read more mjfacts articles

MJ Facts

An Objective View of Michael Jackson

Wade Robson's Bombshell

Until we know the full story, we can't judge the veracity of Wade Robson's claims. We will be following this story carefully and adding to this page regularly. Subscribe to our twitter feed and we'll keep you posted on updates

Wade Robson's hearing date, to see if he can go forward with his late creditor claim or not, has been set for October 1st, 2014.

On the civil side, there will be a hearing on the 28th of October to see if the Estate can wriggle it's way out of answering some very awkward questions from Wade Robson's lawyers (details to follow).

On the 12th of April 2014 it was reported by Diane Dimond that James Safechuck Jr (Jimmy Safechuck) had joined Wade's lawsuit.


Update 27th June 2014:

MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures reply to Wade Robson's complaint - 21 page PDF file. An ambitious attempt to dismiss the suit against MJ's companies and absolve them of all responsibility.

The Estate's reply to Wade Robson's complaint - 20 page PDF file. The Estate says you can't sue a dead man, and they are correct. However they are asking Wade to remove Jackson as a defendant from the suit, which of course doesn't make sense as the Estate is now, in effect, Jackson. Nice try though.


It's important for you to read:

to understand this story fully.

On June 27 2013 Wade Robson's attorneys filed a Petition For Order To Allow Filing Of Late Claim against Michael Jackson's Estate. See what he is claiming here.

There is a support group for Wade Robson at Facebook - Supporters of Wade Robson.


After defending and praising Michael Jackson for over 20 years, in May 2013 Wade Robson dropped a bombshell and accused him of child molestation. This shocked most people - if not that there was yet another accuser, then that he had the courage to speak out. However, there are two questions that puzzle most people:

Why did he keep praising, even until recently, someone who he now claims molested him?
Why is he asking for money?

The first question in particular is inexplicable for most people. However, to those of us who understand the dynamic between acquaintance molesters and their victims, it is perfectly natural for Mr Robson to behave like this. It's no surprise.

To most people, child sexual abuse is defined as being performed on an unwilling child by a stranger which is achieved by threats of violence or even actual violence - usually a stranger, a sick pervert, who physically overpowers the child and violently forces them into sexual activity. Some also realize that inter family child abuse exists. There is another little known alternative though, and that is child molestation where the victim is somewhat willing and the molester is in many ways "good".

Society seems to have a problem dealing with any sexual-victimization case in which the idea that child victims could simply behave like human beings and respond to the attention and affection of offenders by voluntarily and repeatedly returning to an offender's home is a troubling one, but it happens. Acquaintance molesters (such as Jackson was) spend an inordinate amount of time and effort grooming and seducing their victims. They seem to have a knack knowing which children are vulnerable (or as Jackson's long time manager put it, Jackson knew which families were "wooable"). They spend an inordinate amount of time building trust - their target being to spend time alone with the child so that they can begin the seduction process. Children are human beings with needs, wants, and desires. Child molestation victims cannot be held to idealistic and superhuman standards of behavior. Their frequent cooperation in their victimization must be viewed as an understandable human characteristic that should have no criminal-justice significance.

Most people believe that children resist sexual advances by adults and are then overpowered by coercion, threats, weapons, or physical force. Although cases with these elements certainly exist, that is not what usually happens in acquaintance molestation cases.

Jackson, I would posit, fit into a narrow subcategory of acquaintance molester, and that is as a preferential molester. Preferential molester are very caring about their victims - they take a lot of time to seduce them, and come to care deeply for them in some ways. This is not to say that they view their "friends" as victims, rather they view the molestation as an "expression of love". Misguided love to be sure, and totally unacceptable as children, by definition, cannot give consent; however this is how they feel and once you understand that you understand how their victims feel.

Preferential molesters usually don't summarily dump their victims after they pass the preferred age of attraction. They can keep in touch and continue to be a mentor for years:

There are several men today, whom I mentored when they were boys, who hold me in much higher esteem than they did their absent/no good/worthless fathers. They still call me for advice, I've even stood in as Father or been the Best Man at their weddings. That says a lot of where I stand in their hearts. My point here is IF you get involved with a boy, do it for the long term, they keep on needing you, even when their grown up.[1]

Preferential molester victims feel beholden to their abusers, the same abuser which has done so much "good" for them. In Wade Robson's case, Jackson provided mentorship with his dancing as well as several career opportunities. His connection to Jackson would have helped his career enormously and he must have undoubtedly felt gratitude to Jackson. It is against this background that we have to understand why Wade has praised Jackson for all these years.

Child-lover molesters almost never use violence for sex, said Lanning. Instead, they groom and seduce and manipulate and use cooperation to get what they want out of the child. "I can't tell you how many cases where there are letters from the victim written to the accused, saying, 'You're the nicest person I ever met,' or 'You've been so good to me,'" said Lanning. Many victims don't tell anyone of the inappropriate behavior because they are considered "compliant child victims." "A child can't legally consent to having sex, but some of them aren't necessarily fighting him off," said Lanning. "They're developmentally immature, and later they feel ashamed and embarrassed that they cooperated in their victimization."[2]
Because victims of acquaintance exploitation usually have been carefully seduced and often do not realize they are victims, they repeatedly and voluntarily return to the offender. Society and the criminal-justice system have a difficult time understanding this. If a boy is molested by his neighbor, teacher, or clergy member, why does he "allow" it to continue? Most likely he may not initially realize he is a victim. Some victims are simply willing to trade sex for attention, affection, and gifts and do not believe they are victims. The sex itself might even be enjoyable. The offender may be treating them better than anyone has ever treated them.[2]
Most of these victims never disclose their victimization. Younger children may believe they did something "wrong" or "bad" and are afraid of getting into trouble. Older children may be more ashamed and embarrassed. Many victims not only do not disclose, but they strongly deny it happened when confronted. In one case several boys took the stand and testified concerning the high moral character of the accused molester. When the accused molester changed his plea to guilty, he admitted that the boys who testified for him were also victims.[3]
The most common reasons that victims do not disclose are stigma of homosexuality, lack of societal understanding, presence of positive feelings for the offender, embarrassment or fear over their victimization, or do not believe they are victims. Since most of the offenders are male, the stigma of homosexuality is a serious problem for male victims. Although being seduced by a male child molester does not necessarily make a boy a homosexual, the victims do not understand this. If a victim does disclose, he believes that he is risking significant ridicule by his peers and lack of acceptance by his family.[3]

Jackson would have made Wade believe that the molestation was perfectly natural and an expression of love, and warned Wade that telling would have dire consequences for both of them - not because it was "wrong", but because "people wouldn't understand". This is typical of the methods preferential molesters use to keep victims compliant, and is probably what Wade referred to when he spoke of "brainwashing".

Wade Robson truly loved and admired Jackson - he probably still does - however he would have known something was wrong when his son was born three years ago. Perhaps this exchange rang in his head:

23 Q. I’d like to show you a couple exhibits, 841

24 and 842, that have been shown previously in this

25 court to this jury.

26 Let’s start with one titled “Boys Will Be

27 Boys.” I’d like you to take a look at a few of the

28 pages. Just go ahead and start turning pages,

1 please.

2 Stop there for a moment.

3 Would you describe the picture on the right

4 side?

5 A. There’s a young boy with his legs open and

6 he’s naked.

7 Q. All right. The picture prominently displays

8 his genitalia, does it not?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. That boy looks, to you, to be approximately

11 how old?

12 A. Maybe 11 or 12.

13 Q. That’s how old you were when you were

14 sleeping with Michael Jackson; is that right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Go ahead and flip a couple of more pages, if

17 you would.

18 You can stop right there, the next page.

19 What’s the picture on the left show?

20 A. Just a young boy who’s naked standing on a

21 rock.

22 Q. His genitalia is prominently displayed in

23 that picture; is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Appears that that child is about the same as

26 the other one?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. Flip a couple more pages. Please keep

1 going.

2 Okay. Stop right there.

3 What’s in that two pages, series of two

4 pages?

5 A. There’s a boy, about the same age, 11 or 12,

6 who’s naked.

7 Q. All right. And in those pictures his

8 genitalia is prominently displayed as well; is that

9 correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. In fact, if you’ll take just a second and

12 strum through the balance of that book -- you can do

13 it fairly rapidly, if you would. You don’t have to

14 go page by page, but as you wish.

15 Is it true, Mr. Robson, that all of the

16 pictures in that book are of boys about the same

17 age?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. 10, 11, 12 years old?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And that many of the photographs, if not

22 most of the photographs, depicted in that book are

23 of boys nude; is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And in fact, in most of those pictures, the

26 genitalia is prominently displayed; is that right?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. Would you be concerned with a person who

1 possesses a book like that?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Would you be concerned about having your

4 12-year-old child in bed with a person who possesses

5 a book like that?

6 A. No.

7 Q. You would have no such concern?

8 A. No. It’s -- to me, it doesn’t -- it’s not a

9 pornographic book. It’s sort of, you know -- I

10 don’t know, just a book.

11 Q. I’d like -- and I’d like to show you

12 Exhibit 596, please. Take a moment and look at that

13 book.

14 Let’s stop there for a moment.

15 That’s the first, in fact, picture in that

16 book; is that correct?

17 A. I didn’t notice, no.

18 Do you want me to go to the first picture?

19 Q. You know, no, you can pick any picture,

20 actually. Just go ahead and open the book at

21 random.

22 Right there.

23 A. Oh, sorry.

24 Q. Is it a fact, as you look through that book,

25 what is depicted in that book throughout that book

26 are a series of photographs of two men engaged in

27 sex acts with one another?

28 A. Yes.

1 Q. And in fact, the sex acts are all acts of

2 either masturbation, oral sex or sodomy; is that

3 right?

4 A. From what I saw, yes.

5 Q. And sodomy, as you understand, is an act of

6 anal sex; is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Would you be concerned about a person who

9 possesses that book crawling into bed with a

10 ten-year-old boy?

11 A. Yes, I guess so.

Once Wade realized something was inherently wrong with their relationship, it would have taken him a long tme to process his feelings. He would have felt totally torn between speaking the truth and betraying his idol and mentor. As any acquaintance molester victim will tell you, it would have been mental torture.

Even when Wade Robson did come out with his claims, he couldn't completely damn Jackson. He still felt compassion for Jackson even though Jackson is dead. Wade would still be conscious of all Jackson did to help him in spite of the bad stuff. This can't be emphasised enough.

Why is he asking for money?

This question has no definite answer and we can only speculate

As yet, no dollar amount has been suggested, but we do know that Wade is making two seperate civil claims - one against the estate of Michael Jackson, the other against companies which were instrumental in bringing him to the US to be with Jackson. Whether he wins these claims or not, he will get his story out.

This may be his strategy - have his claims proven in a court of law to remove any doubt whatsoever over his claims. This would be a coup as it has never been proven in court what many people feel to be true - that Jackson wasn't just a pedophile, but a molester as well.

The other possibility is that Wade Robson simply wants compensation for the abuse suffered at the hand of Jackson, and to financially punish those who turned a blind eye to Jackson's pecadilloes simply because he was making them money.

It would seem highly unlikely that Wade would by lying for cash - nobody would put themselves through the bitter vilification and threats from Jackson fans for any amount of money.

On that point, it is sad to see vicious attacks from Jackson fans - why on earth are they sticking up for a pop star who didn't mind being called a pedophile (after all, if he minded he would have stopped sleeping with boys after the first accusations), who was never much interested in defending himself over the years? Let's not forget, Jackson never co-operated with law enforcement officials, even during initial enquiries over his relationships with boys.

Why are some commentators calling Wade Robson a liar?

Michael Jackson Apologism is an industry. There are people out there making money, or stroking their egos (two things this writer will never do) attempting to vindicate Michael Jackson. They are writing books, articles and blog posts which pander to the fans and repeat all the intellectually unsound conclusions (child erotica = art books anyone?) made about Jackson. They are really worried now - someone who was actually there may finally prove what many have known for a long time - that Jackson not only had an unhealthy interest in boys, wasn't just sexually attracted to them, but acted on his impulses as well.

These commentators have a lot at stake - the main thing being loss of face. They are merely pseudo intellectuals who have made up excuses for Jackson's behaviour with boys for years, have a huge following and now they feel threatened. Without listening to one word that Wade Robson has spoken they branded him a liar, an opportunist and a traitor. Wade Robson has the potential to put egg on their faces so rather than listen to his full story, they prefer to support a dead multimillion dollar pop star instead of a living possible abuse victim. This is crazy! They say that Wade Robson "isn't acting like a proper victim" (here's a hint for Joe, David, Charles and the rest - read this and get a clue: Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis). What has society come to when we turn away people that are hurt in favor of a man who shared his bed with young boys. Hopefully they will come to their senses and stop making excuses for a fatally flawed man.

To be continued...





blog comments powered by Disqus

Recent Comments


[1] Google Groups - Retrieved 21st May 2013

[2] ABC News - Retrieved 20th November 2011

[3] Child Molesters: A Behavioural Analysis

[3]Brett Barnes testimony was very clear on that.