - that's why you don't let your kids off with them! Doesn't matter if they are a famous pop star or not. It's like Saville being given free rein of a children's ward - just why?!

But a common theme with MJ apologists is they’re happy to be horrified that these boys had sleepovers with him but refuse to acknowledge he’s a pedophile. It doesn’t take away from the fact they were very clearly abused. Same with Jimmy Saville victims. Do you doubt his guilt too? Because there’s as much evidence against him as there is against MJ

OP posts:
WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 12:16

JazzyBBG · 19/08/2023 12:11

That's not what I'm saying and you know it. The point is we will never know because of the US system. Should people make money out of being abused? Well that's a whole other question.

No, what you’re saying is you doubt MJ is guilty and you’re casting a suspicious eye over people being paid for their stories - which happens all the time. They aren’t being paid for being abused, they’re being paid to share their story. And why shouldn’t they? I hope millions is paid out to victims from MJJ companies.

OP posts:
AIstolemylunch · 19/08/2023 12:21

This is good news. No amount of money makes up for the damage done by childhood abuse. And neither come across as being mainly financially motivated to me. The fact they aren't giving up shows to me that it more about truth and vindication. Both were financially comfortable anyway. Even if their parents are also culpable to some degree, that doesnt lessen the culpability of the actual abuser and those in a position or power and authority that facilitated it or turned a blind eye. I hope they both are successful in this.

WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 12:24

@AIstolemylunch i agree. And there’s something also important at play - the potential to set a precedent to say entertainment industries have a safeguarding duty. Because I have no doubt MJ isn’t the only person to have abused children on your. He just didn’t hide his actions.1

OP posts:
WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 12:55

*tour not your

OP posts:
Iam4eels · 19/08/2023 13:00

WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 11:59

But watching the mothers in Leaving Neverland - James Safechuck’s mum fully accepts she fucked uo and that she was caught up in the game. I fully believe Robson’s mum is a total narcissist who, whilst I think she believes her son, thinks it was probably all worth the fame, glitz glamour and ‘momager’ lifestyke she led. I think she thinks her sons suffering was worth the perks. Awful woman.

Groomers don't just groom children, they also groom the parents/adults into trusting them. Abuse requires access and access requires the parents onside.

WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 13:01

@Iam4eels i agree with you completely and it’s clear he bewitched everyone around him. But in hindsight I just didn’t think Robson’s mother felt very regretful for allowing her son to have sleepovers with a strange man. I think she secretly thinks that given his fame it was all worth it

OP posts:
PTSDBarbiegirl · 19/08/2023 13:05

WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 11:58

The problem with this whole case is it's always been influenced by money and not justice

How so? What have Robson, Safechuck and other victims bar Jordan Chandler gained financially from being harassed, doubted and abused by telling their stories?

To say that the parents were neglectful then to cast doubt on the guilt of MJ is kind of contradictory. If he wasn’t a pedophile what is wrong with having children round him?

I will never understand people who think he was innocent. Just because they are a fan - if this was Barry from Asda behaving this way no one would go “Hmmm I’m not sure”. Why does MJ get a free pass on such obvious paedophilic behaviour ?

I agree. Replace M Jackson with J Saville and the picture seems different. The parents were groomed too and probably chosen because they had blind devotion. The entire Jackson clan enabled the continuing abuse. Now the estate acts as a cash cow for all the side shoots of Jackson musical enterprises. They will never be allowed to speak up. The exception was sister LaToya who stated he was dangerous and inappropriate but she was painted as insane.

DownNative · 19/08/2023 13:07

WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 11:58

The problem with this whole case is it's always been influenced by money and not justice

How so? What have Robson, Safechuck and other victims bar Jordan Chandler gained financially from being harassed, doubted and abused by telling their stories?

To say that the parents were neglectful then to cast doubt on the guilt of MJ is kind of contradictory. If he wasn’t a pedophile what is wrong with having children round him?

I will never understand people who think he was innocent. Just because they are a fan - if this was Barry from Asda behaving this way no one would go “Hmmm I’m not sure”. Why does MJ get a free pass on such obvious paedophilic behaviour ?

Ironic you should mention harassment because Wade Robson has been harassing Jordan's sister, Lily, to the point she filed to tell them to back off.

Indeed, judges have previously noted the substantial holes in Robson's case arguing no reasonable person could accept them.

The evidence has long indicated some people made accusations with money in mind. The Arvizos discredited themselves on the stand to the point where members of the jury admitted they didn't believe their claims.

WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 13:30

@DownNative

Ironic you should mention harassment because Wade Robson has been harassing Jordan's sister, Lily, to the point she filed to tell them to back off.

Source?

Indeed, judges have previously noted the substantial holes in Robson's case arguing no reasonable person could accept them.

No they haven’t. They have not ruled on credibility they only ruled that the statute of limitations had passed.

The evidence has long indicated some people made accusations with money in mind. The Arvizos discredited themselves on the stand to the point where members of the jury admitted they didn't believe their claims.

If you ever care to watch the members of the jury being interviewed they are utterly Star struck and decided Gavin’s mother was a bit dodgy and shoplifted so they based that on their decision. Juries are just normal people and likely to be stupid.

Jackson has had at least six accusers come forward with compelling stories. He slept with little boys in his bed, he had a revolving door of little boy friends and he had books of naked pictures of boys. Yet you REALLY think he’s not a pedophile?! really?

OP posts:
Switcherooza · 19/08/2023 14:14

There was some fuss on Mumsnet a while back over MNHQ deleting threads discussing the guilt or innocence of people who had yet to be arrested. I can't remember the specific celebs but I'm sure HQ said they have to be careful about allowing false statements on here in case they get sued for hosting malicious content.

I'm just bemused at the OP stating so confidently that MJ was a pedophile and HQ let it slide, yet accusations against other celebs are closely policed on here. I'm not taking a stance either way, but I do notice these inconsistencies in forum moderation and wonder about them. Yes, MJ is dead but his family can be rather trigger happy with lawsuits.

WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 14:25

@Switcherooza that applies to living people. MJ, Saville etc can be discussed

@DownNative you are completely wrong about Lily Chandler. They tried to depose her to track down Jordan Chandler to support the case, as he’s seemingly disappeared. But she didn’t want to sue to fear of harrasment. And who can blame her with MJ apologist sycophants running wild. She never sought a restraining order against Robson

OP posts:
WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 14:50

*due not sue 🤦🏼‍♀️

OP posts:
Mamette · 19/08/2023 14:53

One of my local radio stations still plays MJ songs regularly, I can’t listen to it. I have to switch over.

”They’re only out for money” is the only defence the MJ side has. Yes well if it was that easy then half the world would be bringing bogus lawsuits against MJ.

Financial compensation is the only thing that successful civil legal action gives anyone. Let’s close the whole non-criminal court system down then because people are only out for money. The judge can’t award them their childhoods or their innocence back fgs.

WeetabixTowels · 19/08/2023 15:00

@Mamette yes exactly, what do people think suing is for 🙄 it’s the only way to get vindication and also ensure lessons are learned. I really hope the courts recognise MJ as a pedophile.

OP posts:
ohdear43 · 23/09/2023 18:52

I completely agree that MJ was a pedophile. I also agree that pedophiles manipulate whole families. It broke my heart watching leaving neverland.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread