Michael Jackson Accuser Wade Robson -...

Michael Jackson Accuser Wade Robson -- I Can Help Victims of Child Sex Abuse

There are 239 comments on the TMZ.com story from Jul 27, 2013, titled Michael Jackson Accuser Wade Robson -- I Can Help Victims of Child Sex Abuse. In it, TMZ.com reports that:

Wade Robson -- the choreographer who claims Michael Jackson molested him -- is launching his own foundation to help child sex abuse victims through new age healing ... TMZ has learned.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TMZ.com.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#98 Aug 1, 2013
J-J-Jina Wild wrote:
<quoted text>
And by the way, if you were confident in your sexuality it wouldn't bother you. I can't help it if you protest a little too loud.
So YOU are tellin me what should bother me? Remember that Jina....

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#99 Aug 2, 2013
MJFRIEND wrote:
I would consider a not guilty verdict in a court of law substantial evidence . Had the verdict been different I would not defend him.
So is OJ Simpson completely innocent in your eyes?
Juggs Judy

United States

#100 Aug 2, 2013
MJFRIEND wrote:
Jackson was evaluated by a psychiatrist prior to the 2005 trial. The expert concluded that Jackson did not exhibit the traits of a pedephile but rather an arrested emotional development equivalent to that of an 11 or 12 old child.(he had the mind of a child). In the report released to the court and portions released to the public, the doctor concluded that while Jackson was a genius, he exhibited the emotional level of an 11--12 yr old child. This info can be found under Jackson 2005 trial doctor or expert testimony. Unless you,ve been living in a cave for 40 yrs, no floon needs to prove any charity. Read the guiness book of world records.
Since when did the American public start relying on the opinion of a psychiatrist? And what exactly did he or she base their opinion on? If it was before the 2005 trial then it obviously wasn't based on the thousands of pages of legal documents that are now available on the Santa Barbara website which prove that Michael Jackson was a sexual predator. Maybe he or she found out that Michael Jackson like watching Sesame Street and came to the conclusion that he was a man/boy on that alone. I'm sorry, but I require something a bit more substantial than the opinion of a psychiatrist, if I'm ever going to consider changing my position on MJ's predatory behavior.
Juggs Judy

United States

#101 Aug 2, 2013
MJFRIEND wrote:
I would consider a not guilty verdict in a court of law substantial evidence . Had the verdict been different I would not defend him.
Do you think the American court system is faultless? Do you think that 12 individuals are incapable of coming to the wrong conclusion? It is no secret that the jurors, who served on MJ child molestation trial did not do their job properly. At least 4 them have spoken out afterwards and said they believed MJ was a child molester, but were threatened with expulsion if they didn't change their position by the other jurors. Our court system is also ultimately flawed as it does not require the individual who was arrested because of the substantial evidence of the crimes they committed to ever face rigorous question in court. It just so happened that MJ sat back and did nothing and allowed his multimillion dollar lawyer (who just so happened had experience with getting sex offenders off) do all the talking. I'm sure I also don't have to remind you that a one time famous football player named O.J. Simpson was once acquitted in a California court of law. As far as I'm concerned there isn't a shred of evidence that supports MJ innocence, and i require something a bit more substantial than the opinion of 12 jurors who didn't even do their job properly if I'm ever going to even consider changing my position.
Juggs Judy

United States

#105 Aug 2, 2013
ChasUGC wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't find it strange. Not given the history of Michael Jackson helping children and his hundreds of charity endeavors.
Michael had a deep emotional sense to help suffering children, because of his own experiences as a child. He became "pals" with many children, most of whom testified that there was no wrong doing. It is strange that the only ones, who were seeking money, made these charges.
Do you think just because somebody projects an image of helping children that they are actually helping children? Did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian? That didn't stop him from sending millions of people to the gas chambers and wanting world domination, did it? You haters still conveniently overlooking the fact that pedophiles love to be around and interact with children. That's what they do because they are pedophiles. Who cares if Michael Jackson had an indifferent childhood? That didn't give him the right to sexually abuse children. And for those who have denied any abuse? Look what happened with Wade Robson. If MJ was clever enough to brainwash people then what makes you think these other boys/men weren't victims. I guess you just love your hater websites and take everything they tell you on that as gospel, right?
Juggs Judy

United States

#106 Aug 2, 2013
ChasUGC wrote:
<quoted text>
Jason Chandler- Whose father tried to get millions for a movie deal before making such charges, and after not getting the movie money, threatened that he would destroy Michael Jackson. Clearly, those accusations were motivated by money.
There was never any individual called "Jason Chandler" that was ever involved with the predatory monster that called himself Michael Jackson. As for the movie deal? That was something that was proposed by Michael Jackson and rejected by Chandler's father. I guess they didn't tell you that on your hater sites, right? I guess it also didn't tell you that it was Michael Jackson himself who absolutely insisted that Evan and June Chandler received a substantial sum of money for their silence. Yes you talk about being "motivated" by money but it is actually Jackson, who was willingly signing the checks in exchange for complete silence. Never mind huh? If it doesn't tell me that on my hater sites then it mustn't be (insert sarcasm) true.
Juggs Judy

United States

#107 Aug 2, 2013
ChasUGC wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't even need to go into the facts of the child's drug induced confession.
Fact? Where is the proof or "fact" that Evan injected his son with a mind altering drug? Do you think people are going to swallow your crap just because you say it? I require something a bit more substantial than a very vague statement from a hater like you. I guess you'll do anything for attention, huh? Look at me, look at me, I'm ChasUGC the the stupid hater who relies on hater websites for all my trash.
Juggs Judy

United States

#109 Aug 2, 2013
ChasUGC wrote:
<quoted text>
The Arvizo Family - Who extorted money from JC Penny's and tried to extort money from other celebrities.
And where is your evidence that this family extorted money from JC Penny and try to extort money from other celebrities? I require something a bit more substantial than the stupid word from a stupid hater like yourself who has already spewed a pile of trash.
Juggs Judy

United States

#110 Aug 2, 2013
ChasUGC wrote:
<quoted text>
This family sang high praises for Michael Jackson, until MJ stopped giving them money, and blocked his credit cards from their usage.
These are the type of people that you want to believe. Fortunately, the Jury saw right through the Arvizo's and their lies. And, Jason Chandler left the country during the trial.
Blocking credit cards? Yeah right. Do your hater sites tell you how Michael Jackson sent Jordan Chandler's mother, June, off to Italy with his credit card so he could spend 2 full unsupervised days in a Monaco hotel room with him? Yes Michael Jackson didn't block use of his credit cards when it gave him access to people's children. Nevermind though, hater, I guess you must have an interest in men who sleep with boys, right? Why else would you be supporting a perverted individual like Michael Jackson.
Juggs Judy

United States

#111 Aug 2, 2013
MJFRIEND wrote:
TO JUGGS JUDY: Will you please tell me where all these "victims" are? And please dont tell me their afraid, shaking in their boots, and hiding out somewhere afraid of JAckson fans. Any "victim" from any corner of the globe could have come forth during the highly publicized world-wide trial and remained unknown. Please dont tell me theyve been paid off.. IF A CHILD IS SUFFERING AND HURTING A PARENT IS GOING TO SEEK JUSTICE. research Sanduskys trial. And see what it took for the first mother to be heard. She wouldn,t stop til she saw SAndusky behind bars. This is what parents do when they see their child has been hurt. ThE PARENTS SEEK JUSTICE IN A CRIMINAL COURT.! Where were the parents in 2005! If JACKSON WAS SUCH A PREDATOR, and he travel the WORLD for 30.Years and met with THOUSANDS of children ALL over the world. Where were the parents of any "victims" anywhere in the world? Do you have the answer for this?
How many victims have to come forward before you consider somebody to be a sexual predator? Our courts do not rely on X amount of victims to come forward before criminal proceedings can go ahead. It doesn't matter if there's 1, 2, 3 or 300. A victim is a victim. How convenient that a stupid and ignorant hater like you has overlooked this important fact. I couldn't care less whether there was only one victim in that courtroom – the important fact is there was plenty of evidence that Michael Jackson was a cunning and devious predatory monster of children. But I wouldn't expect somebody with such a low IQ as you even digest a tiny percentage of it.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#115 Aug 2, 2013
BadMan84 wrote:
^ Bingo! The same type of reactions Jimmy Savile fans had for their "hero" is the same type MJ fans have for their "hero". Both "icons" with very questionable behavior.
Exactly, both strange and creepy men. Notice how none of them respond to that point -- Most likely because deep down they know its true

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#117 Aug 2, 2013
ChasUGC wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't find it strange. Not given the history of Michael Jackson helping children and his hundreds of charity endeavors.
Michael had a deep emotional sense to help suffering children, because of his own experiences as a child. He became "pals" with many children, most of whom testified that there was no wrong doing. It is strange that the only ones, who were seeking money, made these charges.
Jason Chandler- Whose father tried to get millions for a movie deal before making such charges, and after not getting the movie money, threatened that he would destroy Michael Jackson. Clearly, those accusations were motivated by money. We don't even need to go into the facts of the child's drug induced confession.
The Arvizo Family - Who extorted money from JC Penny's and tried to extort money from other celebrities. This family sang high praises for Michael Jackson, until MJ stopped giving them money, and blocked his credit cards from their usage.
These are the type of people that you want to believe. Fortunately, the Jury saw right through the Arvizo's and their lies. And, Jason Chandler left the country during the trial.
Well, guess what? To a normal person it is strange. I know plenty of people who help children and donate to children's charity too. They don't invest their time in being "pals" with people's children. It isn't ok even if Michael Jackson tricked you into believing it was. Michael Jackson isn't going to sexually molest every child he meets, so it doesn't surprise me if others say he did nothing.

Jordan Chandler's father never was expecting Michael Jackson to finance any film. That's pure Jackson fan fantasy. The money from the settlement was always meant to go into a trust fund for Jordan. The Arvizo family won the JC Penny lawsuit. They did not want Jackson's money. They wanted Jackson in jail. So what if Jordan Chandler left the country during the trial?? He went through hell as a child because of the fans threats and the media. He likely left the country to avoid the same fiasco. I don't blame him one bit.

Since: Jun 13

Fuquay Varina, NC

#120 Aug 3, 2013
You have to read into the stories, you can't just say they don't compare. There's too many stuff to just dismiss the comparisons. Jimmy Savile was a beloved entertainer and humanitarian in the UK and his crimes were covered up for years until his death. Michael Jackson shares some similarities with Savile in that regard. He (in some way) remains a "beloved" entertainer and humanitarian throughout the world yet he (and people in his corner) covered up incriminating evidence that he was abusive towards children and that he had a pedophilia streak in him in who he preferred to be with. And Savile definitely paid off a lot of families, something MJ was confirmed to have done (despite claims of contrary that an insurance company "paid" off the Chandlers and there's evidence he paid off two other families and it's hinted he may have paid off more to shut up).

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#121 Aug 3, 2013
Juggs Judy wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact? Where is the proof or "fact" that Evan injected his son with a mind altering drug? Do you think people are going to swallow your crap just because you say it? I require something a bit more substantial than a very vague statement from a hater like you. I guess you'll do anything for attention, huh? Look at me, look at me, I'm ChasUGC the the stupid hater who relies on hater websites for all my trash.
His proof is a stupid article written by Mary Fischer which became the gospel for f'loons for close to ten years. Evan NEVER used Sodium Amytal on his son and he had no experience instilling thoughts into people. People using that drug require some type of experience. F'loons expect people to buy it worked flawlessly one time for Evan. Give me a break!

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#122 Aug 3, 2013
MJFRIEND wrote:
To JUGGS JUDY : Thank goodness for all of us, you'll never sit on a jury. IF you truly read the JAckson court transcripts its all there in cross examination of the arvizo family and how they tried to get money by lying about abuse concerning J C Penney. Also its in the court documents how they tried to extort money from other celebrities. The only reason this went to court was because sneddon could convince someone to say something bad about jackson in a courtroom. ALSO NOT MANY PEOPLE APPRECIATE BEING CALLED STUPID OR IGNORANT, OR FAGGOT ON THIS FORUM.. AND Ill be surprized if someone does not contact topix soon regarding the violation of policy when posting. Idont think its polite or appropriate to slander MIchael jackson by labeling him a pedophile, a child molester when he was declared not guilty of any crime in a court of law.
If the Arvizos were extorting money from other celebrities why didn't they get prosecuted for extortion? It was also proven in court David Arvizo, Gavin's father, played a role in trying to profit from his son's cancer. Tom Mesereau unfairly pinned everything on, Gavin's mother, Janet Arvizo. Michael Jackson can be considered a pedophile, because of his conduct and lifestyle. We don't need a courts permission to call him one. Michael flaunted children before the media. He owned art books of nude children, which are largely collected by pedophiles. A lot of f'loons believe the 2005 not guilty verdict proved ALL his accusers wrong. This is incorrect. The not guilty verdict isn't retroactive. He was found not guilty of molesting Gavin Arvizo. That's it.

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#123 Aug 3, 2013
Juggs Judy wrote:
<quoted text>
Blocking credit cards? Yeah right. Do your hater sites tell you how Michael Jackson sent Jordan Chandler's mother, June, off to Italy with his credit card so he could spend 2 full unsupervised days in a Monaco hotel room with him? Yes Michael Jackson didn't block use of his credit cards when it gave him access to people's children. Nevermind though, hater, I guess you must have an interest in men who sleep with boys, right? Why else would you be supporting a perverted individual like Michael Jackson.
These clueless Michael Jackson f'loons continue to believe Michael Jackson gave away his credit card carte blanche to June Chandler out of the kindness of his heart, so he could be alone playing sweet innocent G.I Joe war games, humming lullabies, and watching Sesame Street with little Jordan Chandler. What a joke it is to be a f'loon.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#126 Aug 3, 2013
ChasUGC wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you are out there aren't you? First, I don't look at hater websites. Pro MJ websites are not hater websites. Do you know the difference? Secondly, if a F'loon is the opposite of a MJ hater, how can I be a hater, when I am a MJ fan. You don't make any sense.
Fact No. 1- "NOT Guilty". Nothing you say, can change that fact. Accept it, it won't change, and move one with your life.
People who can't accept fact, have serious mental problems.
Pro MJ sites promote hate towards victims - this makes it a hater site.

OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony were also found not guilty - Everyone knows they were --> Its hard to prove molestation in court ESPECIALLY since courts rely heavily on EMPIRICAL evidence.

You must have serious mental problem if you dont have an ounce of suspicion towards a man who spent most of his adult life befriending young boys, and bedding them for hundreds of nights. The same man who locked away NAMBLA approved naked boy books in his cabinet -- Then add that with 5 allegations, and over 12 witnesses. Like I jigsaw puzzle, you add all the pieces together to form a bigger picture - Something MJ fans fail to do

Since: Jun 13

Fuquay Varina, NC

#127 Aug 3, 2013
It seems like some fans wanna believe you have to show physical proof of a molestation, it doesn't quite work like that. The Penn State victims didn't have to, all they had to was to tell their story and have others corroborate their story (which they did) and the jurors gave Sandusky the right verdict. Michael was a much better celebrity so some jurors were too star struck to convict despite successful showing of the evidence to prove MJ had a pedophilia streak and he paid off kids' families to silence them (or try to) about his criminal activities with their sons.

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#128 Aug 3, 2013
ChasUGC wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you are out there aren't you? First, I don't look at hater websites. Pro MJ websites are not hater websites. Do you know the difference? Secondly, if a F'loon is the opposite of a MJ hater, how can I be a hater, when I am a MJ fan. You don't make any sense.
Fact No. 1- "NOT Guilty". Nothing you say, can change that fact. Accept it, it won't change, and move one with your life.
People who can't accept fact, have serious mental problems.
Continue to cling to your "not guilty verdict" but guess what?? If you believe innocent people have been wrongly convicted in the United States. Then you should accept guilty people have been wrongly found not guilty as well. Michael Jackson will forever be a fine example of this. The justice system is not always about getting to the bottom of the truth, it is about who can better prove something then the other side.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#133 Aug 3, 2013
ChasUGC wrote:
<quoted text>
But, this was not the case. When the media heard an accusation during the trial, they ran to report it. They did not stop to stay for the examination. Then, when the court didn't rule the way they predicted, they labeled the Jury as "Star Struck".
The media reported this and most of the haters accepted it, because it allowed them to continue to hate, regardless of the facts proven in court. Therefore, you are basically angry because we don't allow the media to render court decisions. Clearly, the media was bias against MJ. This is why we try to have "NON-BIAS" juries.
But, obviously, none of this will get through, and sink into your head.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson...
Why have you avoided the many suspicious behaviour and factors MJ had that I listed for you? If you are going to question someones mental stability for believing MJ was guilty, then you should at least have the common courtesy to state why you think a man with the listed oddities I presented previously is innocent.

Are you really that deluded in thinking the media are personally after the MJ? The media did not say the Jurors were starstruck - Jurors who were present in the case suggested that.

You keep talking about MJ donating to charities, implying this excludes him of being a child molester --> Being a pedophile does not make someone completely evil, they still have feelings and a sense of common morality.. Jimmy Savile was notorious for his charity donations

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Michael Jackson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Michael Jackson Chat Room! (Dec '12) Aug 23 briana 65
One of MJ's "special friends" disclosed on MJ's... (Jul '13) Aug 7 Spotted Wee 126
News Paul McCartney fights to get back his songs Aug 5 sleepingboy 201
zionist jew conspiracy against MJ Aug 3 Spotted Wee 6
News Jackson's ex-doc details star's alleged attract... Jul '16 Jacko was a slime... 1
News Who's the King, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley,... (Dec '09) Jul '16 Chaimpie 7,216
Michael Jackson had semen stains from other mal... (Sep '12) Jul '16 Justice 1,877
More from around the web